• Snot Flickerman@lemmy.blahaj.zone
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    156
    arrow-down
    7
    ·
    edit-2
    2 days ago

    “Sideloading” isn’t an actual thing. It’s a word the industry made up to make installing your own software sound dangerous.

    All traditional Windows applications were “sideloaded” and back then it was just fucking called installing an application.

    Prior to the bullshit ass Microsoft Store, sideloading was literally the only way to get shit on Windows.

    Linux also always allowed you to install applications directly. Everyone just uses package management software at this point because it’s all well managed and easier to keep things updated, but you can still install things manually with make.

    If this leads more people to understand that “sideloading” is some contrived boogeyman bullshit for just being allowed to install what you want on the device you fucking own that’s a good thing.

      • IMALlama@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        2 days ago

        As a recent modern Mac user, this experience is so bizarre and is always a little different.

        I grew up on macs (thanks mom) and built a PC as soon as I had my first real job in highschool. I recently bought a MacBook for the promise of battery life and cool running. If only it was easier to get my arm windows laptop to boot Linux…

        • Boomer Humor Doomergod@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          1 day ago

          Back in the 80s and 90s it was a lot like installing software on Windows except you’d drag the application to where you wanted it instead of doing a:\setup.exe

    • T156@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      11
      ·
      2 days ago

      Linux also always allowed you to install applications directly. Everyone just uses package management software at this point because it’s all well managed and easier to keep things updated, but you can still install things manually with make.

      You only need make if you’re compiling. Installating precompiled software is somewhat easier, since it’s basically just copying to /bin. If you know where that is, then it’s simple.

      • privatizetwiddle@lemmy.sdf.org
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        2 days ago

        make install typically also handles copying things like libraries, shared assets, and docs as needed, but yeah precompiled software is usually a tar… or loading a downloaded package file into the package manager.

      • PoolloverNathan@programming.dev
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        2 days ago

        There’s even .deb, .rpm, flakes, whatever pacman uses, … that are just package files that copy to /bin/ for you, like .apk/.ipas.

    • cm0002@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      13
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      2 days ago

      Sideloading doesn’t sound dangerous, if anything it sounds cool lol

    • Ulrich@feddit.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      15
      arrow-down
      11
      ·
      edit-2
      2 days ago

      It’s a word the industry made up to make installing your own software sound dangerous.

      [citation needed]

      Prior to the bullshit ass Microsoft Store, sideloading was literally the only way to get shit on Windows.

      Yeah, I mean that made sense when it was the only way. There was no need to differentiate. That’s not the case anymore.

    • LupusBlackfur@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      10
      arrow-down
      19
      ·
      2 days ago

      Whew…

      Lotta words for a semantics quibble that amounts to a distinction without a difference… 🤷‍♂️