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

21–30 of 646 posts

Re: What we talk about when we talk about sideloading

#21

Post by bpfrh »

ef2k wrote: post #19

On MacOS it warns you when you're about to open an app you've downloaded and installed yourself. "Foo has been downloaded from the internet, are you sure you want to open it?". It doesn't stop you from installing it. Why should doing so on your phone be any different?

Depending on your app this is not all.

If i send a golang binary to someone with a mac via signal or other mediums, apple simply displays a dialog that the app is damaged and can't be run.

You need to use chmod to manually remove the quarantine flag to run it.

That for me is something that should be fined ad infinitum, because it is clearly designed to disallow non technical people to run custom apps.

Re: What we talk about when we talk about sideloading

#22

Post by bloomca »

ef2k wrote: post #19

On MacOS it warns you when you're about to open an app you've downloaded and installed yourself. "Foo has been downloaded from the internet, are you sure you want to open it?". It doesn't stop you from installing it. Why should doing so on your phone be any different?

macOS warns you literally about every downloaded app not from MAS (signed!), unless you build it yourself or remove quarantine manually.

I think it is mostly about expectations, macOS trained people that it is relatively safe to install signed apps. If your app is unsigned, Gatekeeper will refuse to run it.

Re: What we talk about when we talk about sideloading

#23

Post by conradev »

ef2k wrote: post #19

On MacOS it warns you when you're about to open an app you've downloaded and installed yourself. "Foo has been downloaded from the internet, are you sure you want to open it?". It doesn't stop you from installing it. Why should doing so on your phone be any different?

This is the key and only difference. Scanning is great, and security is great.

but macOS lets you override any system determination, iOS does not, and Google is proposing the iOS flavor.

Re: What we talk about when we talk about sideloading

#24

Post by floppyd »

fngjdflmdflg wrote: post #9

`abd install` will still work as per[0] so to me sideloading is still possible, so the statement 'Google’s message that “Sideloading is Not Going Away” is clear, concise, and false' is not correct. I think users should be able to install whatever software they want, without any charge or other external permissions, but at the same time device and OS makers should be able to make it difficult to do so, within reason.…

"adb install" is such a far cry from a normal install that it's laughable to call it an alternative or jumping though hoops "within reason". I imagine it won't allow to update an app without another adb install, for one thing. And controlling adb is even easier for google, so how long till you can "adb install" only from within Android Development Studio and only if you have a verified account? Because otherwise all the spooky skammers would be installing stuff on people's phones willy-nilly!

Re: What we talk about when we talk about sideloading

#25

Post by Ajedi32 »

gjsman-1000 wrote: post #4

* * *

Yes, I think quibbling over the origin of the term and attempts to coin an alternative are a useless distraction. The term emerged organically for good reasons, and doesn't have any negative connotations as far as I'm concerned. Trying to talk about "direct loading" instead is confusing and doesn't even make sense because alternative app stores like F-Droid don't count as "direct loading" under their own definition.

I think defining sideloading as "the transfer of apps from web sources that are not vendor-approved" is a good definition, because "not vendor-approved" is precisely the part I care about. The owner being able to install stuff without Google or anyone else's approval is a good and important capability for every computing device to have.

In any case, I fully agree with the substantive portions of this article. What Google is doing here is a terrible attack on consumer freedom.

Re: What we talk about when we talk about sideloading

#26

Post by 999900000999 »

You know, this would be a fantastic time for Google to get their sandbox in order. If we need to do it like this, go ahead and create a secondary user, call it sandbox and let me install all my wild and unapproved apps there. SecureNet can automatically fail in Sandbox.

But I don't think they're going to do that, ultimately users who actually care about this are an absolute tiny percentage of the market.

And weirdos like us can always just import a Chinese phone that doesn't have mandatory Google verification crap.

Re: What we talk about when we talk about sideloading

#27

Post by marcprux »

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 want on your computer, regardless of whether that computer is on your desk or in your pocket. That's a hill I'll die on. I'm dismayed to see that this sentiment is not more widespread in this of all communities.

Re: What we talk about when we talk about sideloading

#28

Post by pmontra »

fngjdflmdflg wrote: post #9

`abd install` will still work as per[0] so to me sideloading is still possible, so the statement 'Google’s message that “Sideloading is Not Going Away” is clear, concise, and false' is not correct. I think users should be able to install whatever software they want, without any charge or other external permissions, but at the same time device and OS makers should be able to make it difficult to do so, within reason.…

So are we going to download APKs from fDroid to our computers and then adb install them to our phones? For every update? I see a lot of people, even developers, giving up.

Re: What we talk about when we talk about sideloading

#30

Post by bnjms »

blueg3 wrote: post #3

I realize F-droid has an understandably strong opinion here, but this writing is disingenuous. From the post: > Regardless, the term “sideload” was coined to insinuate that there is something dark and sinister about the process, as if the user were making an end-run around safeguards that are designed to keep you protected and secure. But if we reluctantly accept that “sideloading” is a term that has wriggled its way…

You argue here that google is technically correct because they’re correctly using sideload.

But that isn’t the point people are angry about. The point is that sideload was a misnomer. Correctly Android users were able to install packages and now cannot. This is anti consumer and breaks the social contract.

Anyway this is so disingenuous that I think it’s astroturf. Here’s the meme we should’ve spreading: Chrome and Android should be broken off from Google. Apple should be forced to allow sideloading, at a minimum, same as any other computer. Phones and tablets should be valid targets for custom OS.

Post reply on HN