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

621–630 of 646 posts

Re: What we talk about when we talk about sideloading

#621

Post by pabs3 »

kragen wrote: post #143
gruez wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Debian has had a "first party store" since the early 90s, and the truth is the diametrical opposite of "they're sufficiently unpopular that people don't think of them as the primary source to get apps". Aren't those all considered first party apps? Sure, debian aren't the authors of nginx or whatever, but they're the people building, packaging it, and adding patches for it. It's a stretch to compare them to the play…

No, it's not a stretch at all. The user experience is the same, except that Debian and F-Droid apps don't come with antifeatures built in. The only friction is around who to report bugs to.

Not sure that is entirely true:

https://wiki.debian.org/PrivacyIssues

Re: What we talk about when we talk about sideloading

#622

Post by necovek »

pabs3 wrote: post #619
necovek wrote: post #297

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Unfortunately, even for desktop software, this has shifted today: you can hardly get a security update without a feature upgrade too. Except in cases like Debian (or Ubuntu LTS main collection, Redhat distribution...) which assumes the burden of backporting security fixes to a stable collection of software.

Debian has exceptions too; for eg all mainstream browsers come with feature upgrades too, even in LTS/stable.

Yes, I remember that discussion at Ubuntu/Debian, where they had to accept those terms in order to keep the name "Firefox" in (remember things like Iceweasel?)

Re: What we talk about when we talk about sideloading

#623

Post by AnthonyMouse »

kuhsaft wrote: post #616
AnthonyMouse wrote: post #614

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Can you provide an example of a current Xbox One or PS5 exclusive that is available on PC? https://x.com/XWineOne/status/1884670205701374063 People make translation layers for the console APIs and then you can play whatever game as long as they've implemented the APIs it uses. It's certainly not because they can't get a copy of the game out of the console. And then how long it takes depends on demand. If you needed…

> https://x.com/XWineOne/status/1884670205701374063 > People make translation layers for the console APIs and then you can play whatever game as long as they've implemented the APIs it uses. It's certainly not because they can't get a copy of the game out of the console. That's not a current Xbox One or PS5 exclusive. Peggle 2 is an Xbox 360 game. The game data on Xbox 360 discs can only be read from the Xbox 360 DVD…

> That's not a current Xbox One or PS5 exclusive. Peggle 2 is an Xbox 360 game.

It's a game that was originally released for Xbox One and is still a console exclusive.

> The game data on Xbox 360 discs can only be read from the Xbox 360 DVD drive. Xbox 360 was jailbroken so that the games can be extracted and downloaded from the discs.

They can only be read from a drive with the right firmware to read them. It doesn't have to be done on the official console and it works for the newer Xbox consoles too:

http://wiki.redump.org/index.php?title=Disc_Dumping_Guide_(M...

> Every game shown by XWine1 has been a game that was on the 360 or also already available for PC.

This is because the number exclusive games is so small.

> I'm sure some of the top selling exclusives on PlayStation and Xbox have had high demand to be played on PC.

It's about aggregate demand. Someone has to implement that console's APIs on a PC, at which point it can play all the games, or if they implement part of the API then all the games that use that subset of the API. This happens quickly if there are thousands of exclusive games that everybody wants and not quickly if there are tens of exclusive games and people only really want like two of them.

> It's only useless on Windows because Windows hasn't fully committed to trusted computing yet.

It's still useless because "trusted computing" doesn't actually work. Any vulnerability in any part of the system can be used to extract everything, and new vulnerabilities are discovered on a regular basis. Several of the vulnerabilities have allowed extracting the keys from the TPM in popular hardware, so pirates can already get as many hardware keys as they want from any of those devices and patching them after the fact doesn't deprive them of any of the keys they've already extracted. And the vulnerable devices are essentially all of them, so if you tried to block every model that could have had its keys extracted your actual customers won't be able to view your content.

> It works as intended. Free Linux can only decode Widevine L3, so you are limited to a lower quality stream. Chrome OS supports L1.

And the pirates have both the L3 and L1 streams. If that's working as intended then it's useless, isn't it?

Unless its actual purpose is to lock people into platforms from megacorps so the megacorps can extract a thick percentage from the actual content creators by monopolizing the distribution path.

Re: What we talk about when we talk about sideloading

#624

Post by BrenBarn »

godelski wrote: post #598
BrenBarn wrote: post #589

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Remember, back then, developers and users often had no after-sale communications at all. They often had no pre-sale communications either, indeed no communication of any kind. It was just like buying a spatula or a pair of shoes. You went to a retail outlet and bought the software; the developer wasn't involved in the transaction at all. It was just the consumer and the retailer. Sometimes there was a postcard you…

> but many people never registered. Which leads to things not getting patched, more bugs, and more computers getting hacked. A great system... I'll also add that if it was a big enough bug that it'd end up on the news and that's how people got informed. Otherwise, like you suggest, good luck. But it was possible. It is baffling to me that we are having this conversation on Hacker News of all places. Aren't we a commu…

I won't deny that all software is going to have bugs. But I think there has been a real shift in mindset over time. When it was harder to patch and, there was greater incentive to make each release a well-tested, coherent product that offered clear advantages over the last one. As it's become easier to patch, it's become more tempting to make each release just a sort of snapshot of what's more or less ready at a certain time, or alternatively a tiny increment. In other words, users are now the testers.

I'm not saying things were perfect in the era of physical-media software. I'm just saying there were some good practices that were made necessary by the constraints of that era that still can be beneficial today, even though we don't have those same constraints.

Re: What we talk about when we talk about sideloading

#625

Post by pjmlp »

chii wrote: post #462
chasing0entropy wrote: post #430

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"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.

> If someone has a solution to prevent piracy without a root of trust that would be ideal and that someone is named Gaben, and the solution is called Steam. He has done more to solve piracy than any media empire who proportedly spent billions in law suits, lobbying and anti-circumvention ever did.

Gaben like all of us isn't going to be around forever, nor Steam is guaranteed to keep being what it is without his leadership.

Re: What we talk about when we talk about sideloading

#626

Post by pjmlp »

eptcyka wrote: post #442
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…

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

To be fair, initially Lisa also had the same document concept from Bravo, and that they took into iOS.

So Apple has been through this before.

Re: What we talk about when we talk about sideloading

#627

Post by Frenziefrenz »

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…

The way the term "sideloading" suddenly popped up for things like apps and ebooks to make it sound like a weird, special thing has always bothered me. It's just installing an app and putting a ebook on your reader.

> 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.

Hear, hear!

Re: What we talk about when we talk about sideloading

#628

Post by Frenziefrenz »

phendrenad2 wrote: post #281
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?

> linux phones are comming up fast How much does it cost to build a barebones phone that (A) runs tuxracer and (B) makes phone calls? Librem: almost as much as an iPhone. PinePhone: You have to travel to the moon to find one for sale. FLX1: Not for sale yet (so PinePhone 2.0) Maybe when I can buy a $100 barebones board that I can hook some AA batteries up to and make calls, and develop a little flappy bird clone, peo…

I actually saw some stuff potentially like that from some Chinese (?) place called LILYGO fwiw.

Re: What we talk about when we talk about sideloading

#629

Post by BrenBarn »

pabs3 wrote: post #619
necovek wrote: post #297

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Unfortunately, even for desktop software, this has shifted today: you can hardly get a security update without a feature upgrade too. Except in cases like Debian (or Ubuntu LTS main collection, Redhat distribution...) which assumes the burden of backporting security fixes to a stable collection of software.

Debian has exceptions too; for eg all mainstream browsers come with feature upgrades too, even in LTS/stable.

Browsers are some of the worst offenders in terms of pushing pointless feature upgrades. It's ironic because the web is supposed to be this backwards-compatible thing but browsers themselves will add and remove features and change their UI for no reason.
Post reply on HN