5 ms·

Linux desktop powers consider uniting for an app store

38 points by CrankyBear 4y ago

Mindwipe 4y ago
Seems a weird decision given even Apple do not seem able to get a desktop app store to work.
- sho_hn 4y ago
  The situation on Linux is a little bit different in that each individual distro (say, Ubuntu, Fedora, etc.) have always worked with a "desktop app store" (package repository, which you interact with e.g. with GUI store frontends or CLI commands) as the one way to get apps from. What's different here is having one that's portable across the distros, enabled by the Flatpak package format.
- pxc 4y ago
  On macOS, it's a lot easier to ship highly compatible applications on your own website, that anyone can just download and then run on their Mac. So Apple's App Store is competing with that paradigm as well. On Linux, the runtimes apps need vary too much from distro to distro, or even OS install to OS install, for that to be equally viable. So Flatpak here isn't just an alternative distribution model in a commercial sense, but a technical one— it's genuinely more portable than most previous options. A Flatpak-based store also need not be concerned with taking over the world— Flatpak itself supports configurable repositories, so indie developers are totally free to publish their own apps via Flatpak on their own, or perhaps even on their choice of a range of competing Flatpak-based app stores, should such a field arise. The point in the Linux case is not to corral users into using a single source for all their apps, but rather to provide a broadly compatible option, and also to make commercial development of proprietary software for Linux desktops more viable by allowing vendors to target more users with less effort. If a universal Flatpak store for Linux desktops comes to be, it would probably still be fair to call it a success even if most users prefer to get most of our software elsewhere.
- mistrial9 4y ago
  Canonical is fishing for an IPO ; stores make money and deliver control. signed "Ubuntu is a word in the Debian language meaning we dont care about whatever you are trying to do this week"
- smackeyacky 4y ago
  Might simply be the death throes of desktop applications themselves. What else does anybody (other than developers) install any more other than Chrome?
  - AnIdiotOnTheNet 4y ago
    Games, audio mixing software, media editing software, control interfaces for hobbiest equipment, piracy tools, video capture software, and literally anything that needs to work when the internet is down.
  - lbwtaylor 4y ago
    Why would I want google controlling how I interact with my software? Maybe it doesn't seem like it, but it's an honest question. I don't find the browser first approach attractive at all.
brimstedt 4y ago
> This idea of replacing traditional but not very friendly ways of delivering Linux desktop apps, such as DEB What? :-) Apt is by far the easiest way o install and keep software updated. Compared to app-store, homebrew, and toy like solutions for Windows.
- dmonitor 4y ago
  There’s often inconsistency with how .deb files are treated by the desktop environment. I have some systems where clicking them just opens like an archive. They should just launch an installer, but the fact that the installer can be reassigned makes the behavior inconsistent. I just use dpkg -i but that’s not exactly something you can find out without dedicated research.
  - pxc 4y ago
    > I just use dpkg -i but that’s not exactly something you can find out without dedicated research. Downloading individual DEB files is not a great way to go, but if you must, you're better off using something like gdebi than dpkg to install them. If you use gdebi, apt will still try to resolve dependencies when installing the package for you. With dpkg, you have to do all of that manually, so dpkg is only useful for installing the worst kinds of DEB files (ones that ignore the real packaging system and bundle all of their dependencies). If you only want the command line utility instead of the GUI DEB file handler, grab gdebi-core. I also wanna return to this, briefly: > not exactly something you can find out without dedicated research. It bugs the hell out of me that some distros (like the Debian that comes on WSL, for example) does not include absolutely basic Unix essentials like the man command and friends. Because this shouldn't be something that takes extended research. The old Unix tools for documenting the system internally can handle this perfectly! If you run apropos deb you will get a nice short list of things used for working with DEB files, including dpkg. So even if it's not the best tool it should be at least enough to find something for working with those files, without having to Google around for a long time or install any new software.
  - hulitu 4y ago
    > They should just launch an installer The organization of Windows malware creators would like to thank you for your idea. /s. DEB is an archive format.
tlhunter 4y ago
I would argue that Linux was the first OS to implement an app store and that it predates the other major operating systems by over a decade. It's just that the Linux apps were free.
- tredre3 4y ago
  And iOS was the first OS to implement a good app store, allowing for easy discovery of new software, auto updating, and a proper review process.
ClapperHeid 4y ago
They do realise this is Linux, don't they? This week; a Unified Linux App store. Next week; 25 rival forked Unified Linux App stores.
- pxc 4y ago
  Not a problem if they all use the same package format! Flatpak can potentially support competition without imposing fragmentation here.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
smackeyacky 4y ago
Getting some serious Unix Wars[0] vibes from this. I'm not a huge fan of flatpak but the anti-Snap/Ubuntu movement appears to be gathering pace and I think that is a good thing. [0]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unix_wars https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unix_wars
tstrimple 4y ago
Here we go again. https://xkcd.com/927/ https://xkcd.com/927/
Am4TIfIsER0ppos 4y ago
Is it a nice source tarball?
pshirshov 4y ago
> flatpak Please no. That's hell of a solution which makes it's impossible to have consistently patched libraries (e.g.if I use flatpak I can't have all the GTK copies to be consistently patched and it makes the system unusable)

38 points by CrankyBear 4y ago

Mindwipe 4y ago

Seems a weird decision given even Apple do not seem able to get a desktop app store to work.

sho_hn 4y ago
The situation on Linux is a little bit different in that each individual distro (say, Ubuntu, Fedora, etc.) have always worked with a "desktop app store" (package repository, which you interact with e.g. with GUI store frontends or CLI commands) as the one way to get apps from. What's different here is having one that's portable across the distros, enabled by the Flatpak package format.
pxc 4y ago
On macOS, it's a lot easier to ship highly compatible applications on your own website, that anyone can just download and then run on their Mac. So Apple's App Store is competing with that paradigm as well. On Linux, the runtimes apps need vary too much from distro to distro, or even OS install to OS install, for that to be equally viable. So Flatpak here isn't just an alternative distribution model in a commercial sense, but a technical one— it's genuinely more portable than most previous options. A Flatpak-based store also need not be concerned with taking over the world— Flatpak itself supports configurable repositories, so indie developers are totally free to publish their own apps via Flatpak on their own, or perhaps even on their choice of a range of competing Flatpak-based app stores, should such a field arise. The point in the Linux case is not to corral users into using a single source for all their apps, but rather to provide a broadly compatible option, and also to make commercial development of proprietary software for Linux desktops more viable by allowing vendors to target more users with less effort. If a universal Flatpak store for Linux desktops comes to be, it would probably still be fair to call it a success even if most users prefer to get most of our software elsewhere.
mistrial9 4y ago
Canonical is fishing for an IPO ; stores make money and deliver control. signed "Ubuntu is a word in the Debian language meaning we dont care about whatever you are trying to do this week"
smackeyacky 4y ago
Might simply be the death throes of desktop applications themselves. What else does anybody (other than developers) install any more other than Chrome?
- AnIdiotOnTheNet 4y ago
  Games, audio mixing software, media editing software, control interfaces for hobbiest equipment, piracy tools, video capture software, and literally anything that needs to work when the internet is down.
- lbwtaylor 4y ago
  Why would I want google controlling how I interact with my software? Maybe it doesn't seem like it, but it's an honest question. I don't find the browser first approach attractive at all.

brimstedt 4y ago

> This idea of replacing traditional but not very friendly ways of delivering Linux desktop apps, such as DEB What? :-) Apt is by far the easiest way o install and keep software updated. Compared to app-store, homebrew, and toy like solutions for Windows.

dmonitor 4y ago
There’s often inconsistency with how .deb files are treated by the desktop environment. I have some systems where clicking them just opens like an archive. They should just launch an installer, but the fact that the installer can be reassigned makes the behavior inconsistent. I just use dpkg -i but that’s not exactly something you can find out without dedicated research.
- pxc 4y ago
  > I just use dpkg -i but that’s not exactly something you can find out without dedicated research. Downloading individual DEB files is not a great way to go, but if you must, you're better off using something like gdebi than dpkg to install them. If you use gdebi, apt will still try to resolve dependencies when installing the package for you. With dpkg, you have to do all of that manually, so dpkg is only useful for installing the worst kinds of DEB files (ones that ignore the real packaging system and bundle all of their dependencies). If you only want the command line utility instead of the GUI DEB file handler, grab gdebi-core. I also wanna return to this, briefly: > not exactly something you can find out without dedicated research. It bugs the hell out of me that some distros (like the Debian that comes on WSL, for example) does not include absolutely basic Unix essentials like the man command and friends. Because this shouldn't be something that takes extended research. The old Unix tools for documenting the system internally can handle this perfectly! If you run apropos deb you will get a nice short list of things used for working with DEB files, including dpkg. So even if it's not the best tool it should be at least enough to find something for working with those files, without having to Google around for a long time or install any new software.
- hulitu 4y ago
  > They should just launch an installer The organization of Windows malware creators would like to thank you for your idea. /s. DEB is an archive format.

tlhunter 4y ago

I would argue that Linux was the first OS to implement an app store and that it predates the other major operating systems by over a decade. It's just that the Linux apps were free.

tredre3 4y ago
And iOS was the first OS to implement a good app store, allowing for easy discovery of new software, auto updating, and a proper review process.

ClapperHeid 4y ago

They do realise this is Linux, don't they? This week; a Unified Linux App store. Next week; 25 rival forked Unified Linux App stores.

pxc 4y ago
Not a problem if they all use the same package format! Flatpak can potentially support competition without imposing fragmentation here.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]

smackeyacky 4y ago

Getting some serious Unix Wars[0] vibes from this. I'm not a huge fan of flatpak but the anti-Snap/Ubuntu movement appears to be gathering pace and I think that is a good thing. [0]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unix_wars https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unix_wars

tstrimple 4y ago

Here we go again. https://xkcd.com/927/ https://xkcd.com/927/

Am4TIfIsER0ppos 4y ago

Is it a nice source tarball?

pshirshov 4y ago

> flatpak Please no. That's hell of a solution which makes it's impossible to have consistently patched libraries (e.g.if I use flatpak I can't have all the GTK copies to be consistently patched and it makes the system unusable)