Software was not meant to be someone's 'property' that can be bought or sold. Everyone has a right to free download, modify and share, that's the point of GNU and Linux.
Bill Gates would like to know your location
Bill gates would like to know everyones location
That’s what the whole windows telemetry enshitification nonsense is about
If you want Windows, you know where to find it.
Ubuntu Snap comes close to what OP described, and so do npm, apt etc. They need to realize that the terminal is not an enemy. Text output makes it easier to resolve issues than "install failed" you get in many commercial app stores.
Did you read the article? It's about being able to buy and sell apps, not just about installing them.
Most are FOSS so that's not required. Man pages and readmes usually specify the project website where a “Donate” link is.
Are you just deliberately ignoring the article?
This man is in desperate need of both tar and feathers
You mean tar and gzip?
Wtf? No. Fuck all the way off.
Flatpak started working on payments earlier this year, so that is happening. But have we forgotten about Steam? It's mainly used for games yes, but your can sell software on it too. I've even bought some software on it.
People were developing proprietary paywalled software for Windows for years before Windows Store, or whatever it is called, was introduced.
And most of the revenue in software comes from outside the Windows Store anyway. As someone else said, there's no stopping a dev from putting in monetisation options in their software directly. I don't get the need for an app store, especially when Linux has had the superior repo and package management system.
It's called "The package manager". :^)
I would say that's more of a feature than a bug.
I think I would have more of a problem with the centralisation implied by this proposal than I would with paying for apps; a centralised "store" gives too much power to one organisation - but if you could choose to download one I don't think that's too much of a problem. But then we already have Steam for that.
Is there anything stopping something like connecting your credit card to GNOME Software Manager and then putting a big fat "donate" button next to the "install" button? I imagine there are legal considerations.
I think I would like to see Amazon, Google, Netflix etc to pay for the free and open source projects they use to make money and sell in their AWS and database offerings.
I -personally- don't miss a store for end users. Marketshare for Linux on the destop is slim anyways. That's not where you earn a considerable amount of your money.
And i like things like the value-for-value model. So maybe instead include donation links in the package managers and into the databases of the gnome-software etc. (I think it's called packagekit.)
Ow my head
The real "problem" is how you make it work without a monopoly system like Google's or Apple's or Steam or Microsoft. They have to varying extents made monopolies where app makers want to list in their store, and accept they take 30% of the revenue because they are the sole gatekeeper to a large number of users. That model doesn't work in Linux because you can't create a monopoly to force someone to use your store.
Microsoft keeps trying in Windows via sheer scale but UWA's are not a monopoly so people currently largely bypass it. Microsoft even now lets App makers keep every penny of money generated "in-app" (except for games) as it's desperate to try and grow. Canonical has tried it with Linux and has also failed because ultimately it isn't a monopoly and it's method of Debs as the article said didn't really work. Steam works cross platform because of sheer size and it's managed to make a convenient cross platform library which gradually locks users in to an extent, and also forces publishers to list it's game there. It's very difficult to get to that kind of scale to be compelling.
For an "App store" to work in Linux under the currently "accepted" business model, you'd need to find some way of making it a monopoly or compelling somehow so that users will buy in and the 30% price tag to App makers becomes impossible to ignore due to the scale. I can't see that happening. Google did it with Android by forking Linux and making it an entirely walled garden it controlled; the free route into that garden is there but is very marginal and you have to bypass security measures to get to it.
The only way I can see it working in a limited fashion in Linux is if someone makes an "at cost" model where the share of revenue taken by the app store is purely to maintain the store (including the payment system, any "drm" that might be needed etc). That sounds like the Flathub route. But I can't see it growing rapidly or being compelling for App makers to take a risk on - it'll probably take a long time to gradually grow and prove itself as a reliable way of monetising apps.
Whether or not we need monetised Apps in linux is a whole other question. For me personally, aside from Games, all the software I use on Windows and Linux is free OR a subscription service (such as Office paid for by work, or my Email, Password manager and Backup software which I pay for). On my phone, the only software I've ever bought has been low level - like a music player or a theme app; and that has been an engineered demand because Google has a monopoly, which largely keeps out the opensource community allowing app makers to step in. I bypass that now with F-droid. I accept I'm part of the exception in Android, but most users have that expectation in Linux and Windows.
I don't see a substantial "app store" type eco-system growing in those environments. If someone is willing to give it away for free as FOSS, then it leaves little room for App makers for low level software. The only route to make money is then the "premium" or value added models, and a lot of that is going subscription model - software as a service. App stores are largely the result of closed eco-systems; in an open eco-system like Linux and even Windows it just doesn't make much sense.
"store" - n. - a quantity or supply of something kept for use as needed
A store doesn't have to mean that something must be for sale. There are numerous Linux app stores that all function exactly as they are designed.
The term "store" grates on me a bit, until recently we just called them repositories/repos, I think that's a better name.
It’s really just semantics. And the article just seems like a nonsensical argument, to me.
You can build in subscriptions or support licenses to your open source apps. Look at cryptomator and bitwarden for example. I know others do it. (And the free version is about as good as paid. But you can pay for a few near features and to support the devs)
And the beauty is that the package management takes no cut and puts no rules on payment methods.
This is the right answer.
Well there were/are attempts to make flatpak with flathub an universal app store on linux. If I remember correctly, there were some ideas mooted on adding paid apps in to flathub.
Steam.
Games are the only software I purchase these days
The Steam store does have a section for non-game software. It's not very heavily-populated, but it's there.
https://store.steampowered.com/search/?category1=994&supportedlang=english&ndl=1
1,439 results match your search.
If I exclude non-Linux-native stuff (which will still generally run via Proton):
https://store.steampowered.com/search/?category1=994&os=linux&supportedlang=english&ndl=1
100 results match your search.
And because it has a standard set of libraries, it's probably the closest thing to a stable, cross-Linux-distro binary target out there, which I suspect most closed-source software would just as soon have.
You run your open-source stuff on the host distro, and run the Steam stuff targeting the Steam libraries.
@tal
I love valve, but I'm not sure I'm comfortable turning them into such a key way to get software on Linux
Well, whoever does that for closed-source software is going to basically have to do what they have done. Probably some kind of cross-distro fixed binary target, client software to do updates, probably some level of DRM functionality like steamlib integration.
If it's not Steam, it's gonna be something that has a lot of the same characteristics.
Personally, I kind of wish that there was better sandboxing for apps from Steam (think what the mobile crowd has) since I'd rather not trust each one with the ability to muck up my system, but given how many improvements Valve's driven so far, I don't feel like I can complain at them for that. A lot of the software they sell is actually designed for Windows, which isn't sandboxed, and given the fact that not all the infrastructure is in place (like, you'd need Wayland, I dunno how much I'd trust 3d drivers to be hardened, you maybe have to do firejail-style restrictions on filesystem and network access, and I have no idea how hardened WINE is), it'd still take real work.
Their use of per-app WINE prefixes helps keep apps that play nicely from messing each other up, but it isn't gonna keep a malicious mod on Steam Workshop or something from compromising your system.
You know, that probably is the closest thing Linux has. The only thing is it's not preinstalled and I wonder how many of the actual programs are Linux compatible.
But otherwise, yeah it's more an app store than the package manaer
What's the benefit of having things preinstalled? It's pretty easy to install stuff, even through the command line.
If the idea of the app store we are talking about is like Windows or Apple, then it would include occasional OS related programs. So if it weren't preinstalled that would be harder, that's all.
It's preinstalled if you buy a Steam Deck -- which by default runs a corporate backed (i.e. by Valve) Arch-derived distro called SteamOS. I bought one. If you hook it up like a regular computer (plug in mouse, keyboard, and external monitor with the dock) damned near everything I've tried has worked acceptably. Some games need a little fiddling around (e.g. installing video codecs or CJK language support or changing the proton version from the default setting to "experimental") and I've run into bugs with full screen or the on screen keyboard a couple times, but I have yet to find a game I straight up could not play even if it was marked as unsupported. (I expect some games with obnoxious DRM/anti-cheat or that need ridiculously powerful cutting edge GPU specs probably wouldn't work well though, but haven't really tested the limits in that direction.)
Oh definitely, the Steam Deck is a great example of this - the preinstalled package manager handles desktop side updates while Valve handles the Steam side updates. You could never use the package manager and know none the wiser, and likewise you could pretty much never boot into gaming mode and it's still all handled for you via package manager. Love my Steam Deck. I've experienced basically the same as you, pretty much nothing I've thrown at it fails, unless I were to cheat and try VR or something.
The only actual thing that made me sad was I planned on using it for portable Rocksmith but there are some pretty major issues with audio, even in a Windows install, but I was pretty much expecting that since the software already has issues. But that's fine, it does stellar emulating switch games :)
many distros have something a kin to a software 'store'. the strength of open source, where everyone is free to 'do their own thing', is also why a central 'app store' for linux won't happen without a major shift in how things are done. there's simply way too much fragmentation.
something like snap or flathub would have to become the dominant distribution mechanism for linux applications in order for a 'store' to have the user base to make it possible. canonical is trying with snaps but ubuntu's marketshare is far from enough to make it a reality, and all they're doing for their efforts is pushing some users away.
steam is an alternative. it is a proven and time-tested multi-platform distribution channel. there are some 'non game' titles on it, not many, but there are some. and it would be up to valve to market it differently, and perhaps change the pricing structures to make it more appealing to developers of non-entertainment titles. 30% off the top is just too fucking much for smaller developers to give up.
Well, elementary OS had that implemented, and Flathub was trying to make that a thing, but I'm not sure what happened there
The solution is not centralization, the solution is a protocol. The team at Flattr tried to do something that worked for content, but it was centralized. The team at Ganxy tried to expand the definition of monetize, but it was centralized. If we had a protocol where teams could publish metadata that enabled users to use any data-driven app to generate some form of compensation for the contributors, then we could build all sorts of workflows into package managers that made it easier.
ITT a lot of people who don't read anything but the title
The AUR does exactly this, nothing else needed.
Linux Mint has Software Manager, that is pretty close to an app store.
It's installed by default. Some other distros might have something similar.
(Versions since that article was written can have an "ad" picture at the top for a recommended package, which, somewhat bizarrely, does make it look even more friendly than the interface shown.)
True, it's not a Linux-wide common interface, but then the gap between two distros can be as wide as between commercial operating systems, and it would be foolish to expect their app stores to have a common interface.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Linux is a family of open source Unix-like operating systems based on the Linux kernel, an operating system kernel first released on September 17, 1991 by Linus Torvalds. Linux is typically packaged in a Linux distribution (or distro for short).
Distributions include the Linux kernel and supporting system software and libraries, many of which are provided by the GNU Project. Many Linux distributions use the word "Linux" in their name, but the Free Software Foundation uses the name GNU/Linux to emphasize the importance of GNU software, causing some controversy.
Community icon by Alpár-Etele Méder, licensed under CC BY 3.0
