Sorry to go off-topic, but the entire existence of the word 'side-loading' is some 1984-level language manipulation. As if installing applications without getting the permission of some abstract corporate owner is the weird thing. No, having to get permission is the weird way to install things.
as a computer moves ever more towards a white-label appliance with a single purpose, the act of "installing" becomes more and more alien. It sucks, but a majority of the computer-using population cares not for it, and only want it to work. Think washing machine - have you ever seen people want to install apps into their washing machine?
If the singular fucking purpose of the washing machine was to run apps, I sure as fuck would expect to see people wanting to install apps on their washing machine.
You can call of whatever you wish. But how did loading from any untrusted source work out for the average consumer for the last 30 years? Viruses, malware, ransomware, etc?
Yes outside of the little HN/geek bubble, it’s way too easy for the average consumer to install malware on their computer.
HN users have been whining about not being able to side load on iOS devices for years. What they really seem to want is to force the app stores to carry anything.
You must get really tired after destroying straw men all day.
1. It worked out great by fostering tons of invention.
2. Untrusted code with sandboxing works well for the web/javascript ecosystem.
3. Yes "HN users" want the freedom to run software of their choice. Discussing a single aspect where one system is better is not some total endorsement of the whole system.
Regarding #3 Android gives you that choice. The open source community didn’t just complain about proprietary software they created something. Linux wasn’t easy to install along side Windows on PCs. But they made a product that some people wanted and advocated for their position until Linux is now the most widely used OS on phones and on servers - including Azure.
