Live data from Hacker News

What we talk about when we talk about sideloading

f-droid.org

111–120 of 646 posts

Re: What we talk about when we talk about sideloading

#111
post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, and they are the primary way to install software for nearly every distro that has them. And even when people install software on their user's home only, we don't call it anything different. It's correct to say that "sideloading" was created to emphasize it's a deviant activity. I believe it was created by the people doing it, when they discovered hacks that enabled them. But I wouldn't be too surprised it was c…

>Yeah, and they are the primary way to install software for nearly every distro that has them. >And even when people install software on their user's home only, we don't call it anything different. But even on Android the word used is "install". When you try to install an apk, the button says "install", not "sideload". "Sideload" is only used in the context of google's blog post, where it's there to differentiate bet…

Personally, the first time I hear that word, it was about video game consoles. Smartphones weren't popular at the time.

Re: What we talk about when we talk about sideloading

#112
post #77
post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Splitting hairs about the origin of the term "sideload" does not change the fact that those who promote the term tend to do so in order to make it feel deviant and hacker-ish. Can you corroborate this? At least for me, the whole idea that "sideloading" has negative connotations only came up as a result of this debacle, and the only evidence I've seen are some very careful readings of blog posts from Google. The word…

Debian has had a "first party store" since the early 90s, and the truth is the diametrical opposite of "they're sufficiently unpopular that people don't think of them as the primary source to get apps". It's been almost the only way I install software (that I didn't write) on my Debian and Ubuntu machines since I moved to Debian. This is true of most Debian and Ubuntu users.

>Debian has had a "first party store" since the early 90s, and the truth is the diametrical opposite of "they're sufficiently unpopular that people don't think of them as the primary source to get apps".

Aren't those all considered first party apps? Sure, debian aren't the authors of nginx or whatever, but they're the people building, packaging it, and adding patches for it. It's a stretch to compare them to the play store or app store.

Re: What we talk about when we talk about sideloading

#113
post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> and "installing" doesn't work because that doesn't distinguish from installing from the Play Store I'm not choosing sides, but why do you need a term to distinguish from installing from the Play Store? On my Debian machine I install git from apt (officially supported) but also install Anki from a tarball I downloaded from a website. Same term `install`.

Because Google isn't trying to prevent installing, just "sideloading".

This comment is funny because you have defined these words to be as such

You have defined installing to be specifically from play store and sideloading as everything except it.

Google isn't trying to prevent installing, just sideloading works in this sentence because of what you have already defined but you are using this sentence in defense of that....

As OP stated, installing can mean on debian as an example, installing from both apt or either tarballs. Both are valid installations

So it is the same for google/android as well yet google is trying to actively prevent one part of the installing or make it really extremely hard to do so.

It is a dangerous precedent. And I would say that it severely limits what you mean by installing.

I got an PC, and I got internet connection, usually it isn't trying to prevent what I install if I am on linux.

Yet I am on android and earlier it used to do the same but now its a slippery slope where it either requires me to use adb or keep another device at me at all times if I ever want to install software on it.

Not because its not that these phones can't do it, In fact that they already do but they are removing it, simply because they can.

Re: What we talk about when we talk about sideloading

#114
Is this seeking Google’s approval for the app? Or is the condition app be signed by a verified user? The latter means side loading is still viable for apps from known developers. This way anyone who is known who may create malware and will not be free from prosecution

Re: What we talk about when we talk about sideloading

#116
post #65
post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I bought an iphone knowing that Apple has a review process and that I'm limited to apps sold in their store. Similarly, when I had an Android device I knew what I was getting in to. I appreciate the fairly high level of review that apps get and I completely back Apple's right to control what runs on the OS they developed. Similarly, if _you_ want to run an OS you got from XDA on your Android device and install random…

> I completely back Apple's right to control what runs on the OS they developed. Praytell, what right is this?

hah, thanks. It's a bit more nuanced than that. Let me try again.

I completely support Apple's right to publish software that makes it difficult for unapproved software to run on it.

Similarly, I support your right to try running something else on it.

Just like my neighbor has the right to publish a browser that makes it difficult to run extensions in it, and I have the right to use a different browser.

Some people would like the phone OS to be regulated like a public utility. I do not support that, and if we _had_ to have it that way, it would be important to have the same standards for everyone and regulate _all_ phone OSes equally. I don't like the thought of what that would do to the chances of any "open" offering.

Re: What we talk about when we talk about sideloading

#117

I think we could set the bar substantially higher. Don't even bother with discussion of sideloading. Talk about bounded transactions and device control. What is needed is: Once I have purchased a device, the transaction is over. I then have 100% control over that device and the hardware maker, the retailer, and the OS maker have a combined 0% control.

That bar would require infinitely good software on the hardware. Then it will be your device. Otherwise, they will constantly need to improve it. then it will be their software on your device.

Re: What we talk about when we talk about sideloading

#118

I think this misses the forest for the trees here. The platforms behavior here is a symptom and not the core problem. I think the following are pretty clearly correct: 1. It's your damn phone and you should be able to install whatever the hell you want on it 2. Having an approved channel for verified app loading is a valuable security tool and greatly reduces the number of malicious apps installed on users devices Gi…

> it seems like a pretty obvious solution is to just have a pop up that has a install at your own risk warning whenever you install something outside of the official app store

That's close enough to how Android already works. Google wants to additionally prohibit installation of apps unless they're signed by a developer registered with (and presumably bannable by) Google.

Re: What we talk about when we talk about sideloading

#119
post #52

Author here. I admit I am rather startled by the tone of many comments here and the accusations of disingenuity. Splitting hairs about the origin of the term "sideload" does not change the fact that those who promote the term tend to do so in order to make it feel deviant and hacker-ish. You don't "sideload" software on your Linux, Windows, or macOS computer: you install it. You have the right to install whatever you…

I would say the situation is worse as this "subscription-esque" model is "spreading" to areas beyond software. Exercise equipment like ellipticals and bicycles - whose software is/could be borderline +/- resistance level trivial - has been moving to "only works with an online subscription" business models for a long time. I mean, I have had instances that controlled resistance with like a manual knob , but these new…

"resistance level trivial"

Could literally replace the control software with a potentiometer (a resistor)! :)

Re: What we talk about when we talk about sideloading

#120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So I can test my own apps on my own devices, or upload them to itch for other weird people. I don't feel like giving Google a large amount of my personal information just so I can distribute free games. Why do they need a copy of my lease ?

The point parent is making, if Google makes it so difficult sharing the software with other people, who is going to make those itch-the-scratch software going through so much trouble? We would miss out a lot of creative people making software.

Correct.

What I am saying is:

There is still a few points of course like being able to modify the base system. Just being able to say, kill the built in facebook is a quality of life improvement.

But it just feels like the benefits of a self owned phone os are going away even when you have it, because everything else changes around it and out from under it, so you don't get the functional benefit from it any more even when you have it.

You give up the use of things like tap to pay (would have been nice a couple times when I forgot my wallet) and drm content, hell, I can't use the stupid LG app that controls an air conditioner, and (increasingly) don't get something else important in return.

Today, there is still some benefit, because this latest change is only just now happening. I can use say, open source password manager and totp apps instead of google authenticator, and can use a pandora client that Pandora absolutely does not approve of, because the author doesn't need anyone's approval to produce the app and there is no choke point that Pandora can petition to block it. Hell why am I even talking about Pandora instead of Youtube and Newpipe? In what universe does Google EVER ratify the developer of Newpipe? (Wait, for that matter, what developer? what if there's an ever-changing fuzzy cloud of 20?) Or full-fat ublock origin...or countless other things whos sole purpose and value is to thwart some will of Googles? Or like the game emulator apps that Nintendo shuts down so aggressively, etc. Those ICE tracking or merely documenting apps. Countless...

Will those various authors still bother putting in the time and effort it takes to make these apps so good when only about 18 people will be able to use them?

I imported a Sony phone to the US because they don't sell it here, and no one else sells a current flagship with a headphone jack and removable sd card and high end cameras.

I successfully found and imported the phone, and got it working on a US carrier. Yay me. It's even rootable! Yay me. Yet I still can't run Lineage on it, because there is probably not a dozen other people like me to be an audience for Lineage on this hardware, and it's too much work to do for no audience.

The fact that today most phones are unrootable means that even if you somehow get around that, you still don't get the benefit because you're such a small audience that no one is producing say LineageOS for example for you.

My individual success bucking the system still did not result in me getting what I want.

Post reply on HN