Step two of installing Copybara is to install Bazel [0], so that doesn't exactly contradict my claim that if you're not already using Bazel you probably won't use Starlark.
> Copybara doesn't have a release process yet, so you need to compile from HEAD.
Looks like there's an Arch Linux build maintained by... somebody, but if you're not on Arch then you're going to be building Copybara with Bazel. That this works for them suggests to me that their community has a significant amount of overlap with the Bazel community, so it's not good evidence of Starlark being used outside of the Bazel world.
Lots of projects developed at Google use Starlark. Copybara is one of them. That's where the connection comes from.
Many other companies are also adopting Starlark for their own needs. For example, Meta has invested a lot in Starlark and published their implementation (https://developers.facebook.com/blog/post/2021/04/08/rust-st...), although they don't use Bazel at all.
Starlark was first created for Bazel. The organic user growth comes from people who have seen and used the language, so often Bazel users. But it doesn't have to be.
Come on that’s a lazy comeback. It’s obvious they have more Korean employees than Californian, I don’t need fact check. Having direct factory access (read: own) further reduces costs.
They are industry leading in Android for quite some time. They often have innovations first that then Google generalizes in Android itself. For example, lock screen customization, secure folder, even work profile was first available on Samsung devices. Samsung literally contributed work profile (Knox) to AOSP.
> An unlockable bootloader isn't a hack. Try again.
Several apps rely on successful SafetyNet verification to start functioning. A unlocked bootloader will trip this and apps stop functioning. Current solutions to overcome this is a cat and mouse game.
After the first time it takes a whole whopping, astounding, IMPOSSIBLE.... 4 steps. Open browser, download APK, open APK, click Install.
IMPOSSIBLE, I TELL YOU!
Don't even need to enable Developer Options in Android. No iOS developer cert needed. No host computer or one week expiration like Apple does it.
And guess what? Sideloading has always been possible on Android. Always.
This looks like something Google is doing to make it too difficult to sideload? ("Google tries to prevent sideloading as much as possible" I believe was said) Well, shit, whoever finds this difficult should not be sideloading apps in the first place.
> Several apps rely on successful SafetyNet verification to start functioning. A unlocked bootloader will trip this and apps stop functioning. Current solutions to overcome this is a cat and mouse game.
However, this doesn't change the fact that unlocking the bootloader on a device where a bootloader can be unlocked... is NOT A HACK.
Safetynet as a consequence of unlocking the bootloader is a known trade off. Security vs the ability to modify the system files. Seems completely fair to me.
The way you guys go about this, how you get so much wrong in the process that the disingenuous replies barely mask that your contempt lies with Google regardless of how anything is actually done.
You created an account to jump into a thread where you merely propagated the previous user's fallacies? Really?
