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

251–260 of 646 posts

Re: What we talk about when we talk about sideloading

#251

Post by gruez »

lucideer wrote: post #217
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…

> the intended experience is that you get apps from the play/app store Once again, this is the point. > it doesn't imply you oppose the freedom to run whatever code you want But it does. Let's first look at what's good about "intended experience" & possible legitimate reasons to have a differentiation between "vendor-approved" 3rd-party apps & non-"vendor-approved" 3rd-party apps. The connotation of an "intended expe…

>Let's first look at what's good about "intended experience" & possible legitimate reasons to have a differentiation between "vendor-approved" 3rd-party apps & non-"vendor-approved" 3rd-party apps.

It's pretty obvious that they think the distinction is worth having because they can vet apps they signed, rather than random apks from the internet. You might think that's a flimsy justification, but that's not a reason to reject such a distinction exists at all.

>The only other legitimate reason to have a differentiation would be to ensure the user doesn't install malware. Play Protect currently does this with sideloaded apps, so once again there is no difference in the "intended experience" from the user's perspective.

That's purely reactive (you can't scan for stuff that you don't know about), and doesn't ensure identity validation. Again, you can argue how good those reasons are, but there's at least a plausible justification for it.

>The connotation of an "intended experience" is that the experience is supported by the OS vendor. If you have issues with your experience, these are issues that can be reported & the OS vendor will endeavor to fix.

When was the last time anyone got "support" for Android/iOS from Google/Apple? At best you have random forums that google/apple staff check once in a blue moon, if you're lucky.

Re: What we talk about when we talk about sideloading

#252

Post by akerl_ »

aussieguy1234 wrote: post #240
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…

I'd like to be able to install my own software on all of these

I'm not asking what you'd like to do. I'd like to be able to customize all of those things too.

I'm asking why taking a device that uses a microcontroller and making a new model with an ARM chipset and a Linux-based OS seems to suddenly make people treat the ability to install custom software on it as a fundamental right.

Re: What we talk about when we talk about sideloading

#253

Post by 1vuio0pswjnm7 »

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…

Could you make the claim that F-Droid is actually safer than "Google Play Store"

The plea Google makes against so-called "sideloading" always refers to "malware"

But how much malware has been distributed via F-Droid versus "Google Play Store"

It could be that smaller, independent "app store" might be better managed than Google's

Re: What we talk about when we talk about sideloading

#254

Post by akerl_ »

kragen wrote: post #242
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…

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…

Why?

My washing machine could be programmed to do all of those things you're worried about without any writeable memory. Why does the parts the manufacturer puts into it turn it from an appliance that washes my clothes to a computer that I have a right to install custom code on?

Re: What we talk about when we talk about sideloading

#255

Post by Andrex »

pr337h4m wrote: post #70

Why are OEMs like Samsung just letting this happen? A lot of power users who buy flagships will leave for iPhones if Android ceases to be an open platform. (This segment is what is preventing the “green bubbles = poor” narrative from taking over.)

Samsung's fought Google on a few different fronts over the years and conceded most of those fights.

Re: What we talk about when we talk about sideloading

#256

Post by Andrex »

vezycash wrote: post #10

Everyone developer who worked hard to make windows phone die. Hope you're happy.

I am, mostly because Windows Phone 7 always did what Google is attempting to do here.

https://stackoverflow.com/questions/4229029/can-you-install-...

At least we got 10+ years of real sideloading on consumer devices thanks to WP7's death.

Re: What we talk about when we talk about sideloading

#257

Post by wizardforhire »

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…

It’s a hill you don’t have to die alone on!

I too am flabbergasted at the utter lack of integrity some show and vocally proclaim in this of all places… corporate shills every last of them.

Re: What we talk about when we talk about sideloading

#258

Post by Andrex »

kuratkull wrote: post #168
funOtter wrote: post #62

After Google implements this, will I still be able to "side-load" (install any software) on Android-derivative OSes like GrapheneOS?

Currently it seems that Google is pushing for hardware attestation, so you might be able to install Graphene/Lineage if your phone manufacturer allows you to unlock your bootloader, but many Play Store apps won't work as they'll detect your root. It's actually gotten pretty insane how every low-value app considers themselves the centre of the world and unable to run on a rooted device. Example: the loyalty card app f…

There might be insurance and bank contracts higher up the chain that classify it as a financial dealing and thus require stricter conformance. I'm speculating tbh I have no idea for sure.

Re: What we talk about when we talk about sideloading

#259

Post by Andrex »

blueg3 wrote: post #202
nashashmi wrote: post #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

It is the latter. The app has to be signed, and the signer has to register "real" identity with Google. Approval of the app itself is not a part of the process. Yes, sideloading will still be viable from known developers. Probably malware developers will still be free from prosecution -- what moron is going to distribute malware with their own identity attached to it? But it means when the malware gets caught (which…

Fwiw I've been getting random email offers over the years to buy my old dev account for like $100-300. Dev accounts are going to become a prized commodity on the black market with this move.

(I didn't sell my acct, for the record.)

Re: What we talk about when we talk about sideloading

#260

Post by tenuousemphasis »

p0w3n3d wrote: post #128
cb321 wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not an expert on the case law, but supposedly United States v. General Electric Co. et al., 82 F.Supp. 753 (D.N.J. 1949) indicates that whatever design trade-offs might have existed, corporate policy makers were really just trying to screw consumers [1] (which is why they probably had to agree on short lifespans as a cartel rather than just market "this line of bulbs for these preferences" vs. "this other line fo…

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

I think the solution is something like this.

https://atx-led.com/

Post reply on HN