• m-p{3}A
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    33
    arrow-down
    5
    ·
    4 months ago

    Which is a sensible choice security-wise.

      • kora@lemmy.blahaj.zone
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        arrow-down
        16
        ·
        edit-2
        4 months ago

        it is, the useless annoyance is what Samsung 's Version of Android is introducing.

          • kora@lemmy.blahaj.zone
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            12
            arrow-down
            4
            ·
            4 months ago

            Thatsthejoke.jpg

            Sorta

            I’m just pointing out that the entirety of Samsung’s Android adds literally nothing of value to the user to the android experience and only serves to, at best, annoy. Not just this one particular feature.

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

              I think perhaps something has gone wrong with the phrasing or something, because it seemed you were saying the exact same thing but … less clearly?

              it is, the useless annoyance is what Samsung*'s Version of Android* is

              which now I edit that so it doesn’t have a strike through I actually understand what you mean. It was a bit difficult to parse that originally

    • Zak@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      edit-2
      4 months ago

      Is it? Android already disables sideloading by default, requires each source to ask for permission, and prompts the user before each install. How does Samsung’s additional setting improve security?

    • Beaver
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      5
      ·
      4 months ago

      Apple should take this approach