Linked by Kostis Kapelonis on Sat 14th May 2011 15:43 UTC
General Development Application stores are growing everywhere like mushrooms. While users have initially embraced application stores because of the ease they offer with application installation, developers have several complaints. Division of profits from paid application and ineffectiveness of the screening process are among the major issues. Are application stores the best distribution channel possible? Can they satisfy both developers and users?
Thread beginning with comment 473095
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
WorknMan
Member since:
2005-11-13

Repositories are a defining and competitive attribute of the distribution. Customer service, product quality control, available software.. all there.


IMHO, that's a pretty bad way to differentiate distros, and a pretty bad reason to have so many different ones. If we're going to play this game, I'd rather see 3 different distros with very solid repositories, rather than 900. Or better yet, how about 1 distro with 1 repository? One of the points made in the article is that having a single app store exposes a single point of failure, but if each distro has its own repository, how is this any different? Sure, maybe you can edit your apt.sources file and add in a couple more, but do you really want to explain to my mom how to do that?

Versions of programs are not the latest and greatest (Debian Stable), consider a distribution that provides more bleeding edge with resulting less stability (Ubuntu forked from Debian Testing/Unstable branches).


Yeah, good luck explaining that to the average iPhone owners. This kind of bullshit is EXACTLY why Linux on the desktop never gained any significant marketshare.

If a device is branded as an "Android device" it should be able to easily take Google's core distribution firmware through a standard flashing process; let manufacturers provide a small separate blob image for device specific drivers if they must. Really, they should be providing the drivers back to the core distribution's kernel but the add-on blob is an acceptable compromise for the moment.


Agreed 100%.

Vendor's who must fork Android into there own one-off version, as has been sadly popular, should indeed be providing there own repositories. They fork the distribution away from the parent distro, they accept the responsibility of managing there own repositories and loss of use of the "Android" branding.


That is the way it works now, in fact. If you deviate too far from 'the standard', you lose the ability to call your product Android, and you lose access to the Android marketplace. Of course, some people would argue that it doesn't go far enough, and I'm one of those people.

Reply Parent Score: 2

jabbotts Member since:
2007-09-06

The thing to realize is that the distribution is the consumer product not the kernel it happens to be based on or any other separate commodity parts it happens to be assembled from. Debian, Windows, Ubuntu, Mint, Red Hat, osX; all separate distributions at the product level which the consumer interacts with. A shelf of parts and bolts is not a product usable by an average driver until it's assembled into a car.

(now, to see if I can figure out the formatting tags)


IMHO, that's a pretty bad way to differentiate distros, and a pretty bad reason to have so many different ones. If we're going to play this game, I'd rather see 3 different distros with very solid repositories, rather than 900. Or better yet, how about 1 distro with 1 repository? One of the points made in the article is that having a single app store exposes a single point of failure, but if each distro has its own repository, how is this any different? Sure, maybe you can edit your apt.sources file and add in a couple more, but do you really want to explain to my mom how to do that?


I'd agree if the repository was the only attribute that differentiated a distribution from other's. What I said was that it's an attribute; that indicates that it is among other differentiating attributes. For example, how the overall project is managed, what it's production goals are, the cosmetics of the resulting distribution and so on.

Any why is choice suddenly a bad thing when we talk about Linux based distributions? Somehow we manage to choose a toothpaste or breakfast cereal in-spite of having more than three or one choice on the store shelf. Mint should not be allowed to exist because it's production goals differ from Canonical's? Canonical should never have been allowed to exist because it has choices which differ from Debian's? Why on would we want different products within a category focusing on the different needs of different consumers.. that's just madness.

Regarding one point of failure, is the difference between a single repository for one distribution (App store) and separate repositories for separate distributions not obvious? Um, because they are separate products from separate organizations making separate decisions and one is not directly related or comparable too the other?

Let's imagine a world where all Linux based distributions must draw on a single repository:

- how are differences in default config and system layout by different distributions managed?

- how are different distributions able to try out different package formats and managers when all must adhere to a single repository?

- when one of Gentoo's package managers skipped checking the UnrealIRCd source code from a secondary server against the known good MD5 hash from the primary server before packaging it for Gentoo they affected the security of a single distribution. As of yet, I've not seen reports that any other production version of a major distribution was affected. One single repository would have introduced this vulnerability into all distributions. Welcome to Windows, where would you like your 'sploit to go today?

Should Ford's dealerships to sell and support Toyota's cars too? I mean, this multiple dealerships for multiple car manufacturer's is just nuts isn't it?

In terms of adding and removing additional repositories; again, it's something that depends on the distribution. Why do you have her self-managing a distribution focused on more advanced users? Why don't you simply add the repository entry for her by physical presence or through a quick ssh login?

Even still, Debian's sources.list file is pretty easy to update but there's nothing stopping Debian or anyone else from providing repositories in a way that automates the addition. Maemo does just this actually. Third party applications can add there own repository to the list with user consent. Repository entries can also be added as a simple file download. One website provides a list of repositories; select the ones you want by checkbox and have them all setup at once. Don't blame the repository system for how a distribution manages addition/removal of entries. (yet another way distributions differentiate)


Versions of programs are not the latest and greatest (Debian Stable), consider a distribution that provides more bleeding edge with resulting less stability (Ubuntu forked from Debian Testing/Unstable branches).

Yeah, good luck explaining that to the average iPhone owners. This kind of bullshit is EXACTLY why Linux on the desktop never gained any significant marketshare.


First, why is one explaining Debian's repository setup to an Iphone user? Is understanding osX setup now required for Windows users?

Second, Debian focuses on security and stability over having the latest immature software version number. The offer an opt-in for non-free code. How is that bullshit? Products should not value goals related to there target use? If having the latest version number is your preference; pick a distribution that markets itself on being bleeding edge. Go play with Fedora where instability is considered a feature.

I get stable and more secure but slightly older versions without imposing on your preference for the latest possible software version. You get the latest software version without imposing on my preference. We both get update patches. Because of multiple distributions and in some cases, multiple branches within a single distribution; we both win. Both our end user needs are covered; a feature of a healthy market with multiple products within a single category (ie. separate distributions providing there own repositories).

And here's the icing on top; I still get Firefox4 for my html5 requirements and the latest Metasploit with it's most up to date module additions. Both without having to decrease the stability of the rest of my system.

And this desktop market share you mention; would that be the one measured through retail channels which can only understate the true market share of Linux based distributions while overstating the Windows market share by counting Microsoft's licenses sold to stockpiles rather than actually active on end user owned machines? I thought we where talking about technically related attributes of the distribution repository model not retail market metrics.


That is the way it works now, ...


With Google's most recent announcement they've greatly reduced the scope within which a manufacturer can modify Android and still retain use of the brand name. I truly hope it has the desired affect of decreasing the fragmentation within it. It's a big step forward compared to the previous permitted scope of customization.

I'd like to see manufacturers feeding driver code back into the core Android image but can accept a driver bundle flashed in along side Google's firmware image.

I'd like to see more standardized settings management even while allowing different superficial layers for cosmetics. I hear the issue currently is a different way to talk a user through doing things on each different handset that may walk into an organization; sucks for IT support guys.

I'd like to see vendor specific "value add" crapware as an opt-in install rather than a default install the user must then opt-out of by unclean uninstall processes.

I think these things would improve the situation for Android users though my preference for having a more complete traditional distribution will probably keep me on Maemo and Meego provided future hardware is an upgrade from my N900. Stock Debian on a mobile device would probably trump all for me though; Same tool set on all my machines.. oh baby..

Reply Parent Score: 3

WorknMan Member since:
2005-11-13

First, why is one explaining Debian's repository setup to an Iphone user? Is understanding osX setup now required for Windows users?

Second, Debian focuses on security and stability over having the latest immature software version number. The offer an opt-in for non-free code. How is that bullshit? Products should not value goals related to there target use? If having the latest version number is your preference; pick a distribution that markets itself on being bleeding edge. Go play with Fedora where instability is considered a feature.


If someone is considering using Linux as his primary OS, he's probably going to notice pretty quickly that there's more than one to choose from. And when explaining the difference between the different distros, you're going to have to explain what repositories are, and when doing that, you're going to lose 90% of the iPhone users, who know just enough about their iPhones that when they tap the little 'app store' icon, that's where to get new apps and games. Linux needs to work like that.

Of course, I'm sure you would say "it DOES work like that if you choose the right distro". Um, no it doesn't. Let's say Jane and Suzy are Linux users, one running Ubuntu and the other running Fedora. So, one says to the other, "Hey, I just downloaded this cool new game last night... you should check it out!" So the other one clicks on her 'apps store' icon, and the game is not there. Why? Because that particular game is not on her particular repository. THAT is why it is bullshit.

And although it's not nearly as bad as it is on Linux, this kind of thing happens on Android sometimes. When it happens on Android, it's called fragmentation, and is considered a bad thing. But when it happens on Linux, Linux evangelists call it choice, and consider it a good thing.

If you want to make Linux work like the iPhone currently does, you have to start making decisions for people (like selecting a distro) and set it up for them. thereby dictating which apps they're going to have access to, since most of them would never bother to try side-loading in the first place. You asked in your post, why is choice considered a bad thing? Because people don't like to think, and would rather have choices be made for them. And that is what Apple does. I'm not saying that is a good thing; I'm just saying that's the way it is.

Reply Parent Score: 1