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

71–80 of 646 posts

Re: What we talk about when we talk about sideloading

#71

Post by Groxx »

lisdexan wrote: post #57
999900000999 wrote: post #26

You know, this would be a fantastic time for Google to get their sandbox in order. If we need to do it like this, go ahead and create a secondary user, call it sandbox and let me install all my wild and unapproved apps there. SecureNet can automatically fail in Sandbox. But I don't think they're going to do that, ultimately users who actually care about this are an absolute tiny percentage of the market. And weirdos…

I haven't tested it myself, but as far as I know you can run ADB in the phone itself via Termux. Perhaps it's possible to make a wrapper that install apps from F-Droid with ADB? It would mean that you would only need to be tethered to the your PC once. Obviously they'll eventually remove this because Google is hostile to things like ReVanced / some spook wants this power.

AFAICT it only works on non-rooted devices when used over USB to access another device, because without root it has no access to the adb server on the phone running termux.

I'm definitely not 100% sure about that though, so someone please correct me if not.

Re: What we talk about when we talk about sideloading

#72

Post by t_mahmood »

999900000999 wrote: post #51
Brian_K_White wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But what would be the point when no one would bother writing an app for such a small user base?

So I can test my own apps on my own devices, or upload them to itch for other weird people. I don't feel like giving Google a large amount of my personal information just so I can distribute free games. Why do they need a copy of my lease ?

The point parent is making, if Google makes it so difficult sharing the software with other people, who is going to make those itch-the-scratch software going through so much trouble?

We would miss out a lot of creative people making software.

Re: What we talk about when we talk about sideloading

#73

Post by Manuel_D »

999900000999 wrote: post #26

You know, this would be a fantastic time for Google to get their sandbox in order. If we need to do it like this, go ahead and create a secondary user, call it sandbox and let me install all my wild and unapproved apps there. SecureNet can automatically fail in Sandbox. But I don't think they're going to do that, ultimately users who actually care about this are an absolute tiny percentage of the market. And weirdos…

But the purpose of prohibiting sideloading isn't security. It's preventing of apps like NewPipe and Vanced.

Re: What we talk about when we talk about sideloading

#74

Post by BrenBarn »

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?

> Or strictly only software updates that are 100% aligned with your wishes whatever they may be at the time?

Um, yes? Constant push-updates are one of the worst tech trends of the last 10-20 years.

Re: What we talk about when we talk about sideloading

#75

Post by gruez »

hypeatei wrote: post #58
bigstrat2003 wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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. That is not a fact, that is your opinion. Lots of people say "sideload" without trying to convey such negative meanings. For better or for worse, the term has entered the common lexicon and I very rarely see it used with negative connotations…

> Lots of people say "sideload" without trying to convey such negative meanings Sure, but they effectively do even if they're not trying to. It comes off like you're up to no good or doing something dangerous. Like GP said: deviant.

>Sure, but they effectively do even if they're not trying to.

What specific acts are referring to? Is it just their recent plans to restrict sideloading? This feels circular. "Google is evil because they're trying to restrict sideloading. They're also extra evil because trying to demonize sideloading. How? By restricting sideloading!"

>It comes off like you're up to no good or doing something dangerous. Like GP said: deviant.

Yes, but only insofar as if you're not taking the primary route, you're taking the "side" route. Or you're "deviating" from the intended route. None of that actually implies you're a "deviant" for doing so, any more than a driver taking side streets to shave 30s is a "deviant".

Re: What we talk about when we talk about sideloading

#76

Post by alex7734 »

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?

No forced updates, no downgrade prohibition, no bootloader locking, kernel GPL compliance (with drivers that can be loaded in it, even if they are closed source), no remote attestation.

The bare minimum so that I can use the device I bought as I wish, even if the manufacturer later decides to "alter the deal".

Re: What we talk about when we talk about sideloading

#77

Post by kragen »

gruez wrote: post #49
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…

>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. Can you corroborate this? At least for me, the whole idea that "sideloading" has negative connotations only came up as a result of this debacle, and the only evidence I've seen are some very careful readings of blog posts from Google. The word…

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". It's been almost the only way I install software (that I didn't write) on my Debian and Ubuntu machines since I moved to Debian. This is true of most Debian and Ubuntu users.

Re: What we talk about when we talk about sideloading

#78

Post by cesarb »

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?

> You don't want software updates?

Most of the time, software updates remove features, change things around for no good reason (breaking our workflows), or add unwanted features.

We really should separate pure bugfix updates (which include security updates) from feature updates. We nearly always want the former, but not necessarily the latter.

Re: What we talk about when we talk about sideloading

#79

Post by dotancohen »

Ajedi32 wrote: post #66
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…

I agree it's a pointless distraction, but it's a distraction you instigated by trying to language police your own supporters. I and most others who use the term sideloading don't use it because we want to make sideloading "feel deviant and hacker-ish", we use it because it's the commonly accepted term for installing apps outside the app store. I'm open to alternative phrasing, but "direct install" doesn't work becaus…

  > and "installing" doesn't work because that doesn't distinguish from installing from the Play Store
I'm not choosing sides, but why do you need a term to distinguish from installing from the Play Store? On my Debian machine I install git from apt (officially supported) but also install Anki from a tarball I downloaded from a website. Same term `install`.
Post reply on HN