>How is that different from "installing software"?
It's easy to see this play out if try to replace "sideloading" with "installing software". If you apply it to OP's headline of
>Google confirms 'high-friction' sideloading flow is coming to Android
You get
>Google confirms 'high-friction' installing software flow is coming to Android
which isn't at all accurate. You still need the distinct concept of "installing software not from first party sources", otherwise it sounds like google is making it a pain to install all apps, which isn't the case.
Sure, you could argue it helps to express a distinction but that doesn't mean it has to live inside the verb install. Historically installing software was the general act and provenance was handled with qualifiers eg installing from "third-party sources", "manual install" etc. Android is alone among computing platforms in collapsing that qualifier into a new term that implicitly recenters the Play Store as the default meaning of "install."
In other ecosystems the store path is described as "store install" not the other way around. Android chose the inverse framing and that choice isn't neutral.
>Sure, you could argue it helps to express a distinction but that doesn't mean it has to live inside the verb install.
Right, which is why they used "sideload".
>In other ecosystems the store path is described as "store install" not the other way around. Android chose the inverse framing and that choice isn't neutral.
No, this is just being non-neutral in the opposite direction. Given the fact that installing from the play store is the default experience for the overwhelming majority of the user, calling it "store install" is even more obtuse.
"That’s why they used sideload" is exactly the point being contested. Historically, install was the unmarked, neutral verb for adding software, regardless of source. The distinction, when needed, lived in qualifiers about provenance. Introducing a new verb for non-store installs does more than merely describe a difference, it reassigns conceptual ownership of "install" to the store path.
And neutrality here isn't about mirroring current usage frequency (which is unique to Android and recent relative to the history of computing), it's about continuity with prior computing norms. Even when one distribution path dominated in practice, it didn't get to redefine the base verb.
How are "programming" "coding" and "developing" different? Is a "tap" different from a "click"? How about "swipe" vs "drag"?
Sometimes we use different words in different contexts. Language usually doesn't make logical sense. In mobile environments you sideload to get the binary onto the device and use the OS to properly install it. This dates from a time where putting the binary on the device was the difficult part. Devices didn't have standard ports or fast/free wireless data. You had to do something special to transfer the data.
In a lot of cases, installation was also a separate special process involving the command line. It wasn't always just tapping the install button.
Repaste is a likely solution, since that generation was before we switched to Honeywell phase change thermal interface material. Traditional thermal paste will slowly pump out over time. We do have Honeywell material in our Marketplace. You can also reach out to our support team for help.
Less and less of AOSP is being updated also, as Google rolls most of its new features and updates behind the Play Services system. Install Graphene and you will see what I am talking about - the SMS app for example hasn't been updated in probably a decade and looks and functions like it did back in Android 4 (KitKat). Same with the other built-in apps. While I used Graphene myself for a solid 6 months, the features you have to give up on using or find some obtuse workaround for aren't appealing to the "normies" who just want their phone to do what they want, no matter the unseen ethical cost (in this case, sacrificing the ability to freely install 3rd party apps).
Someone on another forum said it very well - people like "us" were Google's foot in the door, now along with Apple they have such a stranglehold on the mobile OS space that a 3rd viable and comparable contestant becomes less and less likely by the day.
Throw in how Google starting with Android 16 is not releasing updated drivers with AOSP and Graphene probably doesn't have much life left in it, either.
> While I used Graphene myself for a solid 6 months, the features you have to give up on using or find some obtuse workaround for aren't appealing to the "normies" who just want their phone to do what they want
Did you use GrapheneOS with the Play Services? Sounds like you didn't. Of course if you don't use the Play Services, you lose... the Play Services. But GrapheneOS allows you to run them in the sandbox.
> Throw in how Google starting with Android 16 is not releasing updated drivers with AOSP and Graphene probably doesn't have much life left in it, either.
This sounds incorrect. Google decided to stop sending the device tree of the Pixel devices in AOSP. And GrapheneOS is still fine, though it will take more effort because they won't get the device tree from Google.
Regarding 3. Battery life - I’ve had a ThinkPad Nano for several years that, on Windows 11 would get roughly 4-6 hours battery, and this was optimized (very few running apps, no junk on startup, power saving settings on, etc). I switched it to Ubuntu (I was surprised that everything worked out of the box too, all of the hot keys and everything), and it will get about 8-10 hours doing the same tasks (primarily Chrome). So there is something to be said about Linux in general just being so much more “light weight” so to speak vs windows, which has become such a bloated mess.
But the main issue I had was your point 4, since the thinkpads screen is 2K, everything was either too small (with no scaling) or too big (with scaling on).
What’s even more bizarre is how often they update the Win10 calculator app from the Windows store. Never had any idea that a calculator would need bi-weekly updates, but shrug
The boat was built and set sail under Bush and the GOP congress, under the super-Orwellian PATRIOT Act. I am not happy Obama expanded their powers but fail to see how the GOP would make the situation better.
The boat has been under construction for decades. The FISA courts were set up in 1978 (that's the Democrat Carter, and I believe that it was Democratic Congress at the time, too), but even that was only a response, trying to rein in the national surveillance apparatus that was already running wild. Reagan upped it a notch with Exec Order 12333, GWB obviously built on top of that, and Obama went hog-wild with it. There's plenty of blame to drown both parties.
