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

311–320 of 646 posts

Re: What we talk about when we talk about sideloading

#311

Post by pessimizer »

aboringusername wrote: post #173

The only reason Google has decided to lock-down Android is because of apps like ICEblock and the ability for anonymous individuals to mass distribute information that governments do not like. Now, they'll be able to hunt you down by requesting Google hand over every ID document that they process. This sets a chilling precedent for free speech. It enables governments to go after those who dare 'speak out' by using pla…

> The only reason Google has decided to lock-down Android is because of apps like ICEblock and the ability for anonymous individuals to mass distribute information that governments do not like.

Nah. The only reason Google has decided to lock-down Android is because they think they can get away with it. They would have done it from the first minute except that not doing it gave them a competitive advantage in the market over Apple - back when pretending to be into FOSS and to "not be evil" was a major part of their marketing. They're ready to make the move. If it fails, they'll try to make the move again a few years from now. They don't give a shit about ICE or whatever.

Re: What we talk about when we talk about sideloading

#312

Post by bfdm »

znort_ wrote: post #310
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…

>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. agreed, but i'm not going to die on any hill. i don't see much point in this discussion, these corps will do whatever they like. for me it is simple: iphone never w…

Very curious what you expect to move to. The market outside those options is extremely limited.

Re: What we talk about when we talk about sideloading

#313

Post by eipi10_hn »

gruez wrote: post #106
lucideer wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Can you corroborate this? I don't think this is so much a question of sources & corroboration as it is of language. Regardless of the origins of the term "sideload", the language implies a non-standard practice. The prefix "side-" may be used in some software contexts to describe normal, non-deviant software, but only in cases where the software in question is considered auxiliary. In general, anything described as…

>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…

I'm using Android built-in Package Installer. That's not non-standard.

Re: What we talk about when we talk about sideloading

#314

Post by eipi10_hn »

gruez wrote: post #164
jonny_eh wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Plus, I don't see how it is even relevant if a platform has a first party store when it comes to allowing the user to install software.

It doesn't, but that doesn't mean people can't call out disingenuous statements made by the OP. Posts can be directionally correct even if they contain errors, but the errors are still worth calling out.

Errors are according to you. According to me, they are not errors.

Re: What we talk about when we talk about sideloading

#315

Post by tavavex »

gruez wrote: post #174
tavavex wrote: post #170

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> This is a descriptive statement, not a normative one. It's both. It's not like "sideloading" is a part of natural language that just happened to evolve this way to describe the practice. The terminology was consciously chosen by the same people who designed the OS to describe it. The people who argue against using this term aren't doing it in some accusatory way, like "you use this term, therefore you're an evil br…

>It's like how "jaywalking/jay walking" was popularized - the term itself was pretty crass for the time, the word "jay" conjuring thoughts of some kind of drooling, unintelligent yokel. Back when car infrastructure was still in its infancy, how would you argue that cars shouldn't dominate all streets and cities when the government- and industry-approved name for your action was literally "stupid walking"? That makes…

Well, yeah, it's not nearly as extreme, companies have become much better at PR. Still, the insinuations of something being unofficial, unrecognized, unsecured, really half-unintended still paint a picture of how Google wants its software to be seen. Like, I have no doubts that if Microsoft decided to start locking down Windows PCs to the Microsoft Store (the "intended experience" that they probably already imagine for their model customers), the temporary bypass will be accompanied with a prompt like "DANGEROUS: Are you sure you want to enable Unsecured Mode? (Y/N)"

Re: What we talk about when we talk about sideloading

#316

Post by terminalshort »

blueg3 wrote: post #191
terminalshort wrote: post #42

I think this misses the forest for the trees here. The platforms behavior here is a symptom and not the core problem. I think the following are pretty clearly correct: 1. It's your damn phone and you should be able to install whatever the hell you want on it 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 Gi…

> Given that both of these things are obviously true, it seems like a pretty obvious solution is to just have a pop up that has a install at your own risk warning whenever you install something outside of the official app store. It is an obvious solution, and it's a good first solution. This popup already exists. A problem in security engineering is that when people are motivated (which is easy to achieve), they will…

I guess this is a difference in philosophy then, but I think that the goal of security engineering should be to protect users from malicious actors, not to protect them from their own bad choices. If I give you a safety feature, and you turn it off, that's not my problem. There is a special level of hatred that I have reserved only for the busybodies who limit my choices and justify it as protecting me.

That said, your point about messaging is really good, and so many times I see security warnings I roll my eyes at how badly the message is written.

Re: What we talk about when we talk about sideloading

#317

Post by eipi10_hn »

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…

I think it's better to shut down the project. I used to contribute to privacy projects, but then after being slandered for damaging youtube's "creators" by blocking the trackers, I realize that people enjoy getting f*cked by google and enjoy shilling google collecting personal data. So I stopped, it's better for my mental health and I have more free time for myself.

Re: What we talk about when we talk about sideloading

#318

Post by tavavex »

Aeolun wrote: post #207
tavavex wrote: post #195

Earlier quoted context omitted.

People always say things like these, and I wish it were that way too. Maybe if history had gone a little differently. But what's the point of defining these standards now? Is the world where this is the reality still feasible? It seems nearly impossible, unless you're an extremely wealthy and influential individual. What I'm seeing is that we never will move to a world where a device that you bought is truly "yours"…

Ubuntu for android?

How's Ubuntu (or hell, any Linux distro) for mobile going to change what I outlined? It's not going to matter what OS you're running once all the important websites and services you use every day (up to and including government services) start requiring some form of attestation or other layers of security that will no doubt only be provided by a few locked-down vendors. Once that happens, your Ubuntu Touch phone will be about as useful as a Nokia 3310, at least online. After all, it's <0.01% of the market and open (therefore dangerous), Google or Microsoft or Apple aren't going to sign off on that. A natural consequence of that will be that "unsecured" devices will be stamped out, perhaps not by force, but just economically. That's the day when what I described will just become mundane reality.

Re: What we talk about when we talk about sideloading

#319

Post by 1vuio0pswjnm7 »

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

Why would one make this claim

Because Google is suggesting that "malware" is a motivation/reason/justification for their new "sideloading" policy

It can be useful to show that Google's alleged justification is bogus

Re: What we talk about when we talk about sideloading

#320

Post by [deleted] »

klawed wrote: post #248

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.

[deleted]
Post reply on HN