Shame on Google and Apple, it was always clear this was the end goal and next up is also your PC.
Right after will come the removal off apps they don't like and there is nothing you can do about it.
Stallman was right
[1] Feel free to discuss this too, if you want. I'm developing my opinion on it.
Read up on the principles of the Free Software Foundation if you want all the details.
Already starting on macos. Gatekeeper had setting where you could allow any app. Now it is removed. While still possible to allow individual app (you need to do it after every OS update), trajectory is now clear.
Even the language we are using to describe the situation is problematic. Why do we say "side-load an app"? It should be just "run a program"!
An OS that doesn't let you run programs of your choice is laughable.
More accurate would be "run a program not approved by Google"
iOS on the other hand historically required a jailbreak for this. I think that's where the confusion started. Android doesn't need a jailbreak, it doesn't need root (privileges), it doesn't need a custom ROM. You can just install stuff, it's normal. I think iOS users don't realize how different Android is and they just start repeating words like sideload and root without knowing what they mean, assuming it's just Android-speak for a jailbreak. They don't realize there's no jail in the first place.
I am aware English is a living language, and if enough people are wrong for long enough, they stop being wrong, but it's certainly painful to witness.
Respectfully, this claim is incorrect. See this 2013 essay [0] for one example out of many where concessions are made to practicality.
Folks who are unfamiliar with Stallman's writing and the general philosophy of the FSF and/or the GNU Project might find spending an hour or so reading through some of the essays here [1] (perhaps starting with this 1991 essay [2]) to be informative.
[0] <https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/is-ever-good-use-nonfree-prog...>
[1] <https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/essays-and-articles.html>
Didn't he give some wiggle room in GPL license ?
> The question here is, is it ever a good thing to use a nonfree program? Our conclusion is that it is usually a bad thing, harmful to yourself and in some cases to others. If you run a nonfree program on your computer, it denies your freedom; the immediate wrong is directed at you.
That is most certainly not making concessions for practicality in my book. So if anything, the citation you provided is IMO evidence for my claim.
If you run a nonfree program on your computer, it denies your freedom; the immediate wrong is directed at you.
That does not mean you're an “evildoer” or “sinner” for running a nonfree program. When the harm you're doing is mainly to yourself, we hope you will stop, for your own sake.
Sometimes you may face great pressure to run a nonfree program; we don't say you must defy that pressure at all costs (though it is inspiring when someone does that), but we do urge you to look for occasions to where you can refuse, even in small ways.
If you recommend that others run the nonfree program, or lead them to do so, you're leading them to give up their freedom. Thus, we have a responsibility not to lead or encourage others to run nonfree software. Where the program uses a secret protocol for communication, as in the case of Skype, your own use of it pressures others to use it too, so it is especially important to avoid any use of these programs.
But there is one special case where using some nonfree software, and even urging others to use it, can be a positive thing. That's when the use of the nonfree software aims directly at putting an end to the use of that very same nonfree software.As we're seeing, time and time and time again, it is harmful. The benefits may outweigh the harms today, but unless the steward of that nonfree software is extraordinarily careful and forward-thinking (as it were), those relationships inevitably go bad and become coercive over time. As we know, Stallman is (and always has been) right about this.
> That, to me, is very much refusing to make concessions to practicality within their ideology.
1) The last paragraph of the opening section is a plain and obvious concession to practicality: "But there is one special case where using some nonfree software ... can be a positive thing. That's when the use of the nonfree software aims directly at putting an end to the use of that very same nonfree software."
2) I'm not sure how saying "We'd be sad and would all be worse off if you used nonfree software, but do understand that there can be compelling real-world reasons to do so. Please don't use nonfree software, or -if that's not possible- consider small ways to avoid using it whenever opportunity presents itself." is anything but a concession to practicality. A hard-liner that refuses to make concessions to practicality wouldn't incorporate such a thing into their philosophy!
Respectfully, are you sure you're not letting knowledge of how Stallman uses/manages/etc his personal computing devices influence your interpretation of what these essays and the FSF's philosophy are about?
Oh? From the "Finding the right bargain" section of this 2002 essay [0]
> So perhaps novels, dictionaries, computer programs, songs, symphonies, and movies should have different durations of copyright, so that we can reduce the duration for each kind of work to what is necessary for many such works to be published. Perhaps movies over one hour long could have a twenty-year copyright, because of the expense of producing them. In my own field, computer programming, three years should suffice, because product cycles are even shorter than that.
Has his opinion changed since then?
[0] <https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/misinterpreting-copyright.htm...>
This is not fascism, this is just a rational move from Google in a market economy. It feels like every time something like this happens, Americans rediscover what capitalism is and implies, then blame it on "human nature", "greed" or "fascism".
“I could have made money this way, and perhaps amused myself writing code. But I knew that at the end of my career, I would look back on years of building walls to divide people, and feel I had spent my life making the world a worse place.”
> A fascist corporation can be defined as a government-directed confederation of employers and employees unions, with the aim of overseeing production in a comprehensive manner.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporatism#Fascist_corporatis...
Google goes even further than that: they do not only control and oversee all production via the Play Store, they also control all usage of their products. And while it may currently not be government-directed, they certainly are government-protected as long as they're allowed to run the only app store in town.
In any case, I hope this blows up in Google's face hard, ROMs like LineageOS become as popular they were back in their heyday, and root hiders get extra attention too so banking apps etc work seamlessly as on non-rooted phones. Requiring some developer ID crap is essentially as bad as Apple has it, reason for which I've always considered developers having Apple phones quite unserious.
> When referring to Android apps, "sideloading" typically means installing an application package in APK format onto an Android device. Such packages are usually downloaded from websites other than the official app store Google Play. For Android users sideloading of apps is only possible if the user has allowed "Unknown Sources" in their Security Settings.[1]
[1] https://android.stackexchange.com/a/84248
[2] https://www.androidauthority.com/how-to-use-adb-android-3260...
It certainly is not harmful, in my view. I think that the FSF's position on this topic is ridiculous. No harm whatsoever is done by running a piece of closed source software on your computer.
> The last paragraph of the opening section is a plain and obvious concession to practicality
No, it's not, at all! It is ideological, not practical, to say that the only reason to deviate from one's ideology is if doing so advances the ideology even faster.
Commercial apps and services will require passkeys and device attestation, so you'll only be able to use open source software even if you have a device to run it.
The walls are closing in, and it's not just mobile. It's only a matter of time before passkeys are used to block Linux users from the commercial Internet as well.
Because with each single person who decides to run a particular non free software, that's a tiiiiiny bit more vendor lock on, a tiny bit of control lost, of power, freedom, given up.
And when enough people do this, what happens? Look at Google. Look at the post you're on. You tell me - what happens?
He's not wrong at all - it's just uncomfortable. This is a side effect of capitalism or maybe humanity. Its nothing you or I can single-handedly solve, or cause. But we each contribute to it a tiny amount.
So, I'm confused. What do you believe that Stallman is right about? If there's never any harm done by running nonfree software on your computer, then what's the problem? I must have misunderstood your commentary here [0] because this statement
> The thing is... he seems to have been right the whole time. Companies really do want to lock you out of controlling the devices you own, and do so at the first opportunity. So... Stallman was right.
certainly seems like you were claiming that there are harms inherent in the practice.
> It is ideological, not practical, to say that the only reason to deviate from one's ideology is if doing so advances the ideology even faster.
Not making a concession to practicality would be saying "There is no circumstance in which one should use nonfree software. Not even in the service of replacing that nonfree software with free software.". You're simply incorrect about this... especially when you also consider point #2 of the section you've quoted from.