What we talk about when we talk about sideloading • Hacker News Board

Re: What we talk about when we talk about sideloading

#421

Post by BrenBarn » Wed, Oct 29, 2025, 5:17 AM UTC

rendaw wrote: post #370

Valodim wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

I think this is a good point, even if you're presenting it as a false dichotomy. Obviously saying "Apple shouldn't be allowed to touch my device after I purchase it" as well as "Apple should be compelled to provide security updates" is nuts. But I think saying, "Apple shouldn't be allowed to touch my device after I purchase it" as well as " I should be able to provide my own security updates, if Apple doesn't want to…

I don't think Apple should be compelled to provide security updates. I think Apple should be held accountable for security vulnerabilities in anything they release. You can't evade liability by patching it later.

Re: What we talk about when we talk about sideloading

#422

Post by BrenBarn » Wed, Oct 29, 2025, 5:19 AM UTC

tavavex wrote: post #195

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.

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 mean, maybe, but I think what you're describing is a view so bleak and fatalistic that it amounts to saying the world may as well self-destruct because there's nothing we can do about it.

Re: What we talk about when we talk about sideloading

#423

Post by jibal » Wed, Oct 29, 2025, 5:22 AM UTC

__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…

No, that obviously won't happen.

Re: What we talk about when we talk about sideloading

#424

Post by Nevermark » Wed, Oct 29, 2025, 5:22 AM UTC

Valodim wrote: post #36

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?

Why would anyone want an update misaligned with them, ever?

You should be able to set auto update, auto update with confirmation, manual update only, for any or all apps.

What someone does with that, and why, isnt something anyone should have to explain or excuse.

It could be as simple as not wanting any new features beyond but what an original version of an app has. Or not wanting an update that takes user data surveillance to another level.

Re: What we talk about when we talk about sideloading

#425

Post by Barbing » Wed, Oct 29, 2025, 5:27 AM UTC

hansvm wrote: post #303

zouhair wrote: post #186

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have no idea what to do when they lock everything up. I just hope my bank app works with a non google phone.

My HSA just implemented some bullshit where even the web interface requires a near-new phone to even log in. For now I'm just switching HSA providers rather than buying a new phone. I'm also worried about the future.

Wow, what are they checking for, newer OS?

Re: What we talk about when we talk about sideloading

#426

Post by aussieguy1234 » Wed, Oct 29, 2025, 5:28 AM UTC

akerl_ wrote: post #252

aussieguy1234 wrote: post #240

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'd like to be able to install my own software on all of these

I'm not asking what you'd like to do. I'd like to be able to customize all of those things too. I'm asking why taking a device that uses a microcontroller and making a new model with an ARM chipset and a Linux-based OS seems to suddenly make people treat the ability to install custom software on it as a fundamental right.

If I own it, regardless of if it's Linux or ARM based, I should be able to install things on it.

Re: What we talk about when we talk about sideloading

#427

Post by anonzzzies » Wed, Oct 29, 2025, 5:34 AM UTC

Terr_ wrote: post #43

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.

First thing on the list for me is dramatically reforming the Digital Millenium Copyright Act (DMCA), which currently makes it a federal felony to provide other people any information or tools they might use to control the devices they own, ex: > Thanks to DMCA 1201, the creator of an app and a person who wants to use that app on a device that they own cannot transact without Apple's approval. [...] a penalty of a fiv…

The DMCA stuff is quite annoying for more reasons but all are US; my hoster and internet provider both have standard emails for DMCA and copyright violations from US companies: "We received this, we do not care if you act on it, cheers.".

Re: What we talk about when we talk about sideloading

#428

Post by brailsafe » Wed, Oct 29, 2025, 5:43 AM UTC

unsungNovelty wrote: post #378

Despite all the bad moves, one of the reasons why I use android and not iPhone is installing apps from places like fdroid. If this stops, it fundamentally disallows me to have the privacy that Apple app store can't provide. The amount of garbage apps in play store is horrible. I don't try out any new apps from there cos of this. So I will just switch to iPhone. Already degoogled for pretty much most things. This will…

To me this seems analogous to the motivation of certain people, as soon as they were able to work from home during the pandemic, to move to some arbitrary other cheaper place only because they were no longer required to go into the office.

Specifically it's weird to me that those people, akin your statement about platforms, don't seem to have a sense of place within which they do their stuff, whether that stuff is talking to the friends in your neighborhood regularly or checking your email; there aren't any other reasons you prefer Android, iOS is the default?

I personally don't fucking like iOS at all, never have, but I've always let myself re-evaluate it when the opportunity comes up. I find the UI clumsy and primitive, lacking in personality, customization, versatility. It was just fine on my old iPad for a few basic tasks, and it's still just as fin and just as basic, relatively speaking, on newer devices. However I am a career-long macOS user by choice. I usually admire both macs and iPhones for their hardware design.

Likewise, even though I moved to my relatively high cost of living city for a job years ago, if my current one let me WFH exclusively, I'd move... nowhere, this is exactly where I want to be. There is always some threshold of course whereby favoring one choice over another is too costly to maintain, but even though this particular freedom topic is important to me, I'm not about to just switch platforms because I've secretly hated it otherwise.

Re: What we talk about when we talk about sideloading

#429

Post by shakna » Wed, Oct 29, 2025, 5:44 AM UTC

gruez wrote: post #149

shakna wrote: post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Apt has supported multiple sources since inception. Debian is not the only supplier.

Right, but those would hardly be considered first party. Just because it goes through apt, doesn't mean it's first party.

So is Debian the first party? Or the clone hosted by a university near you? You probably had a mirror there, not Debian's own host. Because they used to be the slowest.

Re: What we talk about when we talk about sideloading

#430

Post by chasing0entropy » Wed, Oct 29, 2025, 5:45 AM UTC

kuhsaft wrote: post #385

bane wrote: post #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…

> It is interesting though how this same conversation doesn't exist in the same way in other areas of computing like video game consoles Historically, when the first game consoles with game cartridges existed, the hardware was much more niche than the available personal computers. Game system developers designed hardware specifically for games, and game developers developed for those specific systems. Also, physical…

"That being said, digital marketplaces and DRM have there place to prevent piracy and allow developers and creators to make a living.

If someone has a solution to prevent piracy without a root of trust that would be ideal.'

This is the equivalent statement to inspecting everyone's bag at any point because they might have something illegal. It's not an acceptable move from google.