Skip to main content

Unpopular opinion on "minimum target SDK" (Re: This week in F-Droid¹)

The target SDK is often framed as a draconian requirement that poses unnecessary restrictions upon app developers. However they often improve security. For example target SDK 24 disallows sharing file URIs. If the developer of a chat app could rely on all apps that share files (Galleries, File Managers) to target >23 it would be easier to prevent security issues like the one just fixed in Element.

¹: https://floss.social/@fdroidorg/112018994644109583

F-Droid (@fdroidorg@floss.social)

This week in F-Droid (TWIF) was published again :fdroid: We try to explain the "app was developed for an older version of android and can not be upgraded automatically" banner for some apps (including F-Droid itself).
FLOSS.social
This entry was edited (1 month ago)
in reply to Daniel Gultsch

Joel :void: :casio:
Joel :void: :casio:
• •

I don't know, improving security by adding 3 locks instead of one makes it annoying for the house owner too.

I am no developer tho so yeah, I don't have to deal with that

in reply to Daniel Gultsch

Hans-Christoph Steiner
Hans-Christoph Steiner
• •
of course sandboxes improve #security. It is important to remember that sandboxes by definition are sets of restrictions. If a sandbox only restricts things you don't use, you win. Sandbox restrictions often break features that users want. Since I'm focused on #UserFreedom and #FreeSoftware, I want community control over which restrictions are in place. #Android does not provide that unless you have the skills to hack and make your own ROM, even then its hard. #Debian does provide that.
#FreeSoftware #android #debian #security #userfreedom
in reply to Daniel Gultsch

MightyPirate™🏴‍☠️
MightyPirate™🏴‍☠️
• •
the tiny bit of added security comes with big nuisance for developers, and users alike. Restricted access to _my own_ files in an app is just Googles way to say "fuck you" to developers and users
⇧