←back to thread

Is it possible to allow sideloading and keep users safe?

(shkspr.mobi)
205 points ColinWright | 6 comments | 30 Aug 25 12:03 UTC | HN request time: 0.021s | source | bottom
Show context
m463 ◴[31 Aug 25 05:39 UTC] No.45080628[source]▶
"sideloading" connotates something that is negative.

On systems before apple's locked-down iphone, it was just called "installing".

The PC revolution started with people just inserting their software into the comptuer and running it. You didn't have to ask the computer manufacturer or the OS vendor permission to do it.

And note that apple doesn't allow you to protect yourself. You cannot install a firewall and block arbitrary software on your phone. For example, you can not block apple telemetry.

replies(8): >>45080727 #>>45080995 #>>45081451 #>>45082064 #>>45082687 #>>45083125 #>>45088266 #>>45100572 #
pjmlp ◴[31 Aug 25 06:01 UTC] No.45080727[source]▶
Which is why alongside freedom came the business of anti-virus.
replies(3): >>45081201 #>>45081373 #>>45083051 #
wiseowise ◴[31 Aug 25 07:39 UTC] No.45081201[source]▶
Never in 20 years of using Linux/Macs I’ve ever needed anti-virus.
replies(7): >>45081249 #>>45081507 #>>45081768 #>>45081860 #>>45082078 #>>45082191 #>>45082263 #
mike_hearn ◴[31 Aug 25 09:22 UTC] No.45081768[source]▶
Macs come with an Apple provided antivirus built in, it's called XProtect.

Apple also has enforced a similar policy to what Google is doing, but much stricter, and has done for ~13 years or so (devs must be identified, the OS rejects unsigned code in all territories by default, Apple pre-approves all binaries even outside the app store).

Linux distros have policies far more extreme than anything Google, Apple or Microsoft have ever done. They explicitly don't support installing any software not provided by their "app stores". Getting into those requires giving up your source code to them, and they reserve the right to modify it as they see fit without informing anyone, reject it for any reason or no reason at all (including reasons like "we don't have time"), and they tie getting new releases of your app to the user upgrading to new releases of the OS. If you do try and install stuff from outside of your distribution, not only are there security warnings to click through but an expected outcome is that the OS breaks and the vendor washes their hands of you.

Despite those policies, or perhaps because of them, botnets of Linux servers are common.

Of all consumer-facing platforms only Windows and Android allow installation of unsigned third party code out of the box via some obvious graphical path. And on Windows that right is somewhat theoretical. You can do it but the built in browser will try very hard to stop you, and the OS itself will happily break unsigned code by blocking file open syscalls heuristically. So in practice most apps don't go the unsigned route. On Android OTOH, unsigned (non ID verified) code is sandboxed and works just like regular apps after installation, the OS won't heuristically interfere with the app.

replies(6): >>45082250 #>>45082856 #>>45082983 #>>45083088 #>>45083113 #>>45085343 #
BLKNSLVR ◴[31 Aug 25 11:06 UTC] No.45082250[source]▶
That's an interesting take on Linux. I see it as a lot closer to what Windows programs were like back in the day, where you can install whatever you want.

Linux distributions each have their built in package managers, but there's no 'policy', as I understand it, that prevents installation of, literally, whatever you want. It's generally more difficult than just downloading and double clicking on the installer / exe, but just follow the instructions and it's done.

And, yes, also there are weird version and dependency issues that crop up more than would be ideal, but that's not the topic.

replies(1): >>45082444 #
1. mike_hearn ◴[31 Aug 25 11:46 UTC] No.45082444[source]▶
There's no such policy on any OS except iOS I believe. You can override the security mechanisms on every other OS. The question is only how hard is it? On Linux, worst case, it can easily require compiling the program from source. If Apple or Microsoft imposed a policy that said you can install whatever you want but only by compiling from source, people would lose their minds!

And, note, back when I was a Linux user, distro vendors and evangelists justified that situation by security. They said we don't want people distributing software outside of our repositories because that's how Windows users get viruses, so we deliberately won't make it any easier.

So the Linux community doesn't get to cry freedom and decentralization now, IMHO. The time to do that was 25 years ago when Debian was being praised for having big repositories. Some of us actually did point out how centralized and authoritarian that approach was, I even built a system for distributing apps in binary form to all distros (with hacks and shims for binary compatibility), and that projects attracted some volunteers, but we got pilloried for not "getting" UNIX. One Debian developer even called us monkeys.

The users got tired of this and bypassed them with Docker, a much more decentralized system in which anyone can publish images without binary compatibility problems, and using them isn't tied to your OS version or OS vendor policies. But Docker is also centralized around Docker Hub, and Docker Inc do ban images and developers when malware is found:

https://jfrog.com/blog/attacks-on-docker-with-millions-of-ma...

Not so different to what the app stores do.

It's fair to say that the only OS vendors who have ever taken decentralized and free app distribution seriously are Apple, MS and Google. The open source world went all-in on the centralized store model from the start and never looked back.

replies(2): >>45082492 #>>45083064 #
2. detaro ◴[31 Aug 25 11:57 UTC] No.45082492[source]▶
External, non-distro-maintained package repositories have been common for ages. I was still in elementary school, so my memory is a bit fuzzy, but I'm fairly sure downloading and installing individual packages was something I did too in the 90s. And fundamentally, any system that is open enough that "you can compile whatever you want on the device" is an option can also have binaries distributed.

Sure, the Linux ecosystem has not prioritized binary compatibility as much, so doing so has been harder, people culturally expected "use existing libraries" more than "just bundle everything", but as you note that attitude has shifted too and it always was possible, and nothing seriously suggested preventing it.

replies(1): >>45083083 #
3. rpdillon ◴[31 Aug 25 13:36 UTC] No.45083064[source]▶
> And, note, back when I was a Linux user, distro vendors and evangelists justified that situation by security. They said we don't want people distributing software outside of our repositories because that's how Windows users get viruses, so we deliberately won't make it any easier.

Never heard that argument, ever. `apt-get` literally allows you to add whatever repositories you want. You're conflating two completely separate worlds. The first is the world of Linux that pretty much invented the idea of a software repository for an operating system. This was invented because Linux has the notion of "distros", and the trick there is to provide a set of packages that all work together in that distro. That's the purpose of curating packages in the repos (along with Free Software licensing, in the case of distros like Debian). But this system was always federated, where users were empowered to add any additional software repositories they needed. F-Droid on Android copies the exact same architecture, allowing the user to add endpoints of servers they want to pull software from.

The second is a system of control built by Google and Apple. It has nothing in common with the Linux system, but rather was designed to vend proprietary software that extracted money from users, for the purpose of lining Google and Apple's pockets. When Tim Cook testified about app store fees and the judge queried him about why they were so high, he said "To lower those fees would be to give up the full return on our App Store investment." Basically: we're charging this much because we can.

Conflating these two systems and the reasons for their design would be very misleading.

> It's fair to say that the only OS vendors who have ever taken decentralized and free app distribution seriously are Apple, MS and Google. The open source world went all-in on the centralized store model from the start and never looked back.

It is not even remotely fair to say this. In fact, it's so misleading it feels malicious. The only operating system on the planet that offers user-supplied software repositories that work with the built-in package management system is Linux. Full stop. And Linux doesn't even only have one of these systems, it has several. Flatpak, Debian repos, Ubuntu repos, Arch's AUR, Slackware's third party repos, etc. And users don't have to "work around" the system to use any of this - simply adding new URLs works great, and it's always been this way.

https://wiki.archlinux.org/title/Unofficial_user_repositorie...

https://documentation.ubuntu.com/server/explanation/software...

In short, Windows and MacOS and Android have never taken third party software distribution seriously in the least, and have done nothing to support it. Linux has built-in support for third-party repositories, and has for decades.

replies(1): >>45083411 #
4. rpdillon ◴[31 Aug 25 13:39 UTC] No.45083083[source]▶
Indeed. I remember installing Slackware in '97 and looking at some dev's alternate repos. Looks like Slackware still has third-party repos, though I stopped using it 25 years ago. =)

https://slackware.pkgs.org/

5. mike_hearn ◴[31 Aug 25 14:30 UTC] No.45083411[source]▶
> In short, Windows and MacOS and Android have never taken third party software distribution seriously in the least, and have done nothing to support it. Linux has built-in support for third-party repositories, and has for decades.

They all have sophisticated systems in place specifically to support third party software distribution that works (and is relatively safe):

• Windows has the app store, MSI, and MSIX (which allows efficient installs and updates from arbitrary web servers). MSIX is a package manager, by the way. It also has API support for writing AV scanners, managing software deployments across managed networks and so on.

• macOS has .dmgs, notarization, Gatekeeper

• Android has support for installing APKs from the web with a package identity system that lets anyone self-sign their software.

Above all they consider installing apps that aren't controlled by the vendors to be a core feature, so they work hard to provide binary compatibility, bug workarounds, multi-year deprecation cycles, anti-malware scanners and more, all for the benefit of developers who develop their apps independently of the vendors.

Linux can be reconfigured with additional repositories, technically, but that feature was originally designed for reducing bandwidth usage with mirrors. It wasn't meant to allow third parties to distribute software on their own schedule, which is why these third party repositories are invariably locked to a specific version of a specific distribution. Developers who complain about this are just told every version of every Linux distribution is a unique OS, and that they should open source their apps to let distributors centrally take ownership of their work.

It's changing a bit now with Flatpak. But for the bulk of Linux's history, that was the gig: no supported way to distribute your apps, and third party repositories would come with health warnings from your OS vendor. Not a supported way to use the OS. If it breaks you keep the pieces.

replies(1): >>45086105 #
6. rpdillon ◴[31 Aug 25 19:12 UTC] No.45086105{3}[source]▶
Completely disagree...none of those are systems as comprehensively distributed as what Linux offers. Much of what you listed is centralized infrastructure.