Exactly right. The message of the post is that "side-loading" is only used in reference to exploitation services. We could just as easily refer to side loading in Linux and it would be accurate in every way, except that there is no exploitation.

It's literally the exception that proves the rule.

The key difference is that one is advised, the other is enforced.

If you used Linux before the repos were fully developed then you understand why they were created.

Who else remembers "dependency hell?"

Corpos just took the same idea and twisted it into something else.

It may feel like a double standard but it's not

Most Linux stores are created and maintained by volunteers

Those stores aren't limiting software they host based on what makes them the most money. Money isn't involved.at all

Linux won't stop you from adding more stores

Linix won't stop you from manually adding any other software, either as a package or even manually building it from scratch

My package manager installs all of the dependencies the program needs and takes care of updates, too. If I install directly from the developer, I have to do all that myself. Fuck that.

Nothing ever comes “directly from the developer”, and any developer that attempts to do so ends up in a level of hell not yet documented. There are way too many distros, way too many architectures, way too many moving targets, that also includes iOS, macOS and Windows. No single developer can hit them all. There's no standard packaging either. So, usually they only package for one or a handful of popular distros, or one container format. But that's the magic of FOSS. Anyone can take the source code and repackage it, redistribute it and make it available for others. This is assumed to be a strength and not a weakness of FOSS and Linux. Thus, the distros create their own official repositories where they make themselves responsible that everything will mostly work nicely with one another.

The difference is that package repositories are safe havens of compatibility. While appStores are enforced cages that cannot be escaped. If a package repository tries to fuck up with users, hurt the FOSS space (looking at you Ubuntu Snaps), or gets compromised by a bad actor; you just move to another repository, another distro, a different format, another safe space. If Android or Apple decides to enshittify and fuck over customers, users, get compromised or do something to hurt developers, you are fuck out of luck. This difference matters.

Because the Linux repositories are apathetic third parties (ie they have no reason to care whether or not you download any given app) while Microsoft and apple are financially incentivised for you to buy buy buy.

This means that when you download a .exe from a vendor instead of going through the windows store you're cutting Microsoft out of their cut of what you paid and you're denying Microsoft information about what it is that you bought. But the flipside is Microsoft didn't impartially verify that it's not malicious.

When you download a .deb instead of going through apt, you're also denying them their cut (of nothing) and you're denying the repository managers the ability to see what you're doing, but Linux people generally trust repository managers to not be selling their habits to advertisers and governments.

I will say there is a reason to side load on Linux though, paid software is sometimes unavailable through repos.

And yet on Linux the advice seems to be never ever download directly from the developer

That's just advice for making life easy for new people, because distro-packaged software is more likely to work well with the operating system. I run packages from devs, even nightly automated builds of stuff, all the time.

I measured the heights of myself and my niece and found them to be different, clearly a double standard must be involved.

You yourself mentioned a lot of differences between corporate app stores and distros' software repositories. Why are you surprised people rate them differently?

Perhaps because your standards are different from more Linux users' standards.

I for example would rather take my chances with a random volunteer rather than trust a corporation that had a history of breaking laws and I know it to want to make money off me.

And yet on Linux the advice seems to be never ever download directly from the developer

Are people really giving this advice that often and that strongly? I find myself building more and more things from source these days. Especially with modern languages that OS maintainers are actually having a difficult time packaging in the way they're used to.

That's the only reason I'm still on android. If I install a different OS I won't be able to login to do anything government related. I won't even be able to pay with my credit card online. I could get a physical code device from the government, but I'm not gonna lie, I really like the ease of access of having an app for that stuff, instead of a seperate device I have to have on me at all times.

I think they're both pretty big problems. An open OS and hardware that supports it seems to be a huge hurdle, but at least there is a clear vision of how to solve it. The problem you bring up though... It seems like we've almost gone too far at this point and it's gonna be really hard to put the cat back in the bag. It seems like something we need to solve with legislation potentially?

All those "apps" are websites. You could say NFC is special, but so is gps.

This. Alternative OS exist: Ubuntu Touch, postmarketOS, SailfishOS, just to name a few.

What is missing are the apps people want. And those include mostly commercial apps, where the developers need to weigh dev hours vs profits, and decide to only target the big two for obvious reasons. That is the key problem.

That's what the OP is referring to: Google just announced they will do their best to kill off sideloading.

Well, the only instances I know of modern phones getting infected are Apple devices where a text message somehow gets into the kernel with zero clicks. Apparently apple insists they're too incompetent to fix this.

I'm getting really sick of products being only available subsidized by a level of invasiveness that should be illegal.

The government should need an individualized warrant to purchase my data. And honestly Google should need one to collect it

I realise you're being facetious, but if anything Google made my phone more expensive with the certification process.

To be clear, Kolanaki is saying that that is not how an OS should behave.

I think that just falls under "make it a bit harder to navigate to certain things so I'm less likely to fuck shit up."

you can get all the right you need with a little trickery. I mean, psexec is made and distributed by Microsoft, freely. a simple download. and I don't think it's bad that the average user can't run everything immediately as TrustedInstaller or SYSTEM.

And on any Intel hardware the true root account belongs to NSA anyway.

It was said you were to destroy the Sith, not join them!

Plot twist: EU is literally wanting to require Google Play services and a Google approved OS to use social media

Lately I've been thinking that what it is, is people trying to eliminate that overwhelming sense of existential dread which springs from all of this, by buying into it, just like fascists do- "if I join them they won't come for me". They start telling themselves that "maybe it's for the best", that "maybe good things will come of it", and once someone makes that jump it's easy for them to become zealous or fanatic, not only because it gives them an even greater sense of empowerment because they're now part of an ingroup or a club, but can also get off even more on perceived moral or intellectual supremacy over others.

These are extremely uncertain times, and uncertainty makes human scared and anxious, and scared anxious humans latch on to anything that gets them out of those feelings, in this case like surrendering before this gargantuan machine that they can neither understand nor control.

It's like with cultists. They crave the comfort of someone telling them what the truth is, to give them certainty. I don't know, something I thought about.

Humans are creatures of habit, and risk averse most of the time. Risk, being change of any sort when things seem "stable."

All you can do is lead by example and enjoy life and tell those poor souls they're stupid for spending money for something they can change the look like MS Office easily.

Ngl, I installed a few OnlyOffices just because of UI.
It has ribbon UI and about the same placement of buttons as MS Office stuff.

It's fine.

(Based in Latvia, but they had a Russian momma, now Singapore.)

because the interface “looks dated”.

The real issue is M$ intentionally not following standards, so that opening an Office doc may or may not properly render in other suites. Hooray for EEE. Fuckers.

I get what you are saying but is it really too much to ask for an interface that looks like it belongs there?