Soon you wont be able to download any programs on your computer without approval from Daddy Gates himself.
>>106515825since google wants to make installing third party apps as difficult as in an iPhone I guess I'm gonna buy an iPhone insteadWho the fuck does Google think they are? Do they really think that people buy Google because they think it's unironically better?
>>106515825So? If it makes things safer I think it's fine.
>>106515825>>106515857Genuinely, who is this change for? Sideloading is one of the two reasons anyone bothers using Android, the other reason of course being poverty.Who does this appeal to?
>>106515911>Sideloading is one of the two reasons anyone bothers using AndroidLol no, you think so because you're out of touch, normie get android because it's cheap that's it
>>106515931It's ok anon. One day you'll be able to read entire sentences.
>>106515825They tried that.Didn't go well.
>>106515936I did read, I don't agree on APKs being anywhere near a major reason for most
>>106515958When did I say "for most" you illiterate shit for brains?
>>106515942Windows 10/11 actually does have an app verification program that is similar to what Google is proposing.If you try to run a binary file that isn't signed and doesn't have a Microsoft-blessed file hash, you get one of these scary Windows Defender popups.This is a big part of why Windows isn't the malware-ridden hellscape it used to be 10 years ago.The main difference with this and what Google is proposing is that Microsoft lets you bypass it.
>>106516039
>>106516054No this is different from S mode.
>>106516039Running each software in a sandbox unless you're ok with it accessing the hard disk is a better option to fight malware than displaying this scary message that make it look like every non-approved software is malware.
>>106516429Probably, but Microsoft already tried doing that and everyone hated it.
>>106516054That is a hypocritical lie. S mode was made to copy the appstores business: every time a software is bought on their store they tax 20%.
>>106516441>Microsoft already triedWhen? I don't remember them ever trying the sandbox trick.
>>106516457UWPs.
>>106515825We have had smartphones for 20 years now, why isn't there a good OS for them yet? Where's the Linux of smartshit??
>>106515825>from Daddy Gates himselfNot my fucking problem.I use Arch, BTW.
>>106516054SafeScreen isn't S-mode, retard-kun.S-mode was Windows: ChromeOS Edition.
>>106515825At least some of the reason for this is Google invoking the Sampson Option to destroy 3rd-party Youtube clients
>>106515825what stops someone from spoofing the verification?
>>106515825I just hope some kind of non-normie net survives. I will get into mesh networking if necessary. The normienet (and phones particularly) were doomed from the start.
>>106516429capability-based security is intended to solve this problemYou don't need to run each software in a sandbox if each application doesn't have infinite permissionsIf each application only has access to its own filestore and IPC is performed via user interaction using OS features then scary messages are not necessary whatsoever
>>106516039It's weird how you didn't address my point at all. This is not what happened in Windows RT. In Windows RT, you could only install applications from the Microsoft Store. You had to literally jailbreak the OS and custom compile an application from source code in order to get it to run if it wasn't from the Microsoft store. There was no run anyway option.
>>106519496Yeah, but that causes a lot of unnecessary fragmentation and headaches. What if I want to edit a video and then save it, and then it gets saved to the file store of the video editor application, and then I want to play it with a video player - tthe video player can't access the file store of the video editor. going to end up with sandboxing either way.
>>106519553you'd have a dedicated file manager application which gets accessed using the default file manager association, and the file gets saved to the file manager's store. It's entirely possible that certain applications can have deeper access to OS primitives than others.An Apple-style solution is to provide multimedia folders which applications can just access. Nothing saved in those is considered important.
>>106519577>you'd have a dedicated file manager application which gets accessed using the default file manager association, and the file gets saved to the file manager's storeYes, and that's essentially sandboxing, which was my point. You're going to end up with sandboxing either way.
>>106519586I am too drunk to have this conversation.The idea is that you shouldn't need to describe every application as running in an equivalent of Virtual BoxIf every basic ass application (not a file manager) has access to the same primitives which prevents applications from talking to each other without the user getting involved, I think it is already secure enough.
>>106519605>The idea is that you shouldn't need to describe every application as running in an equivalent of Virtual BoxI agree. And so does everyone else. Because that's literally not even the current model.
