What we talk about when we talk about sideloading • Hacker News Board

Re: What we talk about when we talk about sideloading

#241

Post by orangecat » Tue, Oct 28, 2025, 10:55 PM UTC

akerl_ wrote: post #231

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…

Is there no line, in your opinion? At this point, there are computers (many of which run variants of Linux in many cases) in my: 1. Laptop 2. Phone 3. Car 4. Washing machine 5. Handheld GPS 6. E-reader 7. TV Is there some intrinsic different between a device where the manufacturer has programmed it using an ARM/x86-based chip vs a microcontroller vs some other method that means in the 1st case I have the right to ins…

For everything on that list, I'd say that if you figure out how to run software of your choice on them the manufacturer shouldn't be able to legally stop you. (And specifically, the anti-circumvention clauses of the DMCA are terrible).

Phones get a lot of attention in this regard because they've replaced a large amount of PC usage, so locking them down has the effect of substantially reducing computing freedom.

Re: What we talk about when we talk about sideloading

#242

Post by kragen » Tue, Oct 28, 2025, 10:55 PM UTC

akerl_ wrote: post #231

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…

Is there no line, in your opinion? At this point, there are computers (many of which run variants of Linux in many cases) in my: 1. Laptop 2. Phone 3. Car 4. Washing machine 5. Handheld GPS 6. E-reader 7. TV Is there some intrinsic different between a device where the manufacturer has programmed it using an ARM/x86-based chip vs a microcontroller vs some other method that means in the 1st case I have the right to ins…

Yes, you absolutely should have the right to install (or uninstall) whatever software you want on any of those, assuming it contains writable program memory. The alternative is a nightmarish dystopian future where your washing machine company is selling its estimate of your political inclinations, sexual activities, and risk aversion to your car insurance company, your ex-husband, your trade union representative, and your homeowners' association.

Re: What we talk about when we talk about sideloading

#243

Post by akerl_ » Tue, Oct 28, 2025, 10:56 PM UTC

koolala wrote: post #233

akerl_ wrote: post #231

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is there no line, in your opinion? At this point, there are computers (many of which run variants of Linux in many cases) in my: 1. Laptop 2. Phone 3. Car 4. Washing machine 5. Handheld GPS 6. E-reader 7. TV Is there some intrinsic different between a device where the manufacturer has programmed it using an ARM/x86-based chip vs a microcontroller vs some other method that means in the 1st case I have the right to ins…

Video game consoles?

Good catch. They are similarly noteworthy to phones: there are all kinds of projects and tools built around making custom and modded games for the Gameboy, or hacking the NES, but there wasn't a movement saying Nintendo was violating our fundamental rights by not allowing users to overwrite or modify the code inside the actual console.

Then consoles started shipping with recognizable internals, and we had waves of people very frustrated at things like Sony's removal of OtherOS, or Nintendo's attempts to squash the exploits that enabled Wii Homebrew.

Re: What we talk about when we talk about sideloading

#244

Post by necovek » Tue, Oct 28, 2025, 10:56 PM UTC

akerl_ wrote: post #231

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…

Is there no line, in your opinion? At this point, there are computers (many of which run variants of Linux in many cases) in my: 1. Laptop 2. Phone 3. Car 4. Washing machine 5. Handheld GPS 6. E-reader 7. TV Is there some intrinsic different between a device where the manufacturer has programmed it using an ARM/x86-based chip vs a microcontroller vs some other method that means in the 1st case I have the right to ins…

There is already a widespread notion of "general computing" device.

For all intents and purposes, a laptop computer and a smart phone are one. This is, for example, evidenced by the fact we run general purpose "applications" on them (not defined ahead of time), including a most general app of them all (a web browser).

For other device types you bring up, I would go with a very similar distinction: when you can run an open ended app platform like a browser, why not be able to install non-browser based applications as well? Why require going through a vendor to do that?

Re: What we talk about when we talk about sideloading

#245

Post by aussieguy1234 » Tue, Oct 28, 2025, 10:57 PM UTC

I've switched my main phone to GrapheneOS, specifically because of what Google is doing here. I'm sure alot of others will do the same.

Re: What we talk about when we talk about sideloading

#246

Post by 01HNNWZ0MV43FF » Tue, Oct 28, 2025, 10:57 PM UTC

akerl_ wrote: post #231

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…

Is there no line, in your opinion? At this point, there are computers (many of which run variants of Linux in many cases) in my: 1. Laptop 2. Phone 3. Car 4. Washing machine 5. Handheld GPS 6. E-reader 7. TV Is there some intrinsic different between a device where the manufacturer has programmed it using an ARM/x86-based chip vs a microcontroller vs some other method that means in the 1st case I have the right to ins…

The only one that sounds potentially harmful is the car and in that case I think it should have to meet emissions standards and prove you aren't running a defeat device but like... Yeah. I should be allowed to run my own infotainment system that doesn't crash and doesn't spy on me

Re: What we talk about when we talk about sideloading

#247

Post by akerl_ » Tue, Oct 28, 2025, 10:57 PM UTC

orangecat wrote: post #241

akerl_ wrote: post #231

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is there no line, in your opinion? At this point, there are computers (many of which run variants of Linux in many cases) in my: 1. Laptop 2. Phone 3. Car 4. Washing machine 5. Handheld GPS 6. E-reader 7. TV Is there some intrinsic different between a device where the manufacturer has programmed it using an ARM/x86-based chip vs a microcontroller vs some other method that means in the 1st case I have the right to ins…

For everything on that list, I'd say that if you figure out how to run software of your choice on them the manufacturer shouldn't be able to legally stop you. (And specifically, the anti-circumvention clauses of the DMCA are terrible). Phones get a lot of attention in this regard because they've replaced a large amount of PC usage, so locking them down has the effect of substantially reducing computing freedom.

This is sort of delightfully circular?

> I'd say that if you figure out how to run software of your choice on them the manufacturer shouldn't be able to legally stop you.

That's already the case. The manufacturer can't come after you for anything you do to your device. They can:

1. Set up their terms of service so that things you do to alter the device are grounds for blocking your access to cloud/connected services that they host on their infrastructure

2. Attempt to make it difficult to run software of your choice.

3. Use legal means to combat specific methods of redistributing tools to other people that compromise things they do in number 2.

Re: What we talk about when we talk about sideloading

#248

Post by klawed » Tue, Oct 28, 2025, 10:58 PM UTC

It makes me a little sad that there’s no mention of Raymond Carver in this thread. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/What_We_Talk_About_When_We_Tal... The current state of dominant mobile OS’s is about as bleak as the bleakest Carver story. Since I’m on a tangent I’ll also highly recommend the movie Shortcuts.

Re: What we talk about when we talk about sideloading

#249

Post by akerl_ » Tue, Oct 28, 2025, 10:59 PM UTC

necovek wrote: post #244

akerl_ wrote: post #231

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is there no line, in your opinion? At this point, there are computers (many of which run variants of Linux in many cases) in my: 1. Laptop 2. Phone 3. Car 4. Washing machine 5. Handheld GPS 6. E-reader 7. TV Is there some intrinsic different between a device where the manufacturer has programmed it using an ARM/x86-based chip vs a microcontroller vs some other method that means in the 1st case I have the right to ins…

There is already a widespread notion of "general computing" device. For all intents and purposes, a laptop computer and a smart phone are one. This is, for example, evidenced by the fact we run general purpose "applications" on them (not defined ahead of time), including a most general app of them all (a web browser). For other device types you bring up, I would go with a very similar distinction: when you can run an…

"why not" isn't a compelling case for something to be a fundamental right.

I'm not saying I dislike the concept of being able to run my own code on my devices. I love it. I do it on several devices, some of which involve circumventing manufacturer restrictions or controls.

I just don't think that because manufacturers started using the same chips in phones as computers, they magically had new requirements applied to them. Phones had app stores before they were built using the same chips. My watch lets me install apps from an app store.

Re: What we talk about when we talk about sideloading

#250

Post by gdulli » Tue, Oct 28, 2025, 11:00 PM UTC

cyanydeez wrote: post #232

gdulli wrote: post #218

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Also if the majority of sideloaders go away because it's become more difficult, what will happen to the development scene? Will it stall out from lack of developer interest because there's such a small audience compared to before? (Despite it still being possible.)

I see googles actions as lashing out at everyone because theyre being attacked for their monopoly activities. They want to punish customers for electing regulators who care about consumer protections. This is large scale abusive boyfriend behavior, doubling down. Anyone who defends google/Android has been heeled in fear.

There's no spite or emotion, it's a company. They want to kill NewPipe etc. to force everything through apps they control and can monetize. It's just about money.