On Saturday, November 2, 2013 14:35:10 Matthias Klumpp wrote: > > OCS is, generally, horribly designed. I am even hesitant to use the word > > ‘design’ in combination with OCS. It is really that bad, and why we did > > not > > use it for Bodega. > > I agree with that, and this is the reason why I currently question the > use of OCS for AppStream. This still needs to be discussed with the > others, but I would rather like to use an improved OCS or a completely > new API for the AppStream Ratings&Review features (as well for maybe > payments, but that's a different issue).
That’s a challenge I see with the AppStream design when it comes to being useful as a true ‘app store’ (let alone any other kind of store): the 95% of the support needed to make such a thing is missing. AppStream is good for its intended use case imho, don’t get me wrong; I just don’t think the use case is very interesting in the larger context. It’s a solution very focused on the needs of Linux distributions (and it does that well!), but that’s not really what people want, need or expect from a system these days. So as a better package manager viewer, I think AppStream is fantastic. I do think something like Bodega would be a lot more relevant to the modern day use cases, though. What I see as truly invaluable in AppStream is standardizing the metadata for Free software applications. It is something Bodega will undoubtedly benefit from as well. > > AppStream is very focused on the needs of desktop Linux. There is > > *nothing* > > wrong about that in the least, but it leaves mobile, embedded and server > > use cases (not to mention more general web based ones) unserviced. > > Can you please clarify what AppStream is missing for mobile? Ignoring the lack of UI (that’s fixable): non-repository based listings and installation, anything that isn’t an application. -- Aaron J. Seigo
