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

541–550 of 646 posts

Re: What we talk about when we talk about sideloading

#541

Post by Thorrez »

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…

>So the platforms have to make it nearly impossible to keep everything in their controlled channel.

I don't understand what you're saying. Are you saying Google is making it harder to develop an app for sideloading than to develop an app for the Play Store? I don't see how that's the case. AFAICT, the new "sideloading" requirements aren't more restrictive than the Play Store requirements.

Disclosure: I work at Google, but not on Android.

Re: What we talk about when we talk about sideloading

#542

Post by 9rx »

TJSomething wrote: post #469
9rx wrote: post #450

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 wil…

I can get a six pack by doing exercises in my house everyday with some weights and resistance bands for 20 minutes a day and by spending 5 minutes a day tracking my food for a year. I don't think that there is a place I can go to make single payer health care happen, even if I spent 40 hours a week for a decade at a 60% pay cut.

> I don't think that there is a place I can go to make single payer health care happen

Being generous in assuming you mean while remaining in the USA: The Amish are quite prevalent in Pennsylvania, Ohio, and Indiana. They've already done the hard work. Joining them may take some small amount of personal sacrifice, perhaps — there is no such thing as a free lunch — but is quite doable for someone who wants it. Like the six pack, all you have to do is jump in and do it.

Alternatively, you can produce your own metaphorical weights and food supply that is to your exact liking, but that is obviously going to take singificantly more input for you to setup and is going to be heavily dependent on other people to buy into your exacting specifications. This route would not allow you to just jump into building the metaphorical six pack at your leisure. It could take many years before you are even able to first produce weights/food, let alone starting to apply them to your six pack journey. But the best time to plant a tree was 20 years ago, as they say. It will never happen if you don't do anything, that much is certain.

Re: What we talk about when we talk about sideloading

#543

Post by bux93 »

palata wrote: post #506
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 totally agree with that. BUT: > Splitting hairs about the origin of the term "sideload" does not change You can't start your article by splitting hairs about the meaning of the term, and then complain that people follow down that discussion :-).

Since you're someone who welcomes splitting hairs: "meaning" and "origin" are different things.

Re: What we talk about when we talk about sideloading

#544

Post by gspencley »

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…

> that was never in question on normal computers.

One of the things that really worries me is that this seems to be creeping in to desktop OS's as well. It's still possible, for now, to install software on Windows 11 without going through the "Microsoft Store", but I remember having to tweak some security settings to make that possible... and was really alarmed the first time I tried to install software on a fresh install and got blocked and directed to the Microsoft Store.

I've always had mixed feelings about RMS and FSF, mostly due to their hardline attitudes (I'm not opposed to proprietary closed-source software even if I have a preference for FOSS... I think there's room for both) but this trend of software installation gate-keeping that came from mobile has me really worried (and I've never been much of a mobile user either, so any creep from mobile into desktop is always unwelcome and alarming to me).

Re: What we talk about when we talk about sideloading

#545

Post by AAAAaccountAAAA »

gmueckl wrote: post #265

I know that this is a controversial take here, but this sideloading crackdown is just fallout from the inevitable disaster that is mixing general purpose computing with high security and reliability requirements. There's just no way at this time in which a single computing device can run software with high reliability expectations (emergency calls), high security expectations (controlled calling/texting, banking, mon…

If that "disaster" was so "inevitable", it would have happened ages ago.

It's not like it was somehow possible to accidentally sideload apps. You have to first find the correct option from the system settings to enable sideloading, and then approve the specific app source you want to install from.

It is not like how things are/were on Windows. Back in the turn of the millennium, it was easier to catch malware than it was to install useful apps. For former, you only needed to double-click on an email attachment, for the latter, you needed to actively to go look for the website of the app developer, and download it from there.

Android already was pretty much at the sweet spot between security and freedom, what it came to sideloading. What Google should have done was to crack down on the scam apps in Play Store. However, they are not going to do that, since it would cut their profits.

Re: What we talk about when we talk about sideloading

#546

Post by fluoridation »

L_226 wrote: post #539
fluoridation wrote: post #532

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But you can. I don't even use telephony anymore; it just works like crap here. I have all my calls over IM. At that point the phone is literally just a normal PC with an Internet connection, it just so happens the connection is wireless.

See my other reply to sibling. If this is how you operate, you are welcome to purchase or build hardware that better reflects your needs. Forcing a private company to modify their product, which people are happily paying for, because you personally disagree is a stretch. The better argument is that other entities whom you pay (government; tax, bank; fees) shall allow non Play or Apple store interfaces to their servic…

>Forcing a private company to modify their product

You have it backwards. The consumer is the one who pays for the product, he's the ones who should get a say of what does or doesn't run on it. You would not accept the same restrictions of any other kind of device. You would think it's an overreach for a printer manufacturer to design its printers so they only accept ink cartridges it approves.

Re: What we talk about when we talk about sideloading

#547

Post by palata »

mechanicalpulse wrote: post #521
palata wrote: post #500

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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. Did you live at a time where Internet was not a thing? I remember very clearly buying software on physical media and never, ever "receiving" a single patch. I don't even know how that would have looked... "buy this floppy disk, it's a patch for a bug in t…

> Did you live at a time where Internet was not a thing? You must be relatively young. Software existed before the widespread adoption of the Internet. > I remember very clearly buying software on physical media and never, ever "receiving" a single patch. You had to take action to receive them. They weren’t automatic updates like they are today. > I don't even know how that would have looked... "buy this floppy disk,…

> You must be relatively young.

Did you read my comment at all? :-)

> You had to take action to receive them. They weren’t automatic updates like they are today.

Are you saying I was doing it wrong?

> updates for Boeing 747s

Oh I get it. Maybe we just weren't playing with the same toys :D

Re: What we talk about when we talk about sideloading

#548

Post by L_226 »

fluoridation wrote: post #546
L_226 wrote: post #539

Earlier quoted context omitted.

See my other reply to sibling. If this is how you operate, you are welcome to purchase or build hardware that better reflects your needs. Forcing a private company to modify their product, which people are happily paying for, because you personally disagree is a stretch. The better argument is that other entities whom you pay (government; tax, bank; fees) shall allow non Play or Apple store interfaces to their servic…

>Forcing a private company to modify their product You have it backwards. The consumer is the one who pays for the product, he's the ones who should get a say of what does or doesn't run on it. You would not accept the same restrictions of any other kind of device. You would think it's an overreach for a printer manufacturer to design its printers so they only accept ink cartridges it approves.

Yes - and the consumer is choosing to buy this product. You can't claim that the vendor should change the product after it has been purchased.

No I don't think it is overreach, I think it is good business. Other institutions (usually, ideally) put constraints on capitalism, through e.g. mandating USB-C, which could also be applied to printer cartridges. A printer company could even do a Patagonia, and make the most environmentally friendly, reusable, printer system available and make it part of their branding.

Re: What we talk about when we talk about sideloading

#549

Post by anticensor »

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…

> Eventually, Linux itself will go the same way, people are just waiting for Torvalds to retire from the project to make their moves, but make no mistake, open general-purpose computing is under threat and there is going to be little we can do to reverse the current trends towards closely monitored and controlled computing.

Thankfully, we can take the last GPL commit of Linux and fork it.

Re: What we talk about when we talk about sideloading

#550

Post by silon42 »

panny wrote: post #226
dataflow wrote: post #166

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hey, question. While I'm also miffed about Google's decision and see your point about the term sideloading, there is another elephant in the room you seem to not be addressing here. You write: > “Sideloading is Not Going Away” is clear, concise, and false_ But isn't Google saying that you will still be able to sideload via ADB ? Which would mean their statement is true, and that your claim that Google's statement is…

>But isn't Google saying that you will still be able to sideload via ADB? No, it will not. Nothing will install an application without a Google approved signature on it. They will remove ad blocks from your Android and you will like it. "The beatings will continue until morale improves" sort of behavior. I'm hopeful that the mystery OEM that GrapheneOS is targeting is in fact Sony Xperia. If it isn't, I'm just going…

Joke's on them. I'm not using ad-blocks, but have been training my neural network (non-AI) to ignore them.
Post reply on HN