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

281–290 of 646 posts

Re: What we talk about when we talk about sideloading

#281

Post by phendrenad2 »

metalman wrote: post #55
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…

put a fork in it, it's done,almost! android that is. linux phones are comming up fast, and will be set up to run the droid apps we like. but big props to fdroid just used "etchdroid" to transfer a linux iso to a thumb drive and boot a new desk top, and if I get a few bucks ahead I will buy a dev board from these guys https://liberux.net/ flinuxoid?, flinux?

> linux phones are comming up fast

How much does it cost to build a barebones phone that (A) runs tuxracer and (B) makes phone calls? Librem: almost as much as an iPhone. PinePhone: You have to travel to the moon to find one for sale. FLX1: Not for sale yet (so PinePhone 2.0)

Maybe when I can buy a $100 barebones board that I can hook some AA batteries up to and make calls, and develop a little flappy bird clone, people will take notice of the market. As long as every Linux phone is some dude with too much money in his pocket thinking he'll make the next Android, it's not going anywhere. Even with tech nerds.

Re: What we talk about when we talk about sideloading

#282

Post by kragen »

terminalshort wrote: post #274
kragen wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 I would instead say that having a trustworthy channel for verified app loading is a valuable security tool. F-Droid is such a channel; the Google Play Store is not. So Google is trying to take this valuable security tool away from users.

"Trustworthy" requires a qualifier of "for what" and I do trust Google to not intentionally install malware on my device and to take reasonable steps to prevent other people from doing it. I will admit that I don't know the details of how the app stores work, but they are at least checking the hashes of the binaries right? The probability of trying to install Instagram from Meta, but actually installing Instapwned fr…

I assume that's correct, for your very narrow definition of malware and a nonzero definition of zero, and it's a good point that trustworthiness is context-dependent. As Alan Karp used to say, "I trust my relatives with my kids but not my money. I trust my bank with my money but not my kids."

Re: What we talk about when we talk about sideloading

#283

Post by kragen »

necovek wrote: post #267
kragen wrote: post #137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, that is not the definition I was using. "Sideloading" is a subset of installing, not disjoint from it. If Google were to prevent installing, it would prevent sideloading, but it would also prevent installing from the Play Store, which clearly they don't want. It's a very dangerous precedent, but one that's difficult to discuss without having a name for the kind of installing that Google is trying to prevent.

This is why this specific definition is problematic: both "sideloading" and "install from Play store" are subsets of "installing". If one limited the ability to "install from Play store", while keeping the ability to "sideload", would you say it's fair to say "installing is restricted"?

Yes, just as if one limited the ability to "sideload", one would be restricting installing.

Re: What we talk about when we talk about sideloading

#284

Post by phendrenad2 »

bigstrat2003 wrote: post #45
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…

> 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. That is not a fact, that is your opinion. Lots of people say "sideload" without trying to convey such negative meanings. For better or for worse, the term has entered the common lexicon and I very rarely see it used with negative connotations…

> those who PROMOTE the term

> Lots of people SAY "sideload"

It's almost like you didn't read the post

Re: What we talk about when we talk about sideloading

#285

Post by gmueckl »

MostlyStable wrote: post #276
gmueckl wrote: post #265

I know that this is a controversial take here, but this sideloading crackdown is just fallout from the inevitable disaster that is mixing general purpose computing with high security and reliability requirements. There's just no way at this time in which a single computing device can run software with high reliability expectations (emergency calls), high security expectations (controlled calling/texting, banking, mon…

I always buy this argument....to the extent that the more powerful, dangerous capabilities are still allowed but locked behind some (one time) process that indicates you have a base level of knowledge and understanding. If you want to make it default safe for normies, fine, but let me turn my own device into the dangerous thing it is capable of being. The version of the your view that we are actually getting is _incr…

Sadly, your view isn't less paternalistic in reality. It effectively amounts to telling people who have better things to do than care about their personal IT security to just suck it up. Billions of smartphone users worldwide are in this position.

Look, I'm not saying that this outcome is ideal and I hate the idea of a single, almighty platform gatekeeper. But with the world being what it is right now, draconian device lockdowns of some kind are the best option that is immediately available.

Re: What we talk about when we talk about sideloading

#286

Post by NohatCoder »

terminalshort wrote: post #274
kragen wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 I would instead say that having a trustworthy channel for verified app loading is a valuable security tool. F-Droid is such a channel; the Google Play Store is not. So Google is trying to take this valuable security tool away from users.

"Trustworthy" requires a qualifier of "for what" and I do trust Google to not intentionally install malware on my device and to take reasonable steps to prevent other people from doing it. I will admit that I don't know the details of how the app stores work, but they are at least checking the hashes of the binaries right? The probability of trying to install Instagram from Meta, but actually installing Instapwned fr…

Wrong, plenty crap make it into the store, that is true for both Android and iOS. And the advertisement in the Android store is designed specifically to try to trick you into installing a different but similar app to the one you wanted.

Re: What we talk about when we talk about sideloading

#287

Post by necovek »

akerl_ wrote: post #249
necovek wrote: post #244

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

You've asked for an intrinsic difference between a class of devices: no, you are unlikely to want to run general purpose apps on your washing machine. Yes, you are likely to do so on your smart phone. Probable on your modern "smart TV". Low probability on your eReader.

Legislation like EU Cybersecurity Act hopefully pushes things into more of a fundamental rights thing by demanding that devices don't go into the trash pile as soon as the vendor stops issuing security updates by mandating an ability to keep operating these devices without negatively affecting Internet at large (by, for example, becoming a part of a botnet).

This is already possible with many general compute devices by putting a version of up-to-date GNU/Linux or FreeBSD or... on it. And for a smaller subset of GC smartphones, with AOSP-based Android.

Re: What we talk about when we talk about sideloading

#288

Post by greatgib »

1vuio0pswjnm7 wrote: post #253
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

To me, the question is not even relevant. Whatever the quality of f-droid,each use should be free to decide if they want to use it or not without Google having a life or death choice on the app that you want to use.

Re: What we talk about when we talk about sideloading

#289

Post by yupyupyups »

wizardforhire wrote: post #257
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.

There is a lot of money to be made in locking down Android and iOS. We should be surprised if companies like Google and Apple are not spreading lies and trying to decieve the public.

No morals can be expected from publically traded companies. Finding a "PR firm" willing to do the lowly dirty job of going on HackerNews, MacRumors or wherever people are and blatantly lie and make stuff up shouldn't be too hard either, I can imagine.

Re: What we talk about when we talk about sideloading

#290

Post by greatgib »

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?

If you install the binary directly, but obviously it does not ask when you are installing through a store like brew...
Post reply on HN