It's kind of unfortunate how the "easy" works.

For a programmer sitting in front of a desktop that already has Linux on it, following those instructions would take less than five minutes. Easy.

For a typical Android user, they wouldn't know what they were looking at even if they had a Linux machine, which they don't. And would then get turned around by a simple typo like "apt-get-install" instead of "apt-get install" if they even make the attempt.

But because it's already "easy" for the people with the expertise to make it easier, the only people who could solve the problem are the people not experiencing it.

> the only people who could solve the problem are the people not experiencing it.

Its more that companies provide some hard to use escape hatch for their anti features which silences all criticism "You just run this command" while still keeping it out of the hands of the normal user. The problem has already been solved, you don't have to run abd to remove apps on android, unless the app is specifically preventing you from using this feature.

I generally agree with you, nonetheless someone just released this:

https://github.com/A2L5E0X1/debloat-adb

Sometimes the scripts on xda-developers come bundled with an older adb version specifically because they don't expect people to know how to install it themselves.

Although, on a second thought if a user then decides to run the `debloat-google.sh` without knowing what he does the user might end up quite frustrated as a result. So I guess you're right.

I think google has been gradually restricting what adb is able to do.

Arguably you can download SDK Platform tools much the same on Windows/Mac.

This command does not however always work (or at least wouldn't for some bundled software in older Androids).

Given the billions of Android devices in the developing world, "typical Android user" possibly doesn't have a computer at all.

> A friend of mine used to say "Is your grandma so senile that she can't type `configure; make; make install`?"

Who writes makefiles such that 'make install' doesn't have 'all' (or whatever the default target is) as a dependency? It's even mean these days not to automatically configure with the default options if no configuration has previously been specified.

Thus grandma should really only have to do the much simpler

    (mkdir /tmp/granny; cd /tmp/granny; curl https://my.example.com/download/latest.gz|tar xfpBz - ; cd * ; make install)

I can't believe grandma is so oblivious to security she'd just blindly download and build a random tarball without manually inspecting the code for backdoors.

How has she made it this far in life?

Damn thing was probably written in Ruby and she can't keep up with the times. Be kind, and only send her links to packages in something simpler like C++ or CommonLisp.

granny misses the simplicity and readability of COBOL

This could be done by a service person in a mobile repair / paraphernalia shop.