Distributions

Fedora debates apps and app stores

Fedora is currently in the midst of a reorganization using working groups to flesh out three separate "products" that the distribution will deliver: Workstation, Server, and Cloud. As part of that effort, the working groups need to come up with a description of what their product will be, who its users are, and so on. Christian Schaller posted a draft of the workstation product description to the fedora-devel mailing list on November 1. While there were quibbles about various aspects of the description, the biggest disagreement seems to be between those who advocate supporting "apps" and an "app store" model and those who don't.

Schaller's draft was attached [ODT] to his message. It lists four separate use cases (student, independent developer, small company developer, and developer in a large organization) that mesh well with the mission statement: "The system will primary be aimed at providing a platform for development of server side and client applications that is attractive to a range of developers - from hobbyists and students to developers working in a corporate environments." The draft also has a list of some policies/plans for the workstation product, a description of what the core platform components would consist of, and a bit of an idea on how the group would operate (including focusing on one "major engineering effort" at a time).

Overall, the reception has been rather positive. Some quibbles, as mentioned, but the replies have been largely supportive of its direction. But the "3rd party software" policy is more contentious. It reads:

Supporting third-party software, proprietary software in particular, would be a bad idea for the workstation product, Kevin Kofler said. He cited a number of reasons for that, most of which boiled down to possibly needing to support older libraries and other components to help keep those applications running. It could hold back Fedora development, even for those who aren't interested in those third-party programs, he said.

Schaller replied, but opened another can of worms when he did so. He noted that "support" means different things to different people, but that he had mostly meant "handling our ABI story better", rather than bending over backwards to help third-party applications continue to work. But he also pointed to GNOME's LinuxApps proposal for sandboxed applications for the Linux desktop, which are in some ways similar to smartphone "apps". In the product description, there is also a sentence that points in that direction: "Work towards a system where applications can be installed inside a container to improve security and simplify compatibility through library bundling".

Apps and the app store model for general-purpose Linux distributions is a fairly controversial topic. The model is clearly quite successful in the phone and tablet spaces, so it is not surprising that some would look to replicate it more widely. It has a number of downsides, though, starting with it being an almost complete departure from the "normal" Linux model of software distribution. Kofler outlined some of the problems he sees with "Apple-like 'apps'". Those include library bundling (with its attendant security and disk usage problems), a licensing free-for-all, non-centralized application distribution, and so on.

As one might guess, Kofler's disdain for apps and app stores was not universally shared. Chris Murphy sarcastically suggested that apps are "a model for success that shouldn't be either emulated or improved upon". The theme of taking the "good parts" from the app store model and applying it to Fedora was repeated several times in what turned into a truly enormous thread. To some, however, there really aren't any good parts to be had.

There is clearly a fundamental split in how people see the Linux desktop of the future. To some, it looks like the Linux desktop of the present (and past), while others see a more developer-friendly, app-oriented desktop that, at least to some extent, resembles the mobile ecosystem. In that model, apps are developed and packaged once, but run on a variety of platforms. Those platforms might be multiple versions of Fedora, for example, or they might be multiple distributions across the Linux landscape. Certainly, the GNOME proposal envisions a wider range of target platforms than just a single distribution (or just one version of a distribution).

Today's application development model for Linux is well-suited to free software applications that benefit from integration with the distribution. It has fewer benefits for third parties who just wish to make their program (free or not) available widely on Linux. In addition, it is not at all clear that the current distribution model, where each and every program is curated and packaged by members of the distribution's community, can scale to the numbers of applications seen in the mobile world—and hoped for, at least by some, on the Linux desktop. If distributions don't come up with a solution, there is a risk that some third party will, as Adam Williamson pointed out:

Williamson goes on to recognize that some big changes are being considered—or at least discussed. The distribution model has been with us for a long time, and has had a measure of success; moving away from it should not be done lightly:

But, some combination of the existing and the new should be possible, according to some thread participants. Several argued that competition between the two models would be healthy. Having both curated and integrated applications and apps, which will be able to get into the hands of users more quickly, will allow users to choose which suits them best. Others, like Kofler, are worried that it will lead to less free software (in both the gratis and freedom senses of the word) in the long term.

Another concern was expressed by Nicolas Mailhot, who is worried that the Fedora "brand" will be harmed by including apps. Mailhot sees the app mechanism as a way to solve developer problems, rather than user problems; he would like to see a clear distinction between Fedora-packaged applications and apps so that the brand is not damaged if apps are not the panacea predicted by some.

As Kevin Fenzi noted, though, the whole thread stemmed from just those few words about containerized apps in the proposal—presented without any technical details at all. He suggested that perhaps rewording the product description proposal along the lines of "investigate the implementation and usage for application containers" and then waiting to argue until some kind of concrete proposal was made. That suggestion largely fell on deaf ears—it is an emotional subject and one we are likely to hear of again, in multiple contexts, over the coming years.

On November 7, Schaller updated the fedora-devel mailing list on the status of the proposal. To start with, the discussion will be moving to the lower-traffic fedora-desktop list, as that is the designated "home" mailing list for the working group. The members of the group have been monitoring the discussion so far, Schaller said, and will be incorporating that feedback into the next draft. We can expect another lively discussion once that makes its appearance.

Comments (36 posted)

Distribution quotes of the week

-- Mark Shuttleworth

-- Ean Schuessler (Thanks to Mattias Mattsson)

Comments (none posted)

Fedora 20 Beta released

The beta version of the Fedora 20 release is out. "The beta release is the last important milestone before the release of Fedora 20. A Beta release is code-complete and bears a very strong resemblance to the third and final release. Only critical bug fixes will be pushed as updates up to the general release of Fedora 20." This is the best opportunity to get bugs fixed before the final release happens; click below for the full announcement with a long list of new features in Fedora 20.

Full Story (comments: 34)

Scientific Linux 5.10

Scientific Linux has released Scientific Linux 5.10. There are release notes available for i386 and x86_64.

Comments (none posted)

Slackware 14.1 released

The latest version of the Slackware Linux distribution, version 14.1, has been released. It comes with the 3.10.17 kernel, GNU libc 2.17, X.Org X11R7.7, GCC 4.8.2, LLVM and Clang, and more. "Slackware 14.1 brings many updates and enhancements, among which you'll find two of the most advanced desktop environments available today: Xfce 4.10.1, a fast and lightweight but visually appealing and easy to use desktop environment, and KDE 4.10.5, a recent stable release of the 4.10.x series of the award-winning KDE desktop environment. These desktops utilize udev, udisks, and udisks2, and many of the specifications from freedesktop.org which allow the system administrator to grant use of various hardware devices according to users' group membership so that they will be able to use items such as USB flash sticks, USB cameras that appear like USB storage, portable hard drives, CD and DVD media, MP3 players, and more, all without requiring sudo, the mount or umount command." (Thanks to Jean-Francois L. Blavier.)

Comments (5 posted)

call for Jessie artwork proposals

The call for artwork proposals for Debian's next stable release (Jessie) is open until February 5, 2014.

Full Story (comments: none)

SUSE Linux Enterprise 10 End of General Support

SUSE has released the final regular maintenance update for SUSE Linux Enterprise 10 Service Pack 4. Users of SLE10 SP4 are encouraged to upgrade to SLE11 SP3.

Full Story (comments: none)

Distribution newsletters

• This Week in CyanogenMod (November 9)
• DistroWatch Weekly, Issue 533 (November 11)
• Tails report (for October)
• Ubuntu Weekly Newsletter, Issue 342 (November 10)

Comments (none posted)

Shuttleworth: Mistakes made and addressed

Mark Shuttleworth writes about the fixubuntu.com takedown notice incident. "Last week, the less-than-a-month-at-Canonical new guy sent out the toughest template letter to the folks behind a 'sucks' site. Now, that was not a decision based on policy or guidance; as I said, Canonical’s trademark policy is unusually generous relative to corporate norms in explicitly allowing for this sort of usage. It was a mistake, and there is no question that the various people in the line of responsibility know and agree that it was a mistake. It was no different, however, than a bug in a line of code, which I think most developers would agree happens to the best of us. It just happened to be, in that analogy, a zero-day remote root bug." There's also an apology for the "open source tea party" remark.

Comments (57 posted)

Friday Interview #6: Glen MacArthur (zth music)

Zth music has an interview with Glen MacArthur, creator of AVLinux. "Well at a glance AV Linux is similar to 64/Ubuntu/Tango/Dream/KX Studio and is a custom tailored Live or Installable Linux OS specializing in Audio and Video creation. I guess it is more distinguished by it’s differences to the others than by it’s similarities."

Comments (none posted)