Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

What we talk about when we talk about sideloading

f-droid.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

171–180 of 646 posts

Re: What we talk about when we talk about sideloading

#171

Post by ifyoubuildit »

AndrewDavis wrote: post #155
p0w3n3d wrote: post #128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Leds are already awful. I already lost 4 of 10 led light bulbs I boughtast year. I hope they will be replaced. It's because every led bulb has a small transformer inside and it fails quite quickly

Interesting, that's been the opposite of my experience. My Mum converted her homes down lights to LEDs over a decade ago. Hasn't lost a single one. I moved into my current house 5 years ago, haven't lost a single one either.

I think the quality ranges a lot.

I got one of these free energy audit things which included swapping out up to 30 or so bulbs with LEDs. Whatever contractor did it seems to have gotten the cheapest bulbs they could, and the majority of them have failed by 4 or 5 years later. So far so good on the name brand ones I replaced them with.

Re: What we talk about when we talk about sideloading

#172

Post by gruez »

kragen wrote: post #143
gruez wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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…

No, it's not a stretch at all. The user experience is the same, except that Debian and F-Droid apps don't come with antifeatures built in. The only friction is around who to report bugs to.

>No, it's not a stretch at all.

For one, it doesn't contain non-free software, and therefore can't be the primary source of software. Maybe you're a Stallman acolyte who only runs free software, but that's not feasible for the average user.

Re: What we talk about when we talk about sideloading

#173

Post by aboringusername »

The only reason Google has decided to lock-down Android is because of apps like ICEblock and the ability for anonymous individuals to mass distribute information that governments do not like. Now, they'll be able to hunt you down by requesting Google hand over every ID document that they process. This sets a chilling precedent for free speech. It enables governments to go after those who dare 'speak out' by using platforms to their advantage. You can no longer 'hide in the shadows' and will need to put your entire identity on the line for your morals and convictions.

Of course, if they could do this with Windows, Linux et al they absolutely would. And general purpose computing will, eventually, be closed and locked down, much like what we are seeing with the internet and ID laws. People would have, and did, think such ideas would be unthinkable 10-15 years ago. Yet little-by-little the screws are being ever tightened. The government wishes to tightly control the information flow and decide what is 'best for you' to see. Preferably their chosen propaganda.

Work-arounds that exist today will likely be closed and forbidden in the future. VPNs to bypass age laws, ADB to bypass install-blocks will all be obsolete. You will be required to identify yourself at all times. I half-expect Google to deprecate and remove the concept of VPN's/ADB on Android entirely and laws will be passed to that affect (restricting the apps themselves, or access to the APIs to verified Android devices/Google accounts). If you don't believe me, you only need to see [1] for the direction of travel.

There is little interest from the regulators to stop this. Perhaps the useless CMA will 'investigate' in 5 years time, decide Google perhaps abused its monopoly and then do absolutely nothing because they have no real re-course over an American company. It's likely governments support this position and will not do anything to influence a change of direction.

Eventually, Linux itself will go the same way, people are just waiting for Torvalds to retire from the project to make their moves, but make no mistake, open general-purpose computing is under threat and there is going to be little we can do to reverse the current trends towards closely monitored and controlled computing.

[1]: https://developer.android.com/google/play/age-signals/overvi...

This will most likely be expanded in the future to limit access to certain 'dangerous' APIs like ADB/VPN's etc. This can also be used 'in app' and across the entire OS to shape your experience of what you can see and do. I wouldn't be surprised if 'unlocking bootloader' required an 18+ verified device.

Re: What we talk about when we talk about sideloading

#174

Post by gruez »

tavavex wrote: post #170
gruez wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Regardless of the origins of the term "sideload", the language implies a non-standard practice. Because it is non-standard. Like it or not, the intended experience is that you get apps from the play/app store, and for most people that's exactly what they do. This is a descriptive statement, not a normative one. Accepting it doesn't imply you oppose the freedom to run whatever code you want. The language of "sideload…

> This is a descriptive statement, not a normative one. It's both. It's not like "sideloading" is a part of natural language that just happened to evolve this way to describe the practice. The terminology was consciously chosen by the same people who designed the OS to describe it. The people who argue against using this term aren't doing it in some accusatory way, like "you use this term, therefore you're an evil br…

>It's like how "jaywalking/jay walking" was popularized - the term itself was pretty crass for the time, the word "jay" conjuring thoughts of some kind of drooling, unintelligent yokel. Back when car infrastructure was still in its infancy, how would you argue that cars shouldn't dominate all streets and cities when the government- and industry-approved name for your action was literally "stupid walking"?

That makes sense because as you said, "the word "jay" conjuring thoughts of some kind of drooling, unintelligent yokel". The same can't be said for "side", aside from vague accusations that it's not "official" therefore normies think it's bad, but I can't see how you can get away from that accusation without using meaningless phrases like "type 2 install" or whatever (though I'm certain that would get similar amounts of ire for being "second class citizens" or whatever).

Re: What we talk about when we talk about sideloading

#175

Post by Kim_Bruning »

xondono wrote: post #83

I’m honestly very tired of this argument, everything about it is bad. Features aren’t rights, if you want a phone that let’s you run whatever you want, buy one or make it yourself. What you’re trying is to use the force of the state to make mandatory a feature that not only 99% users won’t use, it vastly increases the attack surface for most of them, specially the most vulnerable. If anyone were trying to create a wo…

> You don’t get to decide how others people’s devices work.

Perfectly reasonable. It's important that people can decide how their devices work for themselves. No one else should decide for them.

But I'm genuinely curious how you see this principle working in practice when there's effectively a duopoly. What's the path for someone who wants to still have any choices for their device? I'm not seeing an obvious answer, but maybe I'm missing something.

Re: What we talk about when we talk about sideloading

#177

Post by doix »

marcprux wrote: post #27

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 agree with your point about "install" vs "sideload".

> Google’s message that “Sideloading is Not Going Away” is clear, concise, and false

Given your(and my) definition, this statement is false. Google isn't taking away sideloading, you can still use adb. I'd say using adb to load an apk from another device is the proper use of "sideloading".

What Google is doing is much worse, they are taking away your ability to _install_ software.

And yes, HN loves splitting hairs. But if it wasn't for the hairsplitting, there probably would be be much discussion. Just most people agreeing with you and a few folks who would prefer to give up freedom for security.

Re: What we talk about when we talk about sideloading

#178

Post by aboringusername »

zb3 wrote: post #134

Note that the Android permission system is designed so that you are not in control by design, some permissions are "not for you" and only for "system apps" which you can't control. This gives Google and device manufacturers advantage over third party software developers in the name of security... I think we should focus on defending the slowly-vanishing ability to unlock the bootloader and fight for the core parts of…

A great example of this is the 'networking' permission. Being able to control which app can speak to the WAN/LAN is a very important security consideration. Instead, every Android app can send any data it wants without the user being able to have a say in the matter. A lot of apps work just fine without being able to 'phone home'.

Thankfully there's the likes of GrapheneOS, however, with Google's recent changes, unless their OEM partner pulls through, their days are likely numbered.

Re: What we talk about when we talk about sideloading

#179

Post by SquareWheel »

secstate wrote: post #7
gjsman-1000 wrote: post #4

* * *

While I wont argue about it feeling like a conspiracy theory, I will argue that pretty much no one knows sideloading as a term with regards to what i-drive meant by it. And the fact that `adb sideload` is where the concept originated does nothing to dispel the way the term is frequently used in a derogatory fashion these days. It's wielded as a bogey man to make people afraid of unsigned applications. Despite the fac…

> Why on Earth would be arguing in favor of Google locking down how I can install software on my device.

They didn't argue for that anywhere in their comment.

Re: What we talk about when we talk about sideloading

#180

Post by hamdingers »

gruez wrote: post #162
hamdingers wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Right, because those devices don't have first party stores. Windows and Mac technically do, as does some Linux distros If you find yourself making a statement only to immediately contradict it, consider whether or not that statement is worth making at all.

Maybe you should consider reading a few words beyond the passage you quoted, because the "contradiction" only exists with your selective quoting.

The contradiction exists because you wrote it. If you wanted to avoid having to write a false statement and then walk it back, you could've left it out and skipped straight to explaining why those platforms' first party stores don't count in your estimation. As I recommended.
Post reply on HN