Tetsuo

The assumption I think is that Google ask for more and more work to use that feature. So you can either shrug it off or prepare for Google to remove this ability entirely.

I guess we will see.

Am I the only one who did pump fuel perfectly fine from the "wrong side"?

Usually the hose is long enough to do it safely as long as the car is not too behind the pump.

Usually as an IT professional people assume I lost touch with the average people abilities with technology. I'm used to that by now.

I understand very well most people want a phone to be simple and easy to use.

This is not a justification to remove this advanced options for power users. None of the user you mention in your post will ever activate sideloading. This is just an option for that minority of people.

Android is not much more complicated to use than IOS if you stick to basic use; social networks, taking pics, picking up calls. That's it.

You can do all of that without ever knowing about sideloading or advanced permissions and so on.

So thank you but I'm with well aware I shouldn't use my perception of Android as the norm. But I'll definitely say that the average user literally doesn't ever go in those advanced settings so whether they exist or not doesn't matter to them. But out of openness I think it's important the power users can still have this OPTION available.

Also if you really want a simple phone and super easy to use. Get them an IPhone and call it a day it's simple as that. Obviously if you can't afford one then Android should still be fine anyway.

Somehow I doubt any less technology enthusiastic person would favor an Android phone over an Apple one to then complain that there is too many options available in the settings.

Doesn't understand rotation of an object. Drives a cubic ton of metal on wheels in the streets.

I dont really have the time to participate in what looks like an interesting debate but I have a few notes on your post.

How do you expect to attempt to secure that many devices by allowing the platform to continue as it was?

Secure what? Against what type of threat? This type of vague question results in vague answers. If the threat is social engineering I would argue not many protection would be effective beside educating the user about that.

You call it dumbing down, which I understand, but how do you stop all the click-happy people from installing the next nefarious "game", when they already have little to no chance to avoid email spam and SMS scams, let alone LLM generated "custom targeted" exploits.

You don't stop them. You ask them and show them a disclaimer when they activate sideloading and that's it. They are on their own. If the user doesn't understand the risk after (skipping) the disclaimer. That's their own fault. I don't want to be put in prison just to make sure nothing bad ever happen to me. If a user purposefully disable protections they are on their own. But they should always be able to disable them.

I get that there are users who use this (now) vanishing functionality, but are they representative of the total user base, or edge cases? Neither you nor I have any hard data on that, but I know that as an ICT professional, I'm an outlier.

This is the openness of the OG Android. Welcoming as many users as possible even if they are not your mean average user. It doesn't matter if these user are a minority. They should be able to override any security they want. As long as they have acknowledged that they understand the risk and will not sue Google for it. I don't see the problem.

I have worked on a custom ROM based on AOSP and that's the other trend that worries me. The fact that less and less of "Android" seems to go to AOSP was already a concern years ago. Google wants to close their OS to better compete with Apple. This means severing those annoying minority power users from the rest of the community.

I see a very paradoxical response from you coming from Linux. If you enjoy Linux for its openness why would you accept Google rhetoric like that is really surprising. Let users do complicated stuff on your software as long as they have signed a virtual "I AM IN DANGER" form that's OK. If you remove these advanced settings features anyway then it's not for the user, it's a PR move to protect the perception of your software.

Sorry if this comment seems a bit aggressive. In my opinion you are arguing for Android to slowly transform into IOS and ad someone working on Linux for decades, this is very weird.

Ah I get it.

Anyway low consumption kind of mandates that kind of flash build IMO.

Isn't there any way you could stagger buying those SSD? Like you buy them one by one only on sales or refurbished hardware.

You could also maybe attempt a raid5 only with only 3 disks until you could buy a fourth one?

Anyway good luck!

I'm sorry if this is not relevant but I don't have the time to read that whole of text:

https://youtu.be/l30sADfDiM8

I think this is at least similar to what you want to achieve.

I just got to say this website is a nightmare. At least 4 popups overlays just opening the article. The remove ads button just leaves the article and offer you to pay to remove ads. There is also delayed popups appearing while you read the article...

Are they speedrunning obsolence by making sure nobody read their articles online?

This article was prepared with the assistance of an AI language model to ensure timely and relevant information.

And by assistance they mean no human was involved besides pushing the publish button.

No bundle deal?

To a large extent, the core personality of PC gaming is being niche.

What does that even mean?

What is a personality for PC gaming? I have never ever felt I was in a niche hobby or that PC gaming was even perceived as such and I have been playing for a long time.

This article is just bad I'm sorry.

A well intentioned but bad leader?

Thinking about Fallout 4 honestly there was major mistakes.