3 ms·

This is a good point about desktops in general. If someone with major resources announced a focused effort to enter the desktop OS space right now, I wouldn't

This is a good point about desktops in general. If someone with major resources announced a focused effort to enter the desktop OS space right now, I wouldn't put their odds in a good place. Why would an unfocused effort work? I cringe at the idea of Linux itself containing a desktop, rather than distros adding one, so if that's the solution hopefully it keeps not being its year. EDIT: clarification

alkonaut 9y ago
Linux doesn’t need to provide a desktop. All that’s needed initially is an effort to specify a modern desktop api, that implementers then implement. “This is what a window manager and desktop Linux should provide, and these interfaces will be backwards compatible forever”. Flatpack is an example of such an effort, but it needs to be more ambitious and preferably more “official”.
- nhaehnle 9y ago
  Freedesktop.org has been doing what you're calling for for a very long time now, and with a lot of success. I remember a time when you couldn't take cut'n'paste across applications for granted... that kind of problem has been 100% eradicated for a long time now, thanks to fd.o. I'd argue that the API and protocol problem has been solved. Flatpak isn't about APIs. It's about making easy-to-use application bundles.
  - alkonaut 9y ago
    Flatpak: yes, it's about making that. But to make an app for a distribution where I don't know the environment, you need some kind of common denominator for the environment. So flatpack does some of that, and freedesktop does some more. The needed outcome is for freedesktop to have an application distrubution story - which is effectively the same as if flatpak had a larged application interoperability idea. The fact that this is two separate efforts highlights the problem - you need everything to be a coherent whole. A combination of a larger and more modern desktop api compliance effort PLUS an app distribution effort like for example flatpak, would be perfect. E.g. "here is how you build an app for linux desktop v5". You include the right headers linux_desktop_sound.h, linux_desktop_dpi_notifications.h, linux_desktop_dpi_scaling_events.h (etc.). I know in the end an API on top just makes you have N+1 apis - but that's the reason this whole thing needs more dictator/ivory tower. It shouldnt' be be called "freedesktop-flatpack", or "somenewname" it should be called "linux desktop apps v1.0". This is probably the hardest part: getting the politics together. For desktop to succeed you need to have an ivory tower somewhere, in the middle of the bazaar.

alkonaut 9y ago

Linux doesn’t need to provide a desktop. All that’s needed initially is an effort to specify a modern desktop api, that implementers then implement. “This is what a window manager and desktop Linux should provide, and these interfaces will be backwards compatible forever”. Flatpack is an example of such an effort, but it needs to be more ambitious and preferably more “official”.

nhaehnle 9y ago
Freedesktop.org has been doing what you're calling for for a very long time now, and with a lot of success. I remember a time when you couldn't take cut'n'paste across applications for granted... that kind of problem has been 100% eradicated for a long time now, thanks to fd.o. I'd argue that the API and protocol problem has been solved. Flatpak isn't about APIs. It's about making easy-to-use application bundles.
- alkonaut 9y ago
  Flatpak: yes, it's about making that. But to make an app for a distribution where I don't know the environment, you need some kind of common denominator for the environment. So flatpack does some of that, and freedesktop does some more. The needed outcome is for freedesktop to have an application distrubution story - which is effectively the same as if flatpak had a larged application interoperability idea. The fact that this is two separate efforts highlights the problem - you need everything to be a coherent whole. A combination of a larger and more modern desktop api compliance effort PLUS an app distribution effort like for example flatpak, would be perfect. E.g. "here is how you build an app for linux desktop v5". You include the right headers linux_desktop_sound.h, linux_desktop_dpi_notifications.h, linux_desktop_dpi_scaling_events.h (etc.). I know in the end an API on top just makes you have N+1 apis - but that's the reason this whole thing needs more dictator/ivory tower. It shouldnt' be be called "freedesktop-flatpack", or "somenewname" it should be called "linux desktop apps v1.0". This is probably the hardest part: getting the politics together. For desktop to succeed you need to have an ivory tower somewhere, in the middle of the bazaar.