[ge-talk] Installer - App Categories

[Waldemar Kornewald]

Nathan Whitehorn wrote:
> 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.

The Deskbar gives you quick access to your applications and new apps 
should show up there because that automates most people's work. When you 
delete a bundle its Deskbar entry would not disappear when using one 
symlink per app. It's not acceptable to let users create and delete it 
manually.

An alternative solution is to add links to /boot/applications, etc. and 
if the user wants his application to appear in the menu he must move it 
there. That will only work (automatically) with apps located on the boot 
volume, though.

> 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.

Then, how do you want to use queries (without an "installed" attribute)? 
BTW, our registrar must already be responsible for managing bundles (who 
will delete your settings?). I don't like the index_server dependency, 
either, but we cannot use the "installed" attribute because 
system-specific attributes must not be leaked to other computers. OTOH, 
without this attribute we cannot use queries.

> 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...

What about applications installed from flash or network drive (or a 
second partition)? Although you can unmount these volumes at any time 
the apps should stay installed.

> 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.

OS X has many fanatic users who don't realize that their system is far 
from perfect. It may work work them, but that does not mean it is good.

My thinking was that if you already don't want most apps to appear in 
Deskbar why should you care about the Deskbar at all (since you use 
Tracker for many of your apps)? Most people want to have their apps 
automatically added to the Deskbar, so this should work reliably. As you 
can see queries won't work without changes to the VFS and symlinks only 
work for the boot volume (out of the box, I mean). The only reliable 
solution is to let the Deskbar query the Registrar for installed apps 
and let customization-freaks create a desktop link to their categorized 
apps folder. I know you don't like it, but there really is no other 
solution that does not require VFS changes and that is path-independent 
and totally automated.
A compromise could be to use a symlink to /boot/applications, but that 
would not be a satisfactory solution (and there's nearly no difference 
to having that symlink pre-installed on the desktop). Fortunately, the 
average user won't face the limitations of symlinks and advanced users 
can add symlinks, manually (this doesn't make it a good solution, though).
Alternatively, we can allow both by making it configurable.

So, let's agree on something. The following seem to be acceptable:
* Deskbar asking Registrar
* symlinks
* both (configurable)

My votes (in that order):
1. Deskbar asking Registrar
2. both

Bye,
Waldemar