[gruez]

>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 itself hardly has any negative connotations aside from something like "not primary", which might be argued as negative, but is nonetheless correct.

>You don't "sideload" software on your Linux, Windows, or macOS computer: you install it.

Right, because those devices don't have first party stores. Windows and Mac technically do, as does some Linux distros, but they're sufficiently unpopular that people don't think of them as the primary source to get apps. Contrast this to a typical Android or iOS phone.

[lucideer]

> Can you corroborate this?

I don't think this is so much a question of sources & corroboration as it is of language.

Regardless of the origins of the term "sideload", the language implies a non-standard practice. The prefix "side-" may be used in some software contexts to describe normal, non-deviant software, but only in cases where the software in question is considered auxiliary. In general, anything described as "side-*" is connoted to be surplus / additional / non-primary at best - adding that to the term "load" & the loading action itself is surplus/additional/non-primary. It's automatically considered non-standard.

> those devices don't have first party stores

This only supports the argument. If somebody felt an alternative term was required on Android because the first-party store was the primary source of software, the only reason they could have for needing such an alternative term would be to explicitly differentiate that alternative source as unofficial/non-standard.

[gruez]

>Regardless of the origins of the term "sideload", the language implies a non-standard practice.

Because it is non-standard. Like it or not, the intended experience is that you get apps from the play/app store, and for most people that's exactly what they do. This is a descriptive statement, not a normative one. Accepting it doesn't imply you oppose the freedom to run whatever code you want. The language of "sideload" or whatever is directly downstream of this. Just because google is using language that reflects the current state of affairs, doesn't mean they're engaging in some sort of sinister psyop with their word choice, as the OP is trying to imply.

[tavavex]

> This is a descriptive statement, not a normative one.

It's both. It's not like "sideloading" is a part of natural language that just happened to evolve this way to describe the practice. The terminology was consciously chosen by the same people who designed the OS to describe it. The people who argue against using this term aren't doing it in some accusatory way, like "you use this term, therefore you're an evil brainwashed minion of the enemy", but rather by using language to not set up their argument on the enemy's terms, no matter how insignificant.

It's like how "jaywalking/jay walking" was popularized - the term itself was pretty crass for the time, the word "jay" conjuring thoughts of some kind of drooling, unintelligent yokel. Back when car infrastructure was still in its infancy, how would you argue that cars shouldn't dominate all streets and cities when the government- and industry-approved name for your action was literally "stupid walking"?

[gruez]

>It's like how "jaywalking/jay walking" was popularized - the term itself was pretty crass for the time, the word "jay" conjuring thoughts of some kind of drooling, unintelligent yokel. Back when car infrastructure was still in its infancy, how would you argue that cars shouldn't dominate all streets and cities when the government- and industry-approved name for your action was literally "stupid walking"?

That makes sense because as you said, "the word "jay" conjuring thoughts of some kind of drooling, unintelligent yokel". The same can't be said for "side", aside from vague accusations that it's not "official" therefore normies think it's bad, but I can't see how you can get away from that accusation without using meaningless phrases like "type 2 install" or whatever (though I'm certain that would get similar amounts of ire for being "second class citizens" or whatever).

[tavavex]

Well, yeah, it's not nearly as extreme, companies have become much better at PR. Still, the insinuations of something being unofficial, unrecognized, unsecured, really half-unintended still paint a picture of how Google wants its software to be seen. Like, I have no doubts that if Microsoft decided to start locking down Windows PCs to the Microsoft Store (the "intended experience" that they probably already imagine for their model customers), the temporary bypass will be accompanied with a prompt like "DANGEROUS: Are you sure you want to enable Unsecured Mode? (Y/N)"

[squeaky-clean]

Do you sideload packages on a Linux computer? Do you sideload a game you purchased on GOG?

[lucideer]

> the intended experience is that you get apps from the play/app store

Once again, this is the point.

> it doesn't imply you oppose the freedom to run whatever code you want

But it does.

Let's first look at what's good about "intended experience" & possible legitimate reasons to have a differentiation between "vendor-approved" 3rd-party apps & non-"vendor-approved" 3rd-party apps.

The connotation of an "intended experience" is that the experience is supported by the OS vendor. If you have issues with your experience, these are issues that can be reported & the OS vendor will endeavor to fix. Leaving aside the fact that Google has no user support to speak of, even if they did, this isn't something they would every offer for 3rd-party Play Store apps regardless. So 3rd-party Play Store apps are not doing anything for users to provide them with an "intended experience" that isn't equally available sideloading.

The only other legitimate reason to have a differentiation would be to ensure the user doesn't install malware. Play Protect currently does this with sideloaded apps, so once again there is no difference in the "intended experience" from the user's perspective.

If there are no legitimate reasons to differentiate the experiences, the only reasonable conclusion remaining is that they're differentiates to dissuade user freedom.

[gruez]

>Let's first look at what's good about "intended experience" & possible legitimate reasons to have a differentiation between "vendor-approved" 3rd-party apps & non-"vendor-approved" 3rd-party apps.

It's pretty obvious that they think the distinction is worth having because they can vet apps they signed, rather than random apks from the internet. You might think that's a flimsy justification, but that's not a reason to reject such a distinction exists at all.

>The only other legitimate reason to have a differentiation would be to ensure the user doesn't install malware. Play Protect currently does this with sideloaded apps, so once again there is no difference in the "intended experience" from the user's perspective.

That's purely reactive (you can't scan for stuff that you don't know about), and doesn't ensure identity validation. Again, you can argue how good those reasons are, but there's at least a plausible justification for it.

>The connotation of an "intended experience" is that the experience is supported by the OS vendor. If you have issues with your experience, these are issues that can be reported & the OS vendor will endeavor to fix.

When was the last time anyone got "support" for Android/iOS from Google/Apple? At best you have random forums that google/apple staff check once in a blue moon, if you're lucky.

[lucideer]

> It's pretty obvious that they think the distinction is worth having because they can vet apps they signed

This is an assumption made in exceptionally generous good faith. It's certainly possible, but I would argue this is far from obvious, & there's enough circumstantial evidence to support this being completely untrue.

Sure, Google can vet apps they sign. Whether having this ability is their primary motivation for having a distinction (or whether they will actually vet apps they sign) is a very different question.

[eipi10_hn]

I'm using Android built-in Package Installer. That's not non-standard.

[kragen]

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.

[gruez]

>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 store or app store.

[kragen]

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.

[gruez]

>No, it's not a stretch at all.

For one, it doesn't contain non-free software, and therefore can't be the primary source of software. Maybe you're a Stallman acolyte who only runs free software, but that's not feasible for the average user.

[kragen]

The average user might have one or two non-free programs they depend on that aren't websites. Maybe AutoCAD, or Photoshop, or SketchUp, or Excel, or the driver for their oscilloscope, or Dark Souls. Everything else can easily be free software or webapps. So an "app store" that doesn't contain non-free software can be the primary source of software, and for almost all Debian or Ubuntu users, it always has been.

The average Ubuntu user doesn't even have those one or two non-free programs. After all, Autodesk doesn't provide a version of AutoCAD for Linux in the first place.

[WD-42]

If you are running Linux non free software in the exception, not the rule. I myself can’t think of any that I run.

[kragen]

Try

    sudo apt install vrms

[pabs3]

Not sure that is entirely true:

https://wiki.debian.org/PrivacyIssues

[shakna]

Apt has supported multiple sources since inception. Debian is not the only supplier.

[gruez]

Right, but those would hardly be considered first party. Just because it goes through apt, doesn't mean it's first party.

[unscaled]

It only goes through "apt the program", but apt is just serving as a method of installing a package, which is hosted on one of the configured apt sources.

Calling all software installed through apt "first party" is a wild stretch, since you can apply the same logic to git, wget, or a web browser. For instance, it would probably be correct to say that most Windows software is downloaded and installed through Chrome, but nobody in their right mind would claim Google owns the largest first party store for Windows.

[shakna]

So is Debian the first party? Or the clone hosted by a university near you? You probably had a mirror there, not Debian's own host. Because they used to be the slowest.

[ptx]

> The word itself hardly has any negative connotations aside from something like "not primary", which might be argued as negative, but is nonetheless correct.

Android has an APK installer built in. Opening an APK file launches the installer and installs the application, just like opening an MSI file on Windows launches built-in Microsoft Installer and installs the application.

Google have gradually added impediments to this over this years, such as a requirement to toggle a checkbox in the settings to enable installation, and later some prompts about letting Google scan the package, but calling the system's built-in application installation mechanism "not primary" is absurd.

[gruez]

>but calling the system's built-in application installation mechanism "not primary" is absurd.

So you're arguing that because play store installs and random .apk installs both goes through packageinstaller, the concept of a "primary" install method doesn't exist?

[ptx]

If we're using "primary" to mean "first-party" (as in your original comment), then the system's built-in package installer is the most first-party of all, so it's definitely not "not primary".

If we're using "primary" to mean something like "most popular", then I don't see how the term "sideloading" would make any sense to describe "not primary". Are we side-commenting here, and side-submitting HTTP requests, because we're not posting to Facebook, the primary website?

[milutinovici]

Linux had "stores" long before android

[marcosdumay]

Yeah, and they are the primary way to install software for nearly every distro that has them.

And even when people install software on their user's home only, we don't call it anything different.

It's correct to say that "sideloading" was created to emphasize it's a deviant activity. I believe it was created by the people doing it, when they discovered hacks that enabled them. But I wouldn't be too surprised it was created by the companies trying to prohibit software installation.

[gruez]

>Yeah, and they are the primary way to install software for nearly every distro that has them.

>And even when people install software on their user's home only, we don't call it anything different.

But even on Android the word used is "install". When you try to install an apk, the button says "install", not "sideload". "Sideload" is only used in the context of google's blog post, where it's there to differentiate between installs from first party sources vs others. This is an important distinction to capture, because their new restrictions only apply to the latter, so something like "installing isn't going way" wouldn't make sense. "sideload" captures this distinction, and is far more concise than something "installing from third party sources". Moreover this sort of word policing reeks of ingroup purity tests from the culture wars, eg. "autistic vs person with autism" or whatever.

[marcosdumay]

Personally, the first time I hear that word, it was about video game consoles. Smartphones weren't popular at the time.

[sharpshadow]

The AI says the term sideloading, apart from its origin, was used to describe loading music via USB without iTunes on iPods.

[keernan]

I view Debian apt as helpful. I view Apple App Store as limiting and controlling.

[hamdingers]

> Right, because those devices don't have first party stores. Windows and Mac technically do, as does some Linux distros

If you find yourself making a statement only to immediately contradict it, consider whether or not that statement is worth making at all.

[jonny_eh]

Plus, I don't see how it is even relevant if a platform has a first party store when it comes to allowing the user to install software.

[gruez]

It doesn't, but that doesn't mean people can't call out disingenuous statements made by the OP. Posts can be directionally correct even if they contain errors, but the errors are still worth calling out.

[eipi10_hn]

Errors are according to you. According to me, they are not errors.

[gruez]

Maybe you should consider reading a few words beyond the passage you quoted, because the "contradiction" only exists with your selective quoting.

[hamdingers]

The contradiction exists because you wrote it. If you wanted to avoid having to write a false statement and then walk it back, you could've left it out and skipped straight to explaining why those platforms' first party stores don't count in your estimation. As I recommended.

[oblio]

"Sideloading" definitely has subpar connotations. Something you do which is not the "main approach". Let's be real here.

[sigzero]

Exactly