Fwd: Re: Application duplication (was: Re: cdbakeoven)

[Daniel Molkentin]

Moin!

On Saturday 20 April 2002 11:53, Matthias Welwarsky wrote:
>On the other hand: Maybe a platform without applications is not worth
>anything, a desktop without users isn't worth anything either. That is:
>Every issue a _user_ has with KDE is valid and to be taken serious. I
>strongly agree with Dimi here: Users are task oriented, they don't care
>about applications. UML-speak: Users care about "use cases".
>
>So, we need to have both: lots of applications as a reference for the
>developers, and task oriented thinking to fulfill users needs. We're in
>danger to create a geek-only platform here.

A very big ACK.

>How do we comply to both of these requirements? I think the solution could
>be something like the following:
>
>Lets keep the modules base, network, multimedia a.s.o as they are, but
>modify the way to qualify applications for these core modules. Right now we
>look at an application and say, OK, it compiles, the code complies to
>certain standards, and to a certain extend it "does what it says on the
>cover", so it can go into the distribution. We should raise the level so
>that an application only goes into the standard distribution if it's not
>only "technically working", but also actually useful and not offers
>functionality that a user would expect in an already existing application.

Yes, raising the standards seems to be a logical and necessary way, but what 
criterias do you want to establish here?

>Maybe we should even go one step further and rethink what should be in a
>"standard" KDE desktop:
>- a web browser
>- a mail program
>- a media player
>- a picture viewer
>- a.s.o
>
>Note that I didn't mention any application by name here. Maybe we do not
>need different "modules" called base, network, graphics, and so on, just
>one module that has _one_ application for every requirement a user may
>have.
>

Yes, this is what the _average user_ (our target group, isn't it? ;) want and 
why they gorge distributions like Corel or Lindows.

Maybe we could, in coorperation with Andreas, extend apps.kde.com to be 
something like sourceforge but accessing the kde-cvs. 

So every KDE application developers (also those currently referenced as "3rd 
party on apps.kde.com) could put his application in a yet-to-be-discussed KDE 
CVS structure. That would give him all flexibility that comes along with 
being in kdenonbeta, but the application has it's own public place. It would 
also allow application authors to can offer new versions via a web interface.

The benefit for the user is clear: we could reference this page (pre-installed 
bookmark first, maybe later along with a installer-module for kcontrol ;) 
which he can visit and enter keywords on what he wants to do. He will then 
get back a list of applications just as apps.kde.com now does. From the users 
point of view it would just be to tighten apps.kde.com to the KDE 
distribution to make sure users have a chance to select what they want (maybe 
we should add freshmeat.net for political correctness, but that's a different 
topic ;) This would approach what matze referred to as "the users demand to 
work task oriented".

I admint that this is only a very rough outline but I think it makes clear 
what I envision.

Benefits:
=======
- all developers can directly use all advantages direct to kde-cvs
- the user can find, download and install software suited for his purpose 
quickly ("task orientation")

Disadvantages & possible problems:
============================
- I have no idea how distributors think about that approach (Idea: make them 
provide their RPMs for some apps)
- We would need a considerable better CVS infratstructure, I am not sure 
wether we can easily play "SF 2.0"

Comments?

Daniel,-who-knows-those-problems-from-many-discussions-on-fairs
-- 
Daniel Molkentin | The K Desktop Environment | http://www.kde.org
KDE 3.0 - Konquer your Desktop!