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

321–330 of 646 posts

Re: What we talk about when we talk about sideloading

#321

Post by eep_social »

m3adow wrote: post #140
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.)

> This segment is what is preventing the “green bubbles = poor” narrative from taking over. In the US maybe. In Europe, not so much. With Apple having a market share of "only" about one third and WhatsApp being the de facto default messaging app, this discussion never happened here. Therefore your argument doesn't apply to Europe at all. Android is more than the "hacky" part. Albeit I'd really love to keep that.

whatsapp is a different form of the same malignant cancer, or so the unremovable meta-ai overlay seems to say.

Re: What we talk about when we talk about sideloading

#322

Post by __MatrixMan__ »

tavavex wrote: post #318
Aeolun wrote: post #207

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

When that happens we'll abandon the web as you described it and build a new one that better resists the cancer. Honestly there are a lot of bad decisions baked into out default stack that it's gonna be refreshing to be rid of. Not just malware and corporate overreach, but 1980s thinking that seemed fine at the time and turned out to not be.

So to answer your question: Ubuntu will let you access the next web, and Android probably won't.

Re: What we talk about when we talk about sideloading

#323

Post by archargelod »

AppleAtCha wrote: post #141
metalman wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Google really knew what they were doing by hiring Marc Levoy. The Google camera is the only thing keeping me from getting something other than a pixel phone.

Google camera is not exclusive to Pixel.

It was ported[0] by enthusiasts to literary almost every Android phone. I have it on my $100 Xiaomi.

[0] https://xdaforums.com/tags/google-camera/

Re: What we talk about when we talk about sideloading

#324

Post by eep_social »

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…

seems well coordinated with the recent escalation of aggression around google accounts without a cell phone number attached “to help make sure you don’t lose access to your account.” complete horseshit, but they can get away with it.

Re: What we talk about when we talk about sideloading

#325

Post by degamad »

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…

Another supporter here, chiming in to let you know you're not alone on this hill.

Re: What we talk about when we talk about sideloading

#326

Post by mwnivek »

NoImmatureAdHom wrote: post #176

Where do I send my money to fight this? https://keepandroidopen.org/ is about sending messages, which I have done and will continue to do. But I want to open my wallet.

You may be looking for something more specifically targeted, but here two somewhat relevant ways to donate money:

- https://f-droid.org/en/donate/

- https://supporters.eff.org/donate/join-eff-today

Re: What we talk about when we talk about sideloading

#327

Post by tavavex »

necovek wrote: post #293
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"…

I said it elsewhere in the thread, but the current model is already falling apart: it has led to random IoT devices becoming parts of widespread botnets, affecting Internet functioning, and putting unwitting consumers at risk. Fixing that problem might turn out to be cheaper for competitors by making their platforms more open and avoiding the full responsibility as a vendor. Basically, combine current and future legi…

> I said it elsewhere in the thread, but the current model is already falling apart: it has led to random IoT devices becoming parts of widespread botnets, affecting Internet functioning, and putting unwitting consumers at risk.

But isn't this also exactly how the pitch will sound for what I proposed? You know, "The internet is too important and random people are allowed to upload and run random dangerous code within it with no oversight, this has to be stopped." The manufacturers will never bear the consequences of their choices, the consumers will. There might be a push to make the internet watertight by requiring all major websites and services to only allow access to "secure" devices and block all other traffic. After all, why spend money on cybersecurity when everyone can only use the (important parts of the) internet with their real names, and developers are de-anonymized?

Will this actually improve security? It seems very unlikely. But despite it, this move seems like exactly the kind of thing that's coming, because it massively benefits both companies and governments.

Re: What we talk about when we talk about sideloading

#328

Post by giovannibonetti »

asveikau wrote: post #308
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…

This community has pockets of people who like authoritarian control, and genuinely believe in Apple or Google Play as some kind of superego that they need to defend, that they believe is protecting us. This surfaces in many types of discussions, including discussions where they may be prompted to defend the locked down nature of mobile devices. I say it's just pockets. A vocal pocket. It's not everyone here. But it e…

> This community has pockets of people who like authoritarian control, and genuinely believe in Apple or Google Play as some kind of superego that they need to defend, that they believe is protecting us.

Perhaps you meant Leviathan instead of superego?

Re: What we talk about when we talk about sideloading

#329

Post by tavavex »

__MatrixMan__ wrote: post #322
tavavex wrote: post #318

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

When that happens we'll abandon the web as you described it and build a new one that better resists the cancer. Honestly there are a lot of bad decisions baked into out default stack that it's gonna be refreshing to be rid of. Not just malware and corporate overreach, but 1980s thinking that seemed fine at the time and turned out to not be. So to answer your question: Ubuntu will let you access the next web, and Andr…

Why the assumption that there will be a new web?

If you're talking about developing some brand new means of worldwide communications, this seems extremely improbable if done by the 1% of the rest of us (basically, hobbyists and techy people). The internet required tens of billions of dollars worth of development and infrastructure to get to this point, how will it ever happen without the sponsorship of large centralized entities?

If you're talking about leeching off the existing internet infrastructure to communicate with some brand new protocols over them, who's going to let you do that? Both companies and governments would have incentive to put a stop to this in any way possible, because it drives away customers from the manufacturers and signers of all "secure" devices and lessens the amount/value of surveilled data. It may be allowed at a small scale, but I'm not seeing how anything long-term could be established that could threaten the existing powers in any way.

Re: What we talk about when we talk about sideloading

#330

Post by degamad »

jbaber wrote: post #148
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.

I'm unclear on why F-Droid is any safer than the playstore and not possibly worse since using it tells potential malware purveyors that you're into sideloading in the first place.

F-Droid provides curated applications vetted by parties that *the user* chooses to trust.

By default, F-Droid provides only the applications that they themselves have verified and built from source. They also allow the user to add other sources from other parties who the user trusts (e.g. GuardianProject, IzzyOnDroid, and others[0]).

Google provides any application uploaded by any anonymous third-party who signs up as a developer (and in future, provides the required ID).

[0] https://forum.f-droid.org/t/known-repositories/721

Post reply on HN