Proposing a New App Developer Upload Process

[Matthew Paul Thomas]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Scott Kitterman wrote on 06/09/12 14:22:
> 
> Matthew Paul Thomas <mpt at canonical.com> wrote:
> 
> ...
>> Scott Kitterman wrote on 05/09/12 18:54:
> ...
>>> 
>>> - In this brave new world, what is the definition of "Ubuntu 
>>> itself"? If the application developers are unshackled then it 
>>> must be some subset of what we consider Ubuntu to be today.
>> 
>> The shell and everything that makes it work (down to the kernel 
>> and init system), the toolchain, official developer APIs and the 
>> software that implements them, and whichever apps are installed 
>> by default.
> ...
> 
> I suspect not everyone shares your definition of what Ubuntu 
> is/will be.  Even the I favor a more traditional scope myself, I'm 
> very surprised you didn't include the desktop environment (e.g. 
> Unity, Plasma, etc.).

That's what I meant by "the shell".

> I think it's critical that there be some shared vision of where we 
> are going and even though there won't be resources to do
> everything at once, a broad outline of the chunks of work needed to
> get there.
> 
> To pick just one example, rolling delivery of applications and 
> offering multiple versions of the same package (which is what the 
> BSD Unixes do, although not in a way I've personally found at all 
> satisfying as a user) implies huge changes in package management. 
> Not the least of which is the ability to support downgrades, 
> including migrating per user settings back to previous versions.

Windows, OS X, iOS, and Android all let an author issue a new or
updated application within a week or so of wanting to, which I guess
is what you mean by "rolling delivery". This whole discussion is
predicated on that being a requirement for a mass-market OS.

None of those OSes offer application downgrades (though individual
applications might). None of them migrate user settings to previous
versions. ("The file “iTunes Library” cannot be read because it was
created by a newer version of iTunes. Would you like to download
iTunes now?") And absent that settings problem, OS X is the only one
that makes multiple application versions moderately easy ("portable
apps" on Windows being the exception rather than the rule). That tells
me that while they might be desirable, none of those three things is a
requirement for a mass-market OS.

> It doesn't give the user much to give them the ability to choose 
> when to upgrade a package if you don't also give them the ability 
> to change there mind if the experience is poor with the new 
> version.
> 
> ...

Even if that's a problem worth solving, that doesn't necessarily mean
it's best solved at the same time as the app developer upload problem,
or that it even affects the solution for that problem. If you think
either is true, perhaps you could explain why, and describe how the
solutions might coexist.

- -- 
mpt
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://www.enigmail.net/

iEYEARECAAYFAlBJCTUACgkQ6PUxNfU6ecrpjwCfWGsn4/++Veu53znGt4Bh7kFp
PhsAnj+SRqJFv0z6dKqg030KuJ8jEaHF
=7jqA
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----