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

441–450 of 646 posts

Re: What we talk about when we talk about sideloading

#441

Post by kuhsaft »

chasing0entropy wrote: post #430
kuhsaft wrote: post #385

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

I think it's more equivalent to when game consoles check the license on disc media.

It used to be via hardware in the disc reader, then online license checking. And now it's fully digital, media and license.

The fucked up part is the fact that we can't transfer digital ownership of purchases. But at least I can use my purchases across multiple devices. Maybe this is what we should use blockchains for, but it would still require a locked device with root-of-trust.

---

> It's not an acceptable move from google.

By all means, you can have an unlocked Android device with a non-Google sanctioned OS and not use Google Play. That way you can use any app that doesn't require Google Play Protect.

Companies are OK with it because it makes them money. The majority of users are OK with it because they can use those companies' apps.

Re: What we talk about when we talk about sideloading

#442

Post by eptcyka »

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…

It took years before Apple relented and allowed the concept of a file be exposed to end users.

Re: What we talk about when we talk about sideloading

#443

Post by BrenBarn »

tonyhart7 wrote: post #375
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.

"I then have 100% control over that device and the hardware maker, the retailer, and the OS maker have a combined 0% control." the problem is transaction not done once you own the device, you must use the ecosystem Google and Apple create this ecosystem and they own it, so even if you have 100% control of your device but you cant live without their ecosystem OS is just "half the battle", if its so easy Microsoft woul…

Right, so that's what needs to change.

Re: What we talk about when we talk about sideloading

#444

Post by godelski »

grishka wrote: post #393
godelski wrote: post #380

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Unironically, I want finished software. I don't think software is ever finished. But I'd definitely love to not be shipped alpha or beta software. MVPs are great when hacking, but why are we shipping hacked together stuff. "It works" doesn't mean it actually works...

> I don't think software is ever finished. Back when it came on physical media, it was very much finished. Needing an update to fix a critical bug or a UX issue was a very costly problem to have, both in money and in reputation. Users had to be convinced to buy and install major updates, instead of being strong-armed into it. Staying on an older version was easier, and in case of operating systems, much more widely a…

  > Back when it came on physical media, it was very much finished.
That's also not true and I think you're not reading my point fairly. Back when software came on physical media we still had patches. We had patches that came through the internet and we had patches that came through physical media. The latter making it harder to patch.

It's a great situation when a bug is discovered and it is hard to patch.

You're fantasizing about a time that never existed. Software isn't "ever finished" because we are not omniscient writers who can foresee all problems, fix all bugs, and write software that is unhackable. That's the mindset that "all tests pass" or "it works for me" means the software "works."

We can't address the problems, as discussed in the article and that I mentioned in my comment, if we're going to retcon history and redirect ourselves to a worse environment. That doesn't fix anything.

We'll never be omniscient, sorry. The world changes. Hardware changes. Software rots. Time marches on. These do not change and we have to operate in a world where we acknowledge these basic facts of reality. We'll never make decent software if we can't acknowledge reality first.

Re: What we talk about when we talk about sideloading

#445

Post by kuhsaft »

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…

> 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.

Yeah. It's called capitalism, where the reasoning behind everything is "How can businesses make a profit?". And in the U.S., it's also, if the business doesn't make a profit I'll starve.

Re: What we talk about when we talk about sideloading

#446

Post by dgoldstein0 »

degamad wrote: post #333
terminalshort wrote: post #316

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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, yo…

I agree that our choices should not be limited to protect us. However, we need a better solution than pop-up warnings. I guarantee that you have clicked through a pop-up warning that was standing between you and the thing that you wanted to do (as have I, and everyone else who has used a computer for more than a day). We very quickly learn that most warnings aren't going to affect us, and that they're just saying "ar…

Which is why the default is often move to trash these days, or includes an undo option for a bit instead of a confirmation dialog.

But some actions are pretty hard to undo (eg installing malware), so the issue in general stands.

Re: What we talk about when we talk about sideloading

#447

Post by dgoldstein0 »

rs186 wrote: post #214
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…

> a step so bold for an OS that even MSFT never even dared try in its worst Windows monopoly days I don't think it's like "MSFT didn't dare to try", but rather "MSFT was too stupid to come up with the idea". They didn't have the ability to manage it either (and till this day their Windows Store app still sucks with tons of bugs). Not to mention that Windows was already wide open, never with a restriction "you can onl…

Also can you imagine trying to download software over the Internet in the 90s? They couldn't depend on their users having high speed connections because most didn't. App stores probably couldn't work before 2000.

Re: What we talk about when we talk about sideloading

#448

Post by andruby »

9rx wrote: post #437
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…

> 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. Yup. The Amish have had no trouble implementing a single payer healthcare system in the USA. It can be done, where the people want it. But, by and large, the people really don't care. In the back of their minds they might think it would be nice to have i…

I understand what you're saying, but I still think it's wrong to blame the people "not wanting it". The corporations and politicians are really powerful and they go far and wide to protect their profits and interests.

Yes, the people could care more and could stand up for it, but it's so easy to blame them and that's exactly what the corporations & politicians want.

Re: What we talk about when we talk about sideloading

#450

Post by 9rx »

andruby wrote: post #448
9rx wrote: post #437

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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. Yup. The Amish have had no trouble implementing a single payer healthcare system in the USA. It can be done, where the people want it. But, by and large, the people really don't care. In the back of their minds they might think it would be nice to have i…

I understand what you're saying, but I still think it's wrong to blame the people "not wanting it". The corporations and politicians are really powerful and they go far and wide to protect their profits and interests. Yes, the people could care more and could stand up for it, but it's so easy to blame them and that's exactly what the corporations & politicians want.

Maybe in some magical AGI future computers can do the work, but until then where else is the effort going to come from? It isn't going to randomly appear out of thin air, that is for sure. There is nothing else to "blame" but them.

It's not the "corporations"[1] keeping you from that six pack, nor it is it keeping you from building a single payer healthcare system. Not wanting to put in the toil to make it happen will certainly get in the way, though. We all understand why nobody really wants to put in the hard work and suffering to make the necessary changes, but that doesn't change the fact that it won't happen until you do it.

[1] Which, in this context, is just another way to say people. And in this case often the very same people. ~40% of US corporate stock is held by Average Joe retirements savings account (IRA, 401k, etc.). Ask these people if they'd like a single payer healthcare system and the answer would almost certainly be "Yes!". But if you then ask them to do the work to see it through: "Never mind. What we have will do.".

Post reply on HN