[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       kde-core-devel
Subject:    Re: Adopting AppData in =?iso-8859-1?Q?KDE=3F?=
From:       Thomas_Lübking <thomas.luebking () gmail ! com>
Date:       2013-11-03 17:15:26
Message-ID: d0263e99-468f-4bdc-8f39-a9c745a9075b () gmail ! com
[Download RAW message or body]

On Sonntag, 3. November 2013 16:28:56 CEST, Albert Astals Cid wrote:
> El Diumenge, 3 de novembre de 2013, a les 13:24:40, Richard Hughes va 
> escriure:
> > On 3 November 2013 12:32, Albert Astals Cid <aacid@kde.org> wrote:
> > > I am all for listing "high quality applications", it's just 
> > > that this just
> > > doesn't help.
> > 
> > Sure it does. We're not going to get AppData files for sodipodi,
> > cinepaint or arora any time soon. 
> 
> But you said anyone can write one and submit it to Fedora for 
> submission, you 
> also said they're pretty trivial to write, so why do you think 
> I (or someone 
> else) can not write one for sodipodi and submit it?


I think everyone who read this thread was immediately aware that the "high quality \
applications" argument is "flawed" (i've actually another term in mind)

Qualification/certification requires a trustworthy instance, not some formalized \
README. And the presence of an AppData description does neither indicate that the app \
is actually maintained (not now and certainly not in the long run, not even if you'd \
pervert the idea of a standard and alter it once a month), nor does the absence \
indicate that the app is of low quality (by measure of update frequency, some \
essential CLI tools would have to be considered "utter crap", because they work the \
way they are since a decade - and they do not even provide screenshots!!!)

The one and only point of forcing the apps to support AppData in order to be \
available is to enforce the AppData "standard". If google videosearch would only find \
youtube videos, there'd be not the slightest doubt about that being a move in order \
to enforce (or at least "encourage") distribution via youtube and certainly not to \
assure "high quality videos" - of cats...


The important questions to ask and answer (well, "is it usable")
----------------------------------------------------------------
* does it presently qualify as "standard" at all? (not as long as it states \
                particular tools - like gnome i18n, as claimed by David)
* what are the benefits of this particular standard over pot. competitors?
* what are the deficits of this particular standard?
* who is in control of the standard?
* what are the benefits in controlling the standard?
* What are the goals? Is it actually supposed to become a gatekeeper ("high quality \
                applications" at best, "you use what i tell you"/"walled garden" at \
                worst) tool?
* in case, by what technique (expert review, voting, etc.), ie. who becomes the \
gatekeeper?

No serious answer to the above could include buzz like "high quality" or "awesome".

Cheers,
Thomas


[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]