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

641–646 of 646 posts

Re: What we talk about when we talk about sideloading

#641

Post by palata »

godelski wrote: post #639
palata wrote: post #638

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> You came out swinging. You can't throw out punches and expect to not have one thrown back. I was not throwing punches. One can be 25 years old now and never have lived in a world without smartphones or social media. > But pretending that software was ever finished I'm not saying it was perfect (or bug-free). I'm saying that when you shipped, in many situations there was no way to patch the bugs. And even when there…

> I'm saying that when you shipped, in many situations there was no way to patch the bugs. This was never in disagreement. >>>>>> We had patches that [...] that came through physical media. ***The latter making it harder to patch.*** > And I do believe that it became like that precisely because it's easy to send patches. Look, we aren't going to go back to a setting where we don't patch software. That's a WORSE place…

> Look, we aren't going to go back to a setting where we don't patch software.

And I never said we should. I was just describing the situation.

> Look at the Y2K bug [...] We also had similar success in big problems like fixing the ozone layer

That's an optimistic point of view :-). I would argue that both of those were infinitely easier to solve than, say, the current mass extinction, energy problem and climate change. We've past what, 7 of the 9 planetary boundaries? We've pretty much lost the Amazon, we've pretty much lost coral reefs, we've definitely failed at the 1.5C goal and are now moving forward to failing the 2C goal. With the inertia in that system, once you fail there is no coming back in the next thousand years (unlike the ozone, BTW).

Those are real problems that we are not only not solving: we're making them worse. All of them.

> All I ask is that you speak up and question when the teams you work for are trying to push unfinished products.

Most software is part of the problem. The problem is that we do too much in general. Doing requires energy. The more we do, the more energy we use. The more energy we use, the more we screw up the planet. You want to help? Do less. But at the end of the day, you still need to get paid, right? And for that you need your company to be profitable, right?

Re: What we talk about when we talk about sideloading

#642

Post by BrenBarn »

godelski wrote: post #636
BrenBarn wrote: post #624

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 cert…

> But I think there has been a real shift in mindset over time. With this I'm in full agreement. We've moved even further now to where we're selling products that do not yet even exist. It was bad enough we were selling stuff that wasn't fully tested, but worse that we're selling things on a promise. I'd even go so far as to say that the selling of hype creates an environment where we almost certainly will have worse…

I basically agree, but I would say that that "lubricating" effect is still causal. I mean if something is stuck and lubricant is added and then it starts to move, well, the lubricant was at least one of the causes of its moving.

It's true that the major factor is the ideological shift away from caring about doing a good job. I'm not sure how to address that though.

Re: What we talk about when we talk about sideloading

#643

Post by godelski »

BrenBarn wrote: post #642
godelski wrote: post #636

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> But I think there has been a real shift in mindset over time. With this I'm in full agreement. We've moved even further now to where we're selling products that do not yet even exist. It was bad enough we were selling stuff that wasn't fully tested, but worse that we're selling things on a promise. I'd even go so far as to say that the selling of hype creates an environment where we almost certainly will have worse…

I basically agree, but I would say that that "lubricating" effect is still causal. I mean if something is stuck and lubricant is added and then it starts to move, well, the lubricant was at least one of the causes of its moving. It's true that the major factor is the ideological shift away from caring about doing a good job. I'm not sure how to address that though.

A lubricant doesn't cause something to move, but it makes the movement easier. It doesn't apply the force, even if it reduces the force required to create the movement.

Causality is the force, not the modifiers.

Think about it this way:

  Lubricant exists, force doesn't =/=> movement

  Lubricant doesn't exist, force does => movement
We can make things less likely to move by removing the lubricants but we can add as much lubricant as we want and it won't start making things move.

This is why I say "don't throw the baby out with the bath water" because we actually still want the baby. But we do want to address the root issues.

  > that *the* major factor
I want to be clear, there is not a singular factor.

Normally we solve problems by breaking them down into little ones. But the harder version is finding what little ones result in the big one. It's like working from the top of a graph to find a node and it's children vs starting at a leaf.

  > I'm not sure how to address that though.
Start with the little things. Start where you can. If you have the chance to make something better or hold someone to higher standards, try that. If you see someone else trying to, lend them a hand. Often we don't stick or necks out because we're afraid we're alone. But we're not. The "first follower" is one of the most important people in creating a group. They're a lubricant ;) You don't have to be first or take the most risks, but if you can make it easier for people to do so then that's still very helpful

Re: What we talk about when we talk about sideloading

#644

Post by BrenBarn »

godelski wrote: post #643
BrenBarn wrote: post #642

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I basically agree, but I would say that that "lubricating" effect is still causal. I mean if something is stuck and lubricant is added and then it starts to move, well, the lubricant was at least one of the causes of its moving. It's true that the major factor is the ideological shift away from caring about doing a good job. I'm not sure how to address that though.

A lubricant doesn't cause something to move, but it makes the movement easier. It doesn't apply the force, even if it reduces the force required to create the movement. Causality is the force, not the modifiers. Think about it this way: Lubricant exists, force doesn't =/=> movement Lubricant doesn't exist, force does => movement We can make things less likely to move by removing the lubricants but we can add as much…

I think I'm taking a more broad reading of causality than you. A lubricant can cause something to move, if the thing was previously stuck. Causality is not just "the" force, it is the totality of contributing factors to the event. If a dam bursts, then the weight of the water above it, the weakness of the sluice gate (or whatever), and the unseasonably warm weather that induced bolts to expand can all be causes.

> Start with the little things. Start where you can. If you have the chance to make something better or hold someone to higher standards, try that. If you see someone else trying to, lend them a hand.

I'm increasingly convinced that this isn't even close to sufficient. I mean, not to say it shouldn't be done, but I don't think that doing that is going to turn the tide against people doing the wrong thing. There needs to be more deliberate and forceful action to actually stop people doing the wrong things, not just encourage people doing the right things.

Re: What we talk about when we talk about sideloading

#645

Post by permalac »

blueg3 wrote: post #204
bnjms wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You argue here that google is technically correct because they’re correctly using sideload. But that isn’t the point people are angry about. The point is that sideload was a misnomer. Correctly Android users were able to install packages and now cannot. This is anti consumer and breaks the social contract. Anyway this is so disingenuous that I think it’s astroturf. Here’s the meme we should’ve spreading: Chrome and A…

> Correctly Android users were able to install packages and now cannot. Not only has nothing happened yet, but this is also untrue.

Android users will at some point next year not be able to install software unless the developer has paid and registered itsef with Google, and Google has approved the developer and the software (for an uncertain amount of time).

That is not nice.

Re: What we talk about when we talk about sideloading

#646

Post by vagab0nd »

rcarmo wrote: post #584
vagab0nd wrote: post #150

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This year, I discovered SideStore on iOS, and its wonderful auto-refresh feature. Since then, I have written two iOS apps and am happily using them daily with zero issues. This plus the new Google announcement mean no going back to Android for me any time soon.

Doesn't really fix Apple's 7 day re-signing on iOS 26.

But it does. That's the "auto refresh" feature. Zero maintenance after setup.
Post reply on HN