[derleth]

> I would rather have someone make sure (for free) that the app that I download isn't buggy, or crash-y, or other stuff.

Hello, apt-get and yum.

Curated software doesn't have to lead to locked-down systems you can only use at the sufferance of the curators. For example, look at the processes behind Linux distros.

The people who put Linux distros together have been doing this for nigh on twenty years now, with the big caveat that you don't need to 'jailbreak' a Linux machine to install your own software under /usr/local or on your home directory. Even Slackware has packages; the main thing it lacks is dependency-tracking package management.

And, yes, there are filtering processes and even bug-fixing processes in place; Debian, for example, has a lot of people who more-or-less 'own' certain packages to the extent they get the source distributions from the original developers, test them, and modify them to fix bugs and bring them in line with the Debian World Order. All or practically all Debian-derived distros leverage this, Ubuntu foremost among them.

[slowpoke]

First off, excellent post. Honestly, I find it quite baffling that people think (or imply) that you need some commercially backed, locked down system to assure software quality. It's simply not true, it's quite the opposite actually. The open alternatives are infinitely superior.

Furthermore, many packet managers (Arch's pacman, for example) offer the ability to rather easily create and install your own packages and manage them with the same system, allowing you to benefit from the advantages of a packet managing system without having to rely only on the curated repositories.

[cageface]

To be fair though, the quality of almost all of the end-user software available via apt-get is far below that of the iOS or Mac app store. Developers and users have voted with their wallets for Apple's model. Ideologically I'd prefer that this were not the case but it's hard to argue with the numbers.

[mekoka]

As a Linux end-user installing most of my software through apt-get, I think it is your opinion and there is nothing fair about it.

Apple didn't invent this model, they put stricter control, nicely marketed and then monetized on something that's been the primary model of software distribution in Unix for quite a few years now.

Regardless of how nice the app store is, the argument remains that the process doesn't need to be so dictatorial to be successful.

Most Linux distros have their own repositories of software they've reviewed and approved. They each have their own requirements for apps submitted to them, most of the software is free (as in beer and freedom), but I'm willing to bet that if they started pushing for an app marketplace, the element of fairness would not be lost in the process.

One thing that bemuses me about Apple and the trick for which I really raise my hat to them, is how they manage to screw people and still have them rationalize and even advocate for the scam.

[cageface]

I've been as outraged as anyone about Apple's excesses and I don't think it's necessary to be as controlling as they are to facilitate a successful app economy. However, they're currently the only really successful example of this model so the burden of proof is on their critics to show that other approaches can work too.

Focusing on the mechanics of distribution is missing the forest for the trees here. It's about money and what kind of software economy it takes to bring high-quality applications to users. OSS has failed here.

[pyre]

  > they're currently the only really successful example
  > of this model

1. Is OS X more successful due to the Mac AppStore, or is the Mac AppStore just riding on the coattails of OS X's popularity?

2. You can't really compare Linux distributions and apt-get to iOS and its AppStore. People are buying iOS devices for different reasons than they would run Linux. You could probably only make the comparison if iOS and Linux were able to run on the same hardware (and if it came with either OS from the retailer).

[ashishgandhi]

Lock-down? Open?

If by open you mean extensible, that's what all those APIs are for. If by open you mean open source, that's a different debate all together - an easy argument against it would be Linux. If by open you mean where you can take the battery out and put in SD cards - I have a Nexus One and I've never done those things on it, although I could, but never had to take the battery out (and do what?). And no I don't have an iPhone or any other phone that I use. If by open you mean access to Apple's repo (App Store) against Apple's will, then well, that's not what I can say much about. (Jailbreak. If you say not many people do that and it shrinks your market, probably many people don't feel the need to do it. I don't think they don't know about it because it's been in the news so much.) If by open your mean something else, I would genuinely like to know.

[derleth]

> Lock-down? Open?

Linux doesn't have the concept of 'jailbreak'. That's what I mean.