To add another data point, I've been hosting a (tiny) matrix server for a few months. I'm pretty comfortable with self-hosting using docker, so I opted not to use the ansible scripts in the hope that it'd keep my setup simpler and more maintainable. Somehow I didn't find any mentions of ESS until Synapse was already up and running, but Kubernetes would have been a dealbreaker for similar reasons.
In this short time I've run a database migration (sqlite is the default, but MAS requires postgres), tried and failed to migrate to MAS (required to use Element X) and have lost a couple of days messing around with coturn and eturnal with nothing to show for it -- my calls still don't connect when NAT is involved. I have to tell new users to ignore the recommendations to install Element X until I get MAS working.
There's a lot of room for foundational improvements here, even updating docs to point would-be server admins to the recommended setup du jour would help.
I agree with the ethos but "banning installing" wouldn't have been correct here.
There should be terminology for installing from the source of your choice which doesn't carry the marginal or sinister connotations of "sideloading" though.
"Freeloading" would have been a good one but... yeah
If we're being pedantic, the user still has to perform the final action before the install begins. I think it' more "Google has to allow you to install apps on your phone"
My first encounter with "sideloading" I think was loading up a MP3 player with music, for some reason that was called "sideloading" by some people. In that case, "sideloading" was just transferring basically, nothing about installing.
But once Android appeared, and there was one Google-approved way of installing applications (Google Store) and one way of installing directly from .apk after enabling "Unknown Sources", then the word started to be used for the second approach.
I don't remember if it was Google who started using "sideloading" or the community itself, but regardless, "installing" would be a more understandable word for anyone to use for the processing of installing an application on your phone, as (what I recall to be) the original meaning was just transferring.
> My first encounter with "sideloading" I think was loading up a MP3 player with music, for some reason that was called "sideloading" by some people. In that case, "sideloading" was just transferring basically, nothing about installing.
Probably influenced by the original iPod, which really wanted you to sync your iPod with your iTunes library (conveniently directing you to purchase all of your music from Apple's platform). "Sideloading" referred to the few extra steps to get your computer to simply expose the iPod as a removable storage device and drag-and-drop your mp3s over that way.
It wouldn't have made sense in the context of other mp3 players, because for many of the ones I remember (like my Creative Zen Touch), that was the only way to add the mp3s. I don't think Creative even supplied a front-end media manager...or if they did, I never bothered installing it.
Steve Jobs himself said in his famous “Thoughts on Music” letter that was posted on the Apple home page that less than 10% of users music on iPods were bought from iTunes.
> Probably influenced by the original iPod, which really wanted you to sync your iPod with your iTunes library (conveniently directing you to purchase all of your music from Apple's platform).
iTunes (the software) came out before the iTunes (the music store) and iPods and Apple actually marketed the iMacs as “rip mix burn”.
Even before the iTunes store appeared, I always hated the over-complicated import/sync pattern.
1. "Import" your files into iTunes "library"
2. "Sync" that library with a device
My computer already has a filesystem. Why do I need to involve some application's "library"? I hate applications that insist on grafting its own "library" container on top of my already-working filesystem. My OS already allows me to copy files. Why do I need to rely on that application to copy files? Just expose the thing as a mass storage device and let me use my OS!
Because with iTunes, I could and did have regular playlists and smart playlists using conditions like ratings, last played, play count, number of times skipped (so that it would automatically be removed from a playlist if I continued to skip a song on my iPod or computer), genre, year released, etc.
You couldn’t have that metadata with just file syncing. Later when iTunes was introduced, it had to support DRM.
Later it also had podcast syncing.
I used iTunes to burn CDs before I had an iPod.
And don’t forget that Jobs being able to negotiate users being able to buy music on iTunes with DRM [1] and letting users burn them to a DRM free CD was so revolutionary that even Bill Gates was impressed.
[1] later Jobs argued in the same “Thoughts on Music” letter that instead of Apple licensing its DRM the record label should license DRM free music to everyone since most music was already sold as DRM free CDs and then everyone’s music could work anywhere. Only one record label took them up on the offer from day one. It wasn’t until 2009 that all of the record labels agreed.
Yeah, people in my circles and also people on the internet would refer to it as "sideloading" even though none of us were using iPods (I think this was all before the iPod actually, but my memory is a bit hazy), just copy-paste the files with explorer.exe over to the built-in MP3 player storage, people calling it "sideloading".
It's bypassing the usual channel for app installations, so the term is technically fitting and the loaded meaning is also appropriate since it's mostly used by nerds (maybe too strong a word) and bad actors.
There are legitimate uses of sideloading for regular users, for example if you have solar panels that work with a Huawei app, they can't put it on the Play store because of US sanctions. But that's not Google's fault, and that does mean the app is more risky since it's not monitored by Google.
(I'm not saying sideloading is otherwise illegitimate, it's an important feature but it's not something I'd normally recommend to a non-technical user that already chose to use a phone with Google's system.)
> that does mean the app is more risky since it's not monitored by Google.
Why is Google the arbitrator of risk here ?
As a user I'm capable of assessing the risk directly or indirectly by delegating that responsibility to another store or another program a.k.a anti-virus programs, its my choice in the end.
I want Google to build software like Windows Defender and allow others to build similar software. I want the ability to chose my security provider or not have one. I don't want Google to play nanny.
Because they do the monitoring and take some responsibility? I'm just comparing "install from the Play store" with "install some apk from wherever". If you bring additional context/knowledge of course it makes a difference.
Risk and responsibility are different. Monitoring, responsibility, those are just silly words with semantic games since Google's store is full of malware while F-Droid is not. Google's store is the risky one, and the words on their compliance statements are irrelevant to that fact.
I don't feel like I'm the one playing semantic games here, I'm just arguing that the term "sideloading" is a useful distinction vs "installing through the main channel" (whatever that is: could be the Play store, or F-Droid, or Huawei App Gallery).
Google's store has malware, but the point is there would be even more if Google was not monitoring the apps there. The store is less risky than getting apks from the wild web, TikTok, etc.
Sure F-Droid is safer (as you would expect from a curated store of a few thousand open source apps compared to a store with literally millions of apps). But I wouldn't call that sideloading either when it's your regular channel to get apps.
Just because its the channel that google would prefer you use doesn't mean its "the usual channel". What counts as "usual" is user specific. I don't even have google play installed on my Android phone.
Sure, but if we want to chip away at that majority, we need to encourage them to think of using the play store as a choice they have. Implicitly assuming that "install" means "install from the play store" is counterproductive.
I'm curious what's your actual opinion in absence of hard data. If your grandma tells you a website gives her instructions for sideloading Candy Crush, you'd say yeah fine or advise her to go through the Play store?
Exactly. Let's invent a word for "installing from play store". Playstoring?
So we can rewrite the story to something like: Google wants to prohibit app installation on Android phones. The only way to get an app would be through playstoring.
I can install on my Fedora laptop through dnf. I've never felt like I needed a new word to describe downloading and running an AppImage. Why would phones be different?
`adb sideload` existed as a command for installing an apk from your PC on to your phone. Sideloading was not meant to refer to installing an apk on the phone from the phone.
That actually sounds like a good idea, the situation is similar with an official channel of "trusted" software for which the distributor takes some responsibility, versus whatever file you downloaded yourself. It's certainly more risky on a Debian system to install a .deb from some random website, or an AppImage, compared to a .deb from the official repositories. I guess it's the same for Fedora.
The whole selling point of Android up until now was that it allowed you to install any app you want.
The point of the above comment is that Google intentionally introduced the word "sideload" to make "installing an app on your own device which Google did not curate" sound more risky and sinister than it is, and I'm inclined to agree.
I "make" coffee on my keurig. If Keurig decides that making any single-serve coffe pods that aren't owned by the Keurig brand is now called "off-brewing," I'd dismiss it as ridiculous and continue calling it "making coffee."
We should use the language that makes sense, not the language that happens be good PR for google.
>The whole selling point of Android up until now was that it allowed you to install any app you want.
Could've fooled me. Maybe it was a thing a decade ago when android just launched, but none of the marketing pages for vaguely recent phones has that as a selling point. At best it's a meme that android proponents repeat on hn or reddit.
We're not talking about phones, we're talking about an operating system. If those companies could port IOS to their phone, they probably would. Since the OS will be mostly the same across devices, it makes sense to market a phone based on hardware differences -- like having a higher quality camera.
I've never met or talked to an android user that truly believes android is better technology or a better user experience. They all use it because of flexibility.
You've changed the subject. We were discussing whether one ought to use Google's term for it, or the term that's been used to describe this action since (I assume) the beginning of personal computing. Not whether Google is legally allowed to make the change.
My reason for bringing up the "selling point" was to bring attention to the language -- "You can install any app you want" has always been the common refrain when I see friends get into a debate about IOS vs Android. People are already using the term because it makes the most sense.
Calling something a right is an assertion about morality; it implies that a law to the contrary would be a violation of that right.
I do not believe an an OS vendor with an app store has a right to limit alternate distribution channels or that a government does something wrong by restricting such practices as unfair competition.
"I do not believe an an OS vendor with an app store has a right to limit alternate distribution channels or that a government does something wrong by restricting such practices as unfair competition."
but its not illegal and wrong tho???? if this is probihited then xbox,playstation,nintendo,ios etc would be fined already
unironically android is still more "open" than all of its competitor even after all of this
It might be illegal in the EU under the DMA. As I understand it, litigation involving Apple's equivalent is in progress, and the outcome may not be known for years.
Wrong in this context is an assertion about morality. I do think it's wrong in the context of consumer products for a vendor to attempt to override the wishes of the owner of the product outside of a few narrow exceptions. I would absolutely apply that to iOS, and I think the DMA didn't go far enough; Apple should have no ability to enforce notarization or charge fees to app developers if the device owner chooses otherwise.
I feel less strongly about game consoles because they're not as important as smartphones; they don't touch most aspects of life in modern society, and there are viable alternatives for their primary function, such as gaming on PCs. I don't like their business model and I don't own one.
all of big tech doing it for 20+ years and suddenly google isnt allowed to do "industry standard", like what we talking about here????
I know its bad for pro-sumer which is minority but consumer would get more protection which is majority so I dismiss HN audience because they are biases vs normal people
They all should be? I've never understood why gamers just accept constant blatant anti-competitive practices, going so far as to act as if "exclusives" via DRM are a good thing rather than monopolistic product tying. e.g. it's been demonstrated that a Steam Deck is technically capable of running Switch games better than a Switch, and yet you are forced to buy a Switch in order to buy the games.
It's no longer 30 years ago when hardware was unique and quirky and programs were written in assembly specifically for the hardware. It's all the same commodity parts along with what is supposed to be illegal business practices. In a reasonable world, something like Ryujinx would be just as front-and-center as Proton as part of Valve's product features, and courts would fine companies for trying to stop their software from working on other platforms.
Antitrust law exists exactly to prevent companies from making their own ecosystem/walled garden that competitors cannot sell into. Product tying (forcing you to buy product B in order to buy product A) falls under that umbrella. Game console are not magical in this regard.
Lots of us have a problem with all of those things, and would like the government to enforce the law. I've never bought an Apple product, and the last game console I owned was a PS2 when I was a child.
I don't see how that's related (e.g. Android is FOSS but can use attestation for monopolization), but I do think we ought to make the law require products that contain software come with source as a consumer protection measure.
I do not get this use of the word "reality"? The reality is Ted Bundy's currently-at-large successor has the ability to shoot me with a gun. And that fact is about as relevant as what you said.
What you're doing here is resigning from a game just because of the fact there is a game, and then being condescending to other people for trying to win the game instead, as if what you're doing is something superior. This would already be very odd behaviour if this were only Monopoly or Risk, but is downright dangerous propaganda when the game is capitalism and the future of free computing is at stake.
I'm not too familiar with macOS... How normal/expected is it now to install through the App Store? As mentioned in another comment, for a Linux distribution like Debian there are highly trusted official repositories, and I think using "sideloading" for other sources would make some sense.
On macos I assume most apps are installed outside of the Store, straight from the developper's site. Which would make the Store a "sideloading" channel by that token ?
On Linux you have the default package sources, but for instance adding third party sources will still integrate the same with the system, I also never heard someone call installing Go or Java "side loading", though you're getting an installer from the site you need to run on your own. Same way for building from source.
IMHO "sideloading" would not apply to any system open enough, where adding stuff from multiple sources is expected from the start.
> Which would make the Store a "sideloading" channel by that token ?
I don't think so, it's still an official channel offered by the OS maker.
> adding third party sources will still integrate the same with the system
but obviously with a higher risk of breakage since it was not tested while the official release was cooking (at least for Debian the official set of packages in stable is expected to have virtually no conflict issues, but as soon as you add third-party sources all bets are off).
> I also never heard someone call installing Go or Java "side loading"
neither have I, but I can imagine that in some contexts it could be a useful term. Like "did you sideload Go?" (implicitly asking if you got the third-party release vs installing from the official distribution repository). I'm not saying people say that, but that the term might also make sense in the Linux world.
> IMHO "sideloading" would not apply to any system open enough, where adding stuff from multiple sources is expected from the start.
Yeah if there's no sense of "main" channels that are more trusted or more stable the term doesn't make sense.
Doesn't feel like any conspiracy.. Isn't sideloading installing through adb instead of from the system itself? (by clicking on an APK or using an app Store like Xiaomi/Googled/Huawei/Fdroid)
No, on android, it always meant installing an APK directly, without a store-app. You can use ADB, but you also can just download the APK on your device and install it locally with your browser or filemanager.
sure, google is trying to cash in. not saying theyre nice people. but the handwringing over semantics and suggesting Google has a master plan to abuse vocabular just sounds ridiculous
What exactly is ridiculous to the idea, that maybe there was a google meeting where the name was debated and the pro and cons of different names evaluated from their buisness perspective?
Looks like a cool product, and I'd be interested to see if it could work as a more capable replacement for my android tablet.
That said, I'm crossing my fingers for an AMD offering in future. Battery life is a huge consideration in this form factor for me, and Intel tends to be underwhelming at best.
It's a bummer they discontinued the framework Chromebook, and there is no ChromeOS version of this. Seems like it would be an awesome fit.
It's really cool being able to run android apps on the Chromebook. ChromeOS is really interesting these days, I like "floating" the bambu 3d printing app to easily monitor a print. It's also nice for using the Google photos Android app which exposes additional options that the web version doesn't have. 64G RAM makes ChromeOS really powerful being able to run multiple android apps, crostini, and kvm virtual machines all at the same time.
I bought a Surface Pro for that reason and liked it, until the usbc ports started overvolting and frying everything they touched. currently on a 13" ASUS ProArt flip-over 2-in-1 with pen support like this. overall I love it. I probably would have waited for the framework if I had known it was coming. if your primary use case for the tablet is reading and media, it'll probably be a good fit.
that said, I'll probably never buy a 2-in-1 like this again. my primary use case for the surface was diagramming, note taking, and brainstorming. I used the pen and kick stand all the time. if I needed the keyboard I could pull it out and clip it on, tho after a while I rarely felt the need to bring it with me. by contrast the asus's flip-over mechanism feels too unwieldy and cumbersome. it can't be used at a kickstand type angle since the hinge isn't stuff enough to hold it up while writing on it. it's well-built, just the wrong use case.
It's a bummer they discontinued the framework Chromebook, and there is no ChromeOS version of this. Seems like it would be an awesome fit.
It's really cool being able to run android apps on the Chromebook. ChromeOS is really interesting these days, I like "floating" the bambu 3d printing app to easily monitor a print. It's also nice for using the Google photos Android app which exposes additional options that the web version doesn't have. 64G RAM makes ChromeOS really powerful being able to run multiple android apps, crostini, and kvm virtual machines all at the same time.
It's more like waiting 2-3 days after roasting. Beans should ideally be used within 2-4 weeks of the roast date, with darker roasts/blends being more forgiving.
For espresso at least, the advice is to let it rest for 1-2 weeks after roasting. Roasting traps CO2 in the beans, and the aim with resting the coffee is to let some of it escape. It’s especially important for espresso but resting filter blends up to 2 weeks after roasting is becoming common advice too.
the grind needs to be adjusted for room conditions (temperature and humidity). What typically happened in the cafes I've worked in is the barista would dial it in in the morning (by taste) and then adjust in the afternoon. Worth mentioning that these places use grinders with much smaller increments than your typical domestic grinder.
For the record, single origin beans for black coffee have lost most of their top notes 2-3 weeks after roasting
I got into manual lever espresso during the pandemic, and was shocked at how different the same coffee on the same grind setting would act under pressure at 10am and 3pm. Settings would be perfect for 10am, but a complete mess barely able to hold pressure as the water gushed through the puck at 3pm.
> single origin beans for black coffee have lost most of their top notes 2-3 weeks after roasting
nah. Sey coffee, one of the top roasters in the country (who also buys very high quality green coffee to roast), puts on the package "best after 2 weeks"
and it's relative, top grade coffee after it gets "old" (for whatever value of old) is still better than lesser quality that never tasted that good in the first place. I'm talking about aromatics, tea like fruit notes, etc.
Agreed, GNOME is so user-hostile that I'm actually a little impressed.
Personal example from trying GNOME out recently: I have an external webcam, which means I need to move the GNOME panel clock since it's in the top middle of the screen (and thus blocked by the base of the webcam). You would _think_ that would be easy, but you have to get an extension just to move the clock! Apparently each panel "widget" (this may or may not be the official term) defines its own position on the panel. So, to move something, you need to either find an extension that does it (Frippery Move Clock[0] in this case) or edit the widget code yourself.
Maybe someone can chime in with a technical explanation, but my cynical take is that the GNOME devs don't even trust users to be smart enough to customize their own panel without breaking things.
They're not really user-hostile, they just have limited development resources and making a polished interface for editing the positioning of top bar widgets would be way too much work. If you want to try things on your own, that's what unofficial extensions and tweaking tools are for.
Can’t really blame them for not producing the slick configuration GUI for every option. But it is annoying that they always go for the slick configuration GUI, as if they were a for profit company with a bunch of full time devs. Meanwhile every other open source program, recognizing that it has limited developer time (and interest in boring grunt work), just sets up easier text-centric config first…
The text-centric config for GNOME is dconf/gsettings. But what people like to complain about is graphical configuration, which adds enough maintenance burden that it's only worth doing if it's going to be friendly enough for most novice users.
There are several full time paid developers working on it which is plenty of resources (AFAIK more than KDE). They are not only actively user-hostile but also community-hostile. Every library or project they have under their umbrella receives updates all the time that only serve GNOME and potentially break all software dependent on it that are not part of GNOME (e.g [1]).
The example doesnt seem to support your argument. The rationale the developer gives here is reasonable and looks like good stewardship of a shared library - the patch added a new API that was tightly based on termites' needs and provided little benefit for other terminal programs. What the maintainer wanted was a more complete API for the feature. The termite dev said he did not want to implement this feature in the library. This is also reasonable. Its his code and his time. So we have two people who can't find/commit to a solution everyone is happy with. It doesn't really seem user hostile at all, just that something couldnt be worked out. Sure, its frustrating when its an app you really like, but sometimes interests wont align even when it seems from the outside like they should.
That reading doesn't really agree with the maintainers' responses at all.
They say this is desirable functionality, but that they would want to subsume termites features in VTE and Gnome Terminal, and that was their rationale for rejecting the patch. Then they didn't deliver those features in a timely fashion.
What you're saying is simply that GNOME developers don't want to pick up development and maintenance burden that isn't going to directly benefit their project. If you think there's opportunities to share projects or libraries across DE's, the proper venue for that would be freedesktop.org not really GNOME itself. Then the maintenance load can be shared as well.
This has been tried. All you will get is rejected pull requests. What makes it even worse is that GNOME has usurped many projects that were original not part of GNOME but that the community relies on (one example is the "GIMP Tool Kit"). This led to the death of many long tail niche projects which are the actual strength of Linux/FOSS.
Nah a bunch of clowns funded by private companies used their salaries to boost their egos to develop stupid anti-user centric desktop software starting after gnome 3 launched. Remove all options, treat everyone like an iPad baby and try to leverage the existing desktop to do a radical paradigm shift, when all people wanted was GNOME2+. This is actually different than KDE3->KDE4 transition, which while it was a total disaster in terms of usability and reliablity, continued to keep the roots of a power desktop in terms of flexibility configuration and software customization.
GNOME2+ is still around, that's what Mate is. GNOME 3 and later releases has great support for convergence, which is incredibly popular among users - while also being very easy to use via the keyboard, for a more traditional workflow. Ubuntu's Unity interface was built with similar goals, so this is quite far from a pure GNOME thing.
Many high-end laptops have touchscreens these days. So the resemblance is quite appropriate. I would like to see a "compact", non-touchscreen mode in case no touch hardware is being used but it should be optional, for users who are okay with that level of fine-grained control.
Dude, please. You're posting a shallow dismissal of a project that's doing a lot of work to make *nix-like OS's more usable for novice and non-technical users. HN deserves a lot better than this.
I used GNOME for a long time, but I didn't like the bloat, among other things, such as the "I know better than you" attitude from the devs. At the same time KDE has a tendency to get me into rabbit holes, and then inevitably something breaks at some point that I don't know how to repair because it is rather too complicated of a system. (This is ~2017, not sure if things have changed). For now, I just use bspwm, polybar and a set of GUI applications. While they are less friendly to set up, they are much easier to understand for me.
Things have changed a lot since 2017. In 2017, I wouldn't touch KDE with a barge pole because I had work to do and it would disassemble itself if I looked at it funny.
Now I'm writing this reply from KDE, quite comfortably, and it's quite stable. Comfortable, even. And it doesn't get stupid and die when I plug/unplug monitors and stuff.
Similarly, nowadays I use XFCE but could have been KDE as well, JavaScript everywhere and having killed design tooling for Gtk4, doesn't really make it appealing, and once upon a time I wrote an article for "The C/C++ Users Journal" advocating for Gtkmm.
In this short time I've run a database migration (sqlite is the default, but MAS requires postgres), tried and failed to migrate to MAS (required to use Element X) and have lost a couple of days messing around with coturn and eturnal with nothing to show for it -- my calls still don't connect when NAT is involved. I have to tell new users to ignore the recommendations to install Element X until I get MAS working.
There's a lot of room for foundational improvements here, even updating docs to point would-be server admins to the recommended setup du jour would help.