Slashdot Mirror
Novell Ponders "Open-Source Apps Store"
Barence writes "Novell plans to bring the wealth of open-source software to everyday users through an 'open-source apps store.' 'I would compare what's happening on netbooks with what's happening to the smartphone,' Holger Dyroff, vice president of business development at Novell told PC Pro. 'There's a core experience, but then the ability to customise that experience. On the user end, all they'll see is an open-source applications store with one-click downloads of new software. Unlike the other stores though, they won't have to pay for any of those applications, which will be very attractive.'"
Kind of like a repository?
How does this differ from any of the GUI front ends available for Debian's apt?
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
Where?
Let's call it freshmeat! or how about Repository!
Actually, i know what they are getting at. It should be a community that recommends or spotlights existing or new applications.
I wonder if it would act like the standard linux repositories. Just search and download. If this is followed through and done correctly, an open source "App Store" could give power to some not so well known apps.
My only concern is with the title of "store" what will they be charging for?
Additionally could this implicate free software as we saw on the iPhone, lots and lots of extremely hampered trial-ware?
They added a feature to donate money to open source projects. Or even allowed projects to sell their own open-source software in the store. Or sell for cost add-ons to the open source software. Yes, open source software could very well be downloaded elsewhere for free, but people might well pay for the convenience of getting it one place.
Or an extension to the standard Synaptic-type front end to repositories where you could just click and run an app. What could you call something where you could just click and run any application you might want, I wonder... Hmmmm...I just can't seem to think of anything to name a click and run type of interface to open source repositories.
Why not let authors of the software charge just like the smart phone apps? Sounds like a revenue source for Novell and a revenue source for software writers. There can be a mix of free and not-free software in the "store" just like Apple's.
To answer my own question it sounds like Novell wants to leverage the "app store" hype and just put a front end on apt.
I came to the datacenter drunk with a fake ID, don't you want to be just like me?
I don't think Novell has quite come to terms with the idea of Free Software yet...
The idea of an "app store" has really been copied from the software repositories which have been used on OSS systems for many years...
An often used argument against Linux, is that users want to go down to and buy boxed software to install... But you can't do that with the iphone, the iphone has a repository where you select software and it gets installed for you, just like linux, and this idea has worked very well. Infact, i would say this method works much better than boxed software from B&M stores...
Users want to get software as easily (and usually cheaply) as possible, and if they were aware of just how much easier Linux makes it would actually prefer this method and consider it a strength of Linux, not a weakness.
So what we really need, is education and advertising to show people that Linux does this too, and that it's actually much better than having to fork over cash for physical media and have to install it yourself.
http://spamdecoy.net - free throwaway anonymous email - avoid spam!
As a developer i don't find it's so attractive
I prefer to post Mac OS X, Windows and iPhone Apps. At least they allow any developer to get payed for developing software.
Why should I develop for free to let Novel collect money?
Developers should start to open their eyes
I will start to work for free when also others workers will start to work for free. At the moment only developers do that.
errr, Freshmeat isn't dead yet :P
Maybe this could be the start of integrating all the different package managers into one!
Can it be possible for all distributions to share a common package manager?
Linspire nee Lindows did this some years ago and it is still around.
http://www.cnr.com/
Learning HOW to think is more important than learning WHAT to think.
This can be good for the open source movement if it is done correctly. I agree with the previous posts that an application in their Linux products that would allow a customer to have an app that can download everything that will run and work for their Linux distro with an installer to make it easier for the non techies this would help adoption of Linux. I know Ubuntu and others have apt but if Novell does this with an option that would encourage donations to the writers with a safe option to donate without making people uncomfortable with transactions being safe this would work and get some much needed funds to the writers of the free software. A win win for open source and the developers. Again this would have to be done right. As a user at work with Suse Enterprise Desktop this would work as well as people who use the open version. I know there are some that hate Novell for the M$ pact so this won't matter to them. And yes I have given donations to open source development.
As many people will say it is a just a repository.
They may add reviews and ratings which will be a good thing but they shouldn't limit it to free as in beer software.
There is nothing that says you can not sell FOSS if they feel that they must keep it open source. I would open it up to closed source software as well so you can create a real market for Linux software.
If you have both open and closed source developers you will have MORE software choices. You may have both GIMP and Photoshop Elements. GnuCash and Quicken, and SQLedger and QuickBooks.
I know the many Linux users find the idea of paying for anything to be evil but if you want more Linux users you need to find a way to get more Linux software.
One thing I really like about an app store is that it really seems to drive down the price of software. Look on the iPhone App store and you will find a lot of $1.99 to $5 software. Some of it is pretty good. There is also a lot of free as in beer software. It does offer a way for programmers to make money and offers the end user a large selection of software.
And that is a great way to get more Netbook users happy with Linux and more developers developing for Linux. It could even help FOSS. A lot of professional developers do FOSS on the side. If they can make a living using Linux they will be motivated to do more FOSS projects as well.
See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
There is no way an Open Source App store is going to work. Open Source apps are already free and you can usually get most of them with yum / apt-get and you expect someone to pay to use your store?
Hell, this is a worse idea than Sun's Java App Store.
I just filed a patent for the idea of porting apt-get to Windows and OS X. Now I'll be rich! RICH! :D
BTW, I'm only kidding.
All kidding aside, I think this would be a good idea. This would remove the hassle of finding, installing, and maintaining open source software for Windows and Mac users. As a Mac user that has a lot of open source software installed (Firefox, OpenOffice, GIMP, Adium, etc), I find that MacPorts is lacking in functionality. I spend too much time maintaining these software installations that could otherwise easily be done with a few clicks. This is something that I miss from my OpenSolaris box, which is my second computer.
This space left intentionally blank.
Right! Microsoft/Novell helps you contaminate your machine with patent-encumbered Mono so that Microsoft can send you a bill for license fees.
Microsoft/Novell can also infect your machine with malware that reduces your fine Linux box to Windows grade security. ... Microsoft can then legitimately say that Linux is as vulnerable to malware as is Windows.
Just a thought.
Maybe charge for access (subscription). Or charge a flat rate for posting, and then the owner can set the price. Eventually, owner will want to profit from their code. It would be better to have this infrastructure in place now. Rather than scrambling to build it later.
I think what they are eventually getting is also implementing openSUSE so called 1 click installer for applications. Although a good idea for newer users I find it to be a PITA. 1 click is like a little repository within itself which then adds repos and missing packages if needed.
With 1 click downloads and 1 click installers I seriously wonder if this "software store" will work with other distributions other then their own openSUSE/SLED. Also on another note what kind of Software with what license models will be put in the store ? I for one, know I dont want 1 click everything with (for e.g. mono, imho novell really likes to push this on people) some screwy licensed software being eventually installed without being asked and or notified about it.
Redundant on three accounts, funny no? Find the third and mod me down for it. ;p On a serious note, I'd be willing to donate coding time to open source cell apps.
"Sorrow is better than laughter, for by sadness of face the heart is made glad." [Ecclesiastes 7:3]
... and you just beat me to it. In fact I am selling open source for smart phones [1] - and it would be great to sell to the Linux market. In fact it is not a shop if you can't charge for the program. Note that - with the GPL - you only really have to give the source to your customers so I could envision a shop where access to forums, source code etc. pp is only available to paying customers.
Martin
[1] http://fx-602p.krischik.com/
The GPL is pretty clear here: Only your customers have the right to access the source code.
I think you need to come to terms that free is not gratis.
Martin
Oh sorry that was just a twitch from the electric shock..... its dead!.
doesn't apt-get work anymore?
I posted a very similar idea to Ubuntu brainstorm a few weeks ago, as a proposed solution to the problem of paying developers of free (libre) software. I feel it's highly relevant to the dialog taking place here about this article, so I've copy-pasted some of it here:
.deb's of contribution-based software via filesharing networks, or visiting the authors' websites to compile "contribution-based" software from source and package it by hand; and, according to the terms of the GPL, and most other free software licenses, they would be completely within their rights to do so. However, such methods are much less convenient than simply clicking through a graphical interface, and obtaining your packages directly from Canonical, especially with respect to the demographic of non-technical users that Canonical would like to target. Just so long as value is added to the software in some way, be it by way of convenience or by some other means, then a "contribution-based" repository will be used over other methods of obtaining and installing the software. Additionally, I feel that many Ubuntu users would like to see developers get paid, and thus would be more inclined to use such a service.
Despite its closed nature, Apple's App Store has proven to be a tremendous success. The App Store model involves a central organization that approves and distributes commercial applications directly to users. The central organization takes a small percentage of the revenue generated on each app sold; the rest of the revenue goes directly in the pocket of the developer. The overall goal is to make it as easy as possible to connect users who want to pay for high-quality free software, to developers who want to produce that software.
It is very easy to imagine Canonical acting as the the central distributor in this model, as it currently performs this role already with software that is free-as-in-beer (much of it is free-as-in-speech as well). Additionally, much of the core technologies required for such an app store to exist are already in place: distribution, packaging and installation is all provided by apt; Synaptic provides a convenient graphical front-end for installation and package management. Perhaps, with small extensions to these existing systems, it would be possible to create an infrastructure to allow for individual payments to application developers.
It is also important to note that while Apple's app store primarily hosts non-free software (free as in beer, and free as in speech), and uses DRM to ensure that users do not make copies of this software, I believe that neither of these features are essential to the success of an Ubuntu App Store. It is possible to imagine individual users swapping
In conclusion, while putting a price on software that has otherwise been free-as-in-cost might at first seem a bit unusual, we must consider that providing a convenient, direct mechanism for developers to be paid for their software will help, not harm, the Ubuntu GNU/Linux distribution, the ecosystem of free-as-in-speech software, and the Free Software Movement in general. It will attract more users and more developers to the Ubuntu GNU/Linux platform, especially as such a mechanism does not exist on Microsoft Windows. One need only look to the success of the Apple App Store, and Sun's soon-to-be-launched Java app store, to see that there is a demand for such a distribution model.
If you like this idea, please feel free to vote the it up on Ubuntu Brainstorm. Thanks,
Jake
If a typical Linux newbie can't use a repository, odds are they aren't smart enough to actually use the software they can't install. It's unbelievable that someone couldn't use the modern package repositories with the hundreds of frontends, with millions of websites that help, with the commandline utilities and with online support available 24/7/365.
I'm wondering if they mean something like suse's 1-click installs. They're neat and they have them for other distros too like redhat and debian. Basically if a software is not in the standard distro you can search for it at software.opensuse.org/search and click on the 1-click. It'll then run in Yast. Enter your root password like you would to open the software management and then go on your merry little way.
That which does not kill me only postpones the inevitable.
Donation does not work all that well. But I am fully in favour for a Shop where the author can charge for his work.
This is just a repository. Granted doing it for MS-Windows will make it attractive to a wider audience.
openSUSE Build Service - where you can get a package for Debian, Redhat, or SUSE.
Trouble is, it doesn't work very well, and many of the 'packages' there are just 'projects'. Hollow.
They just don't get it. Every time they touch something in open source, they try to turn it in to some sort of MS want-a-be crap and sneak in some back door attempt to charge for what is freely available without adding any real value to it (in fact, often removing the value from it).
I have been looking at their stock for months trying to figure out a compelling reason to buy it based on their buisness strategy, that some other competitor could not just crush them for free (other than they might be a target for a buy out). Why buy the cow when the milk is free?
Living in Chile
I'm not readily aware of any Windows apt-get type solutions. I'm assuming Novell will also host Windows open source software (per TFA). Windows users will become aware of the great software open source can provide. Something no linux repository currently does. Sourceforge is close, but no one I work with has ever heard of it.
Novell, you're so two thousand and late.
In addition to the package managers, KDE also has the Get Hot New Stuff library. Programs can use it to easily let users fetch online content.
Just for the record: Fuck Aptitude.
apt-cache search *expr* | grep *exp* #if needed
apt-get install *package*
How is that not much easier?
You feel sleepy. Close your eyes. The opinions stated above are yours. You cannot imagine why you ever felt otherwise.
Only your customers have the right to access the source code.
Riiiight.. but they can then proceed to give it away, and the GPL prevents you from imposing any restrictions on them that would prevent that.
I think you need to come to terms that free is not gratis.
I have yet to see a viable business plan for selling free software (not to be confused with software-related services, including bespoke development).
They would likely have more people downloading if they charged. iTunes is proof you can charge for something that is free to most people. People value things they pay for more than stuff given away.
The audience such a store would attract would be those that need lots and lots of help. They would need to (expensively) repackage things with all of their required co-requisites and dependencies. This would make Linux a lot more friendly for people that cannot spend the time to locate the 37 different packages at different version levels required to install the application they really want.
In short, not charging is a mistake. $1 or even $5 would go a long way towards making their store much more usable by the average Joe.
'Nuff said.
merely surrendering your mortal soul / first born to Miguel & Microsoft.
Perhaps it will have a nice web portal with reviews, in-depth descriptions, and decent screenshots?
In other words, what Windows users found in TuCows in 1993 and Download.com in 1996.
What MIchael Robertson was saying was absolutely essential to the mainstreaming of the Linux desktop in 2002 when he launched CNR.com. CNR (sofware)
The difference is that Robertson was a pragmatist with no interest in the geek's ideological wars over development models and licenses.
CNR would list - and sell - the proprietary - closed source - DVD player or game that would help make his product competitive.
No lectures. No hassle.
There are four long-standing problems for Linux in the home.
1 Linux arrived late to the party.
It really, really, needed to be there - and strongly positioned - before Windows 95.
2 Linux is either invisible - embedded in the cell phone or set top box - or it's the second cousin, twice removed.
The Blue Light special on Aisle 3.
3 The home is a demanding, sophisticated market.
Difficult to get a handle on.
Light years removed from the sterotype of the Windows "luser." Software Best Sellers in Home and Hobbies
4 Free is never as compelling as the geek likes to think.
That the home market is a solidly middle class market couldn't be made any plainer than this: Chief Architect Software
This is a market where ideological purity or political correctness counts for absolutely nothing.
That lesson can't be repeated more often.
You have to prove - again and again - that you offering a better product than the incumbent.
The geek will choke on this - but he has to get it down:
The OEM price of Windows is trival -
as close to free as makes no difference.
Windows is a solid, marketable, operating systems with a credible UI. It is not particularly difficult for a home user to secure - and the free tools available are more than adequate for the job.
It's all about the apps.
You have to brutally honest about what you have.
Don't try to sell The Gimp or OpenOffice as first-tier apps until they are first tier-apps.
Don't count the number of programs in your distro's repository.
Think about what is missing, what needs to be there to reach your target audience.
It can be something as basic as Print Shop.
In Add/Remove Software, go to the search box, look for Gweled, click install
And if I don't frequent Slashdot, how do I know that Gweled is in the repository, what it does, or how to spell it?
Yeah, but your customers are free to redistribute this code. The moment one of them decides to give it away for free, you lose. Selling GPL'd code isa short-term strategy at best.
This is quite close to my first thought about this: why does it have to be free? Just because it is for Linux or Open Source? Open Source does not necessarily mean free-of-charge, not even free-as-in-speech. That one can look at the source and modify it doesn't necessarily mean you have the right to redistribute it, or that you can obtain it for free.
You're quite right that there's no reason for open software to always be gratis. But unrestricted redistribution is one of FOSS's strengths.
It's quite possible to charge for software that is both source-available and redistributable. Rails Wheels does this.
Now if only they can come with a simple way to pay small amounts (and that is a big issue - without having to buy "credits" in advance or whatever) I think it can give a great boost to open-source developers. If an application is good, well yes I'd happily donate a small amount (though much rather after obtaining it; not beforehand - try before you buy). Not US$50 or so - more like a dollar or two. Let a couple hundred people do so and the developer can buy himself a nice upgrade for his computer. Always nice when your hobby gives you something real in return.
You can make small payments feasible by having a store that allows you to aggregate your purchases for various pieces of software at quarterly intervals, as Rails Wheels does.
Also, we shouldn't be stuck on panhandling as a way to get paid for open software. You can charge a compulsory one-off or quarterly fee when the software is being used (rather than just evaluated). In return you give the purchaser ticket-based support and a "licenced user" web-badge.
Licence fees should also vary with the type of user, and the benefit being gained. Say, making it free for non-commercial users, cheap for small commercial operations, and more expensive (but still great value) for large users.