4 ms·

Its my device. Not google's. Imagine telling you which NPM/PIP packages you can install from your terminal. Also, its not SIDE loading. Its installing an app.

freefaler 11mo ago
Well... it would be good if this was true, but read the ToS and it looks more like a licence to use than "ownership" sadly :(
- AnthonyMouse 11mo ago
  "Android" is really a lot of different code but most of it is the Apache license or the GPL. Google Play has its own ToS, but why should that have to do with anything when you're not using it?
- johnnyanmac 11mo ago
  Google doesn't own AOSP. We don't need any google apps on an andoid phone for it to function.
xnx 11mo ago
I agree, but I don't see why Google gets more critical attention than the iPhone or Xbox.
- _blk 11mo ago
  iPhone has always been that way (try installing an .ipa file that's not signed with a valid apple developer certificate). For Google forced app verification is a major change. Xbox I don't know..
- deleted 11mo ago
  [deleted]
- deleted 11mo ago
  [deleted]
da_chicken 11mo ago
Yeah, let's ask the Debian team about installing packages from third party repos. I'm not on the side of locking people out, but this is a poor argument.
- cookiengineer 11mo ago
  > Yeah, let's ask the Debian team about installing packages from third party repos. Debian already is sideloaded on the graciousness of Microsoft's UEFI bootloader keys. Without that key, you could not install anything else than MS Windows. Hence you don't realize how good of an argument it is, because you even bamboozled yourself without realizing it. It gets a worse argument if we want to discuss Qubes and other distributions that are actually focused on security, e.g. via firejail, hardened kernels or user namespaces to sandbox apps.
  - Ms-J 11mo ago
    "Debian already is sideloaded on the graciousness of Microsoft's UEFI bootloader keys. Without that key, you could not install anything else than MS Windows." This is only true if you use Secure boot. It is already not needed and insecure so should be turned off. Then any OS can be installed.
    - Lammy 11mo ago
      I agree with you and run with it disabled myself, but some anti-cheat software will block you if you do this. Battlefield 6 and Valorant both require it.
      - a96 11mo ago
        This is the real malware that people should be protected from.
    - HumanOstrich 11mo ago
      While it's possible to install and use Windows 11 without Secure Boot enabled, it is not a supported configuration by Microsoft and doesn't meet the minimum system requirements. Thus it could negatively affect the ability to get updates and support. > It is already not needed and insecure so should be turned off. You know what's even less secure? Having it off.

freefaler 11mo ago

Well... it would be good if this was true, but read the ToS and it looks more like a licence to use than "ownership" sadly :(

AnthonyMouse 11mo ago
"Android" is really a lot of different code but most of it is the Apache license or the GPL. Google Play has its own ToS, but why should that have to do with anything when you're not using it?
johnnyanmac 11mo ago
Google doesn't own AOSP. We don't need any google apps on an andoid phone for it to function.

xnx 11mo ago

I agree, but I don't see why Google gets more critical attention than the iPhone or Xbox.

_blk 11mo ago
iPhone has always been that way (try installing an .ipa file that's not signed with a valid apple developer certificate). For Google forced app verification is a major change. Xbox I don't know..
deleted 11mo ago
[deleted]
deleted 11mo ago
[deleted]

da_chicken 11mo ago

Yeah, let's ask the Debian team about installing packages from third party repos. I'm not on the side of locking people out, but this is a poor argument.

cookiengineer 11mo ago
> Yeah, let's ask the Debian team about installing packages from third party repos. Debian already is sideloaded on the graciousness of Microsoft's UEFI bootloader keys. Without that key, you could not install anything else than MS Windows. Hence you don't realize how good of an argument it is, because you even bamboozled yourself without realizing it. It gets a worse argument if we want to discuss Qubes and other distributions that are actually focused on security, e.g. via firejail, hardened kernels or user namespaces to sandbox apps.
- Ms-J 11mo ago
  "Debian already is sideloaded on the graciousness of Microsoft's UEFI bootloader keys. Without that key, you could not install anything else than MS Windows." This is only true if you use Secure boot. It is already not needed and insecure so should be turned off. Then any OS can be installed.
  - Lammy 11mo ago
    I agree with you and run with it disabled myself, but some anti-cheat software will block you if you do this. Battlefield 6 and Valorant both require it.
    - a96 11mo ago
      This is the real malware that people should be protected from.
  - HumanOstrich 11mo ago
    While it's possible to install and use Windows 11 without Secure Boot enabled, it is not a supported configuration by Microsoft and doesn't meet the minimum system requirements. Thus it could negatively affect the ability to get updates and support. > It is already not needed and insecure so should be turned off. You know what's even less secure? Having it off.