| |||||||||||||
Free is too expensive (Economist)Free is too expensive (Economist)Posted Mar 31, 2012 12:24 UTC (Sat) by anselm (subscriber, #2796)In reply to: Free is too expensive (Economist) by khim Parent article: Free is too expensive (Economist)
It's the other way around. Application includes minimum version of API in it's manifest file. Store only blacklists applications by the third-party requests (for example carriers like to blacklist tethering apps), it does not proactively track the compatibility story. So what? You tell the app store that your machine is running Debian GNU/Linux 6.0 on an amd64 architecture. You pick an app and click on the »Download« icon, and the app store sends you a package for the app that will run on Debian GNU/Linux 6.0 on amd64. Everyone is happy. It may of course be the case that the app store doesn't have the app packaged for Debian GNU/Linux 6.0 on amd64. In that case you won't get a »Download« icon. You may get a »Ask the app developer to provide a package for my system« icon. This will help app developers to figure out which distributions to support. The app store could also publish statistics on which distributions have the largest number of supported apps available (possibly by topic such as »games« or »web development tools«), which may help people pick what distribution to use in the first place. There is: Linux desktop has no stable ABI thus if application works in distro M version N it does not mean it'll work in distro M version N+1. A popular app store may create pressure on distributors and upstream projects (such as KDE or GNOME) to get their act together and be more careful about backwards compatibility. Backwards compatibility isn't really a problem with Linux as such or with distributions, it is mostly a problem of upstream developer negligence or incompetence. Also, if somebody at some point does define a cross-distro ABI that actually does provide desktop apps with what they require, that could be an alternative to targeting individual distros. If an app targets »LSB-NG 1.1«, that package would automatically be made available to all distros that are known to support that standard. App developer is not forced to do anything in any case. My experience with packaging stuff for Debian is that it is usually not a problem to move simple desktop apps forward from one version of Debian to the next, as far as the actual packaging is concerned. The ABI problem is potentially a different issue, but as long as you can get your stuff to compile and run, making it into a package for Debian N+1 isn't a big thing if you have already made it into a package for Debian N. The app store concept would make most sense if it came with tools that would assist app developers with actually providing packages for different popular distributions (again, the SUSE build service comes to mind as a possible model). The whole system could – and probably would – gradually move towards a more standardised platform. Doing it the other way round, by trying to provide the standardised platform first and hoping for people (and distributions) to adopt it, is probably going to be less successful. What will definitely not accomplish anything is sitting here and whining about how not only the present situation is terrible, but also how all the suggested approaches to ameliorate the present situation will never work. The Linux community does not work by revolution but by evolution, which is by its very nature difficult to direct. In the absence of a Steve Jobs figure who will lay down the law for everybody, the only thing we can do is offer something and hope that people will consider it a good idea and go along with it. Please outline how your app store concept is going to make Linux a viable option for current Windows or OS X users while at the same time making the existing Linux distributions obsolete and not driving off existing users who like things as they are. (Note that »Google will sort it all out for us« is not an acceptable answer this time around.)
(Log in to post comments)
Free is too expensive (Economist) Posted Mar 31, 2012 12:42 UTC (Sat) by Cato (subscriber, #7643) [Link]
A cross-distro app store with a single package format is needed, with some degree of guarantee that apps don't interfere with each other (maybe a sandboxed filesystem tree for the app's own files and settings, with only data files in a shared cross-app tree).
This package format would reference a stable cross-distro ABI version that changes only every 5-10 years.
Once you have this, app developers could target the app store and package format for ABI version N, and then just focus on developing their app's features.
Although Android threw out a lot of other Linux features and mandates Java, it shows that a more extreme version of this can be done. I'm not suggesting Android is the way, just that a Linux based system can be extremely popular with developers with the right approach.
Most Android users have no clue they are even using Linux, and that's exactly how it should be.
An alternative to a cross-distro ABI and app store would be that one distro, probably completely new, adopts this and becomes extremely popular (more like Android than Ubuntu).
Free is too expensive (Economist) Posted Apr 7, 2012 1:54 UTC (Sat) by khc (subscriber, #45209) [Link]
I wonder if it makes sense to argue about what's needed or not. Clearly, if a wider user base is a goal (and some would certainly argue that's not a goal or top priority), linux hasn't progress much on the desktop. So I fail to see how keep doing the same thing is going to make significant progress.
Some of us believe that an app store like model is needed, and some don't, and it's clear that at this point we can't prove it by arguing about it. What about those who believe that it has a chance group together and try it instead? I mean, it would definitely be a better use of our time than arguing about it on lwn.
Free is too expensive (Economist) Posted Mar 31, 2012 16:09 UTC (Sat) by khim (subscriber, #9252) [Link] Note that »Google will sort it all out for us« is not an acceptable answer this time around. You want details? I'm afraid I can not oblige at this point. And not even because I'm bound by NDA, but because the whole strategy is not yet finalized. The observation is simple: Google has two separate app stores and that's one too many. The question is: how to better merge them together. Different approaches are possible: you can invent some way to run Android applications in normal Linux distribution (perhaps even in browser?), or you can try to make sure Chrome Apps will be comparable to native Android apps on phone (right now they are quite limited), etc. IOW: it's not yet clear yet just how the desired thing will be created, but it's obvious what is needed. The obvious goal is to create the single app store for all supported platforms (not all apps will work everywhere, but some will be available on all platforms: Angry Birds on desktop are not all that different from Angry Birds on mobile so why do they exist in totally unconnected worlds? Please outline how your app store concept is going to make Linux a viable option for current Windows or OS X users while at the same time making the existing Linux distributions obsolete and not driving off existing users who like things as they are. You are asking bikeshed color when it not even known if bikeshed will even be involved at all. There are sooo few existing Linux users that it makes no sense to actually care too much about them. Windows and MacOS are significantly more important: both systems include built-in App Store (Windows store is in planning stages), both are not going away any time soon and both use Android-incompatible foundation (MacOS is closer, but Darwin is still quite different from Linux). Some people care about Linux users simply because they themselves are Linux users, but noone ever suggested that they represent more then a footnote in the whole story. Linux technologies, on the other hand, are quite important because they are used extensively in Android and ChromiumOS already. That means that, of course, solution (if and when it'll materialize) will use a lot of them - and that means that it should be easy to include Linux desktop in the plans. But it's hardly feasible if the infamous “Linux community” does not care and where all suggestions to participate in plans on early stages are indignantly rejected. Doing it the other way round, by trying to provide the standardised platform first and hoping for people (and distributions) to adopt it, is probably going to be less successful. Well, time will tell. As you can see from the above the whole idea at this point is to increase the audience which application developer can target with a single package, not to gradually move towards a more standardised platform. Perhaps someone else will create a different kind of app store with build farms and multidistribution support - but it'll be different story altogether. It'll be interesting to see how successful they'll be.
Free is too expensive (Economist) Posted Mar 31, 2012 16:24 UTC (Sat) by anselm (subscriber, #2796) [Link] This is a very long-winded way of saying »I haven't the faintest idea.«
Free is too expensive (Economist) Posted Mar 31, 2012 18:09 UTC (Sat) by Cyberax (✭ supporter ✭, #52523) [Link]
That's actually a fair answer to the question.
Nobody really knows what's going to happen with Linux desktop in near future. There's that sense of fin-de-siècle in the air - the current situation is unsustainable and Something Has To Happen.
But history also shows us that this 'something' can often be quite unexpected.
We'll see.
Free is too expensive (Economist) Posted Apr 12, 2012 16:55 UTC (Thu) by nye (guest, #51576) [Link]
>So what? You tell the app store that your machine is running Debian GNU/Linux 6.0 on an amd64 architecture.
Oh my god. I don't think you understand how completely outside the realm of feasibility this is for the non-technical user.
When tech support people bitch about users who only know that they're running 'Microsoft', and know that 'the blue e' is the internet, *they're not exaggerating*. That's not hyperbole. It's a literal description of a sizeable proportion of the user base.
I don't think it's even a significant minority, but actually the *majority* of users who don't know what version of Windows they're using - assuming they even know they're using Windows at all.
The proportion of people who know what processor architecture they're running has got to be far, far below 1%.
Free is too expensive (Economist) Posted Apr 12, 2012 17:14 UTC (Thu) by khim (subscriber, #9252) [Link] I don't think it's even a significant minority, but actually the *majority* of users who don't know what version of Windows they're using - assuming they even know they're using Windows at all. Well, usually they do know that - Windows is too hyped-up to miss. What they don't know is where Windows ends and other things begins. I've seen the cases when people bought new PC (with Windows obviously) and vainly tried to find Excel there (which they have not bought). The proportion of people who know what processor architecture they're running has got to be far, far below 1%. This is quite obviously not true because Linux occupies about 0.5% of the market share and most Linux users know that.
Free is too expensive (Economist) Posted Apr 12, 2012 20:16 UTC (Thu) by anselm (subscriber, #2796) [Link] Oh my god. I don't think you understand how completely outside the realm of feasibility this is for the non-technical user. The machine will presumably know (or be able to find out) about its own distribution and architecture, so it can tell the app store on the user's behalf. A method to do this is the first thing a prospective app-store proponent would want to standardise.
|
|||||||||||||