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

31–40 of 646 posts

Re: What we talk about when we talk about sideloading

#31

Post by spcebar »

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?

I believe they are saying that this update will remove the ability to decide if you want to install it and will require developers to register and pay for their applications to be installable at all. It's been several years since I developed for Mac, but they operated a similar way, secretly marking a file as quarantined and saying "XYZ Is Damaged and Can’t Be Opened. You Should Move It To The Trash" if you didn't pay to play. Maybe this has since changed, or maybe I'm just a dummy. Regardless, whether a platform has any business funneling a user into their walled garden is another philosophical argument altogether.

Re: What we talk about when we talk about sideloading

#32

Post by sojsurf »

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…

I bought an iphone knowing that Apple has a review process and that I'm limited to apps sold in their store. Similarly, when I had an Android device I knew what I was getting in to.

I appreciate the fairly high level of review that apps get and I completely back Apple's right to control what runs on the OS they developed. Similarly, if _you_ want to run an OS you got from XDA on your Android device and install random stuff, I'll be the last person to stop you.

Hacker news readers are part of the small circle of people who have probably developed a decent intuition for whether software we download is clean or not. Most folks I know do not have this intuition, and many will not bat an eyelash when their new app asks for access to their contacts, etc. Sideload should absolutely continue to be a term that discourages the average person from doing it.

Re: What we talk about when we talk about sideloading

#33

Post by Brian_K_White »

999900000999 wrote: post #26

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…

But what would be the point when no one would bother writing an app for such a small user base?

Re: What we talk about when we talk about sideloading

#34

Post by jay_kyburz »

ryandrake wrote: post #15
ainiriand wrote: post #6

The existing comments here somehow display a big amount of discomfort with the semantics of the article, not so much with the points argued...

Sorry, but "welcome to HN?" Commenters here regularly miss the forest for the trees, ratholing on minutiae and nitpicking one or two words in a 1000 word article. Often totally missing the overall point. We're notorious for it.

Perhaps when you comment on one little thing, its a sign that you agree with the article overall, but have one little nitpick.

Re: What we talk about when we talk about sideloading

#35

Post by actionfromafar »

Nextgrid wrote: post #14
vezycash wrote: post #10

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

> who worked hard to make windows phone die You mean Microsoft? No backwards-compatibility with Windows Mobile to begin with (so companies can't reuse their existing investment into line-of-business apps on actually nice modern devices either), then they reset the ecosystem 2 times (once during the WP7->WP8 transition, another time during the Windows 10 transition).

Well put. Microsoft following the "Double barrel shotgun, apply one wad per foot." (Reset ecosystem 2 times.)

Re: What we talk about when we talk about sideloading

#36

Post by Valodim »

BrenBarn wrote: post #16

I think we could set the bar substantially higher. Don't even bother with discussion of sideloading. Talk about bounded transactions and device control. What is needed is: Once I have purchased a device, the transaction is over. I then have 100% control over that device and the hardware maker, the retailer, and the OS maker have a combined 0% control.

What does this even mean? You don't want software updates? Or strictly only software updates that are 100% aligned with your wishes whatever they may be at the time?

Re: What we talk about when we talk about sideloading

#37

Post by WorldPeas »

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?

it also sometimes says `"Foo" Not Opened` `"Apple could not verify “Foo” is free of malware that may harm your Mac or compromise your privacy."` This is frankly pretty insulting to the intelligence of the user and /does/ stop them. I think the paradigm is flowing towards "less" rather than "more"

Re: What we talk about when we talk about sideloading

#38

Post by bpye »

bpfrh wrote: post #21
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.

> 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.

Has this changed? I thought it failed to launch, but if you go to Privacy & Security in Settings it would give you the option to allow it to run?

Though yes, macOS doesn't prompt you to do that, you have to know where to find it.

Re: What we talk about when we talk about sideloading

#39

Post by WorldPeas »

spcebar wrote: post #31
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?

I believe they are saying that this update will remove the ability to decide if you want to install it and will require developers to register and pay for their applications to be installable at all. It's been several years since I developed for Mac, but they operated a similar way, secretly marking a file as quarantined and saying "XYZ Is Damaged and Can’t Be Opened. You Should Move It To The Trash" if you didn't pa…

I sure hope they still allow `xattr -r -d com.apple.quarantine /Applications/*`

Re: What we talk about when we talk about sideloading

#40

Post by bpye »

bloomca wrote: post #22
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.

Do they have to be from the App Store, or "just" notarized?
Post reply on HN