Live data from Hacker News

What we talk about when we talk about sideloading

f-droid.org

341–350 of 646 posts

Re: What we talk about when we talk about sideloading

#341
“Sideloading “ is the original app installing by sync or copying.

You used a wire, or Bluetooth that transferred the app file.

Then it ran.

This is how it was.

iPhone 1 was vehemently against third party apps of any kind.

The use of iTunes to have a “store” helped transfer and install apps digitally, and I believe using a wire too.

You either own your device or you don’t.

At a software level mobile has been a challenge to keep secure and locking it all down might not secure it either as there might be side doors still instead of side loading.

It has been 15-17 years since we got this batch of mobile operating systems, maybe we’re due for a new one since there’s a critical mass of users already on smartphones, unlike when Android/iOS began.

Re: What we talk about when we talk about sideloading

#342
post #268
post #189

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you are running Linux non free software in the exception, not the rule. I myself can’t think of any that I run.

Try sudo apt install vrms

Virtual Richard M. Stallman. This is hilarious, I'd never heard of this. Thanks for sharing.

No surprises on my system except for the firmware-intel-* packages. I thought those were free software? Must be binary blobs.

Re: What we talk about when we talk about sideloading

#344
post #69
post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would say the situation is worse as this "subscription-esque" model is "spreading" to areas beyond software. Exercise equipment like ellipticals and bicycles - whose software is/could be borderline +/- resistance level trivial - has been moving to "only works with an online subscription" business models for a long time. I mean, I have had instances that controlled resistance with like a manual knob , but these new…

That planned obsolescence thing on light bulbs isn't the entire story. Light bulbs will last longer if driven less hard, due to the lower temperature. But that lower temperature also means much lower efficiency because the blackbody spectrum shifts even further into the infrared. So some compromise had to be picked between having a reasonable amount of light and a reasonable life span. But yeah agree, this subscripti…

"That planned obsolescence thing on light bulbs isn't the entire story."

Whilst that's certainly true the Phoebus cartel's most negative aspect was that it was a secret organisation, its second was that it was actually a cartel. These disadvantaged both light bulb consumers and any company that wasn't a member of the cartel—a new startup company that wasn't aware of or a member of the cartel would be forced out of business by the cartel's secret unfair competition.

Without the cartel manufacturers could have competed by offering a range of bulbs based on longevity versus life depending on consumers' needs. For example, offering a full brightness/1000h type for normal use and a 70% brightness/2000h one for say in applications where bulbs were awkward to replace (such product differences could even be promoted in advertising).

Nowadays, planned obsolescence is at the heart and core of much manufacturing and manufacturers are more secretive than ever about the techniques they've adopted to achieve their idea of the ideal service lives of their products—lives that optimize profits. This is now a very sophisticated business and takes into account many factors including ensuring their competition's products do not gain a reputation for having a longer service life or better repairability than their own (still a likely corrupting factor that originally drove the formation of the Phoebus cartel).

Right, the philosophy's not changed since Phoebus but the sophistication of its implementation has increased almost beyond recognition. There's not space to detail this adequately here except to say I've some excellent examples from the manufacture of whitegoods and how production has changed over recent decades to manufacturers' advantage often to the detriment of consumers.

In short, planned obsolescence and the secrecy that surrounds it has negative and very significant consequences for both consumers and the environment. When purchasing, consumers are thus unable to make informed decisions about whether to trade off the reduced initial costs of products with a short service live against those that have increased longevity and or improved repairability. Similarly, shortlived products only add to environmental pollution, witness the enormous e-waste problem that currently exists.

As manufacturers won't willingly give up panned obsolescence or secrecy that surrounds it, one solution would be to tax products with artificially shortened service lives. In the absence of manufacturing information governments could statistically determine product tax rates based on observable service lives.

Re: What we talk about when we talk about sideloading

#345

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.

That's just the price of developing open source software. People will complain. Don't worry about the people who don't want to use your software. They can make their own. You should only consider stopping your own project when there is a better alternative.

Re: What we talk about when we talk about sideloading

#346

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…

The correct term was always “download”. We should be allowed to download and run anything we want on our own phones.

[deleted]

Re: What we talk about when we talk about sideloading

#347

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 is mostly a framing war. Calling it "sideloading" makes it sound risky or unusual, but if we called it "installing software on your own device", Apple's and Google's restrictions would seem absurd - like telling homeowners what kind of light bulbs they're allowed to use.

Re: What we talk about when we talk about sideloading

#348
post #342
post #268

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Try sudo apt install vrms

Virtual Richard M. Stallman. This is hilarious, I'd never heard of this. Thanks for sharing. No surprises on my system except for the firmware-intel-* packages. I thought those were free software? Must be binary blobs.

Yup. Which is why the real Richard M. Stallman has often used MIPS laptops.

Re: What we talk about when we talk about sideloading

#349
I'm struck with how long the history of Apple's earliest iPhone has shaped and produced long-term damage to the concept of digital ownership. Apple originally didn't allow anybody but Apple to create software for the 1st gen iPhone, and only later was forced "opening" it my market forces.

People who realized they actually owned the thing they bought wanted to do what they wanted, which required circumventing Apple's control or "jailbreaking". This differentiator stimulated Google to "allow" installing on Android without "jailbreaking" the device aka "sideloading", giving the illusion of the kind of freedom that was never in question on normal computers.

It is interesting though how this same conversation doesn't exist in the same way in other areas of computing like video game consoles or other embedded computing devices where the controls against arbitrary applications is even stronger.

The fact that mobile phones aren't yet just a standard type of portable computer with an open-ish harware/driver ecosystem that anybody can just make an OS for (and hence allow anybody to just install what they want) is kind of wild IMHO. Why hasn't the kind of ferver that created Linux driven engineers to fix their phones? Is Android and iOS just good enough to keep us complacent and trapped forever? I can't help but think there might be some effect here that's locking us all in similar to how the U.S. healthcare system can't seem to shake for profit insurance.

I'm sometimes surprised at the plethora of cheap handheld gaming systems coming out of China that support either Linux, Android, or sometimes both, and seem to be based on a handful of chipsets. If anybody ever slapped an LTE module and drivers onto one of those things we'd have criminally cheap and powerful, open phone ecosystem.

Post reply on HN