[ge-talk] Installer - App Categories

[Nathan Whitehorn]

Waldemar Kornewald wrote:
> Nathan Whitehorn wrote:
>>> Apps that don't specify a category are not shown in the Deskbar.
>>
>> Reasonable, I guess. Half the point of bundles, though, is to avoid 
>> cluttering /boot/apps. I would much prefer having the Deskbar simply 
>> show the contents of that directory. The file system is a good thing. 
>> It's obvious how to change the contents. What I would suggest, in 
>> fact, is to have ~/config/be simply contain symlinks to /boot/apps, 
>> /boot/preferences, and /boot/games. Then if people want to categorize 
>> their deskbar, or modify it in any way they can. We could also put 
>> saved queries in there. The Deskbar itself *should not know anything* 
>> about packages, or software placement, nor should apps try or need 
>> explicitly to put themselves there -- an overreliance on people 
>> opening apps with the start menu created the C:\Program Files mess on 
>> Windows.
>
> It's not just the /boot/apps clutter. Bundles are totally location 
> independent. How do you want to include /home/apps without using 
> queries? What if some user deletes his queries in ~/config/be and uses 
> symlinks for his own categories? New applications won't automatically 
> appear, anymore. This cannot be the recommended solution to 
> categorization. You cannot even expect most users to recreate the 
> queries if they deleted them. We need a reliable solution that cannot 
> be broken or replaced with something that is unreliable (at least not 
> as a "recommended solution").
Why not? I'm fine with this solution. I never want new apps in the 
Deskbar, and always immediately uncheck any "Add to Deskbar" option that 
they have. I regard having new apps not show up there not so much as a 
sign of unreliability as of progress. You only need that if you don't 
know where your app is -- Windows even has to highlight it for you. OS 
X, which uses bundles, has no app menu at all, and the Dock can fit only 
a very limited number of items. On a similar note, OS X's "Choose an app 
to open this file..." window is a file picker, not a list of programs. 
And no one has a problem with it, because they put their apps wherever 
they are.

With that said, an Applications query could be fine too. I just don't 
want that functionality hardcoded into the Deskbar.

> But if we go with queries: The index_server should store system-local 
> attributes (never copied). Every installed bundle is marked with such 
> an attribute. On upgrade we can request the index_server to delete the 
> old bundle's attribute (even if the bundle is located on an 
> *unmounted* volume) and add one for the new bundle. Queries are used 
> by default, so everything works as expected.
This involves modifying vfs to support package management, which seems 
like a bad idea, plus appealing to an index_server to maintain 
consistency. We shouldn't need to actively do *anything* to manage 
bundles -- that's half the point of the things.

This problem, of course, is one reason I don't like queries -- you loose 
important context information about the bundles (which one is in 
blah/v2.0/app, which in blah/v1.0/app, or which is the one I put in my 
home directory, and which is the system one), and if you back up your 
apps by copying them somewhere they still show up in the Deskbar -- 
hardly desired behavior.

> What should happen to file systems that don't support attributes or 
> queries? Should the index_server emulate these capabilities for such 
> file systems (and store its data on the FS to not waste resources)? 
> You would be unable to extend read-only file systems, though. That 
> means you cannot permanently install a bundle from CD without copying 
> it. Maybe this is not too bad because you normally don't use bundles 
> from CD. 
What does it mean to permanently install a bundle from a CD without 
copying it? Unless you leave the CD in all the time, it can't possibly 
be installed in any reasonable sense of the word, and since the closest 
this system gets to installation, as a concept, is to copy the bundle 
somewhere...
> How do we auto-translate queries like "Applications" into other 
> languages? There must be "localizable" attributes/file names.
OK.... so we rename /boot/applications to /boot/whatever in another 
language distribution. One of the beauties of a path independent system 
is that you can do things like rename important directories.
>>> To make all installed software still accessible from an intuitive 
>>> place (for uninstall and inspection of installed software) the 
>>> "Applications" menu in Deskbar gets an entry "Show All Applications" 
>>> (placed at the top and separated from the other entries). This entry 
>>> opens the "Software Manager" which should look like an application 
>>> launcher, but also allow for inspecting all installed bundles and 
>>> packages.
>>
>> Why not just open a query that lists all your applications, as 
>> opposed to faking it with some app? A Software Manager like thing 
>> should be used only for removing installed packages, and should be a 
>> preference. With bundles, we already can uninstall them by dragging 
>> them from the query to the trash. The only other thing a fake 
>> launcher could do would be to get in the way.
>
> I was thinking of apps not listed in "Applications" (e.g.: BePDF). Did 
> you never get asked how to uninstall some application that does not 
> appear in the Windows "Start Menu"? It's unintuitive to search in 
> Control_Panel->Software. You don't search in "Preferences" if you want 
> to delete an app. As a newbie you first look in "Applications" and 
> then wonder how to delete it (since it's missing). This is why I would 
> like to have a "Show All Applications" item. "Applications" is the 
> first place that comes to your mind.
>
I would suggest going into /boot/applications or /boot/preferences, and 
then dragging it to the trash. If people open things with a deskbar that 
reflects the fs layout, or with the fs itself, and installed the app 
themselves, they presumably know where it is, and can delete it 
accordingly. It works for however many satisfied OS X users. And we can 
implement "Show All Applications" with a query easily enough, if we want 
to go that route.
-Nathan