Installation System / Game Marketplace?

[Jourdy288]

What do you want to call it? A Pap store?

 

[Sphinxter]

Amazing how many people the whole, 'open', concept is just completely lost on.

 

[dflemstr]

Amazing how many people the whole, 'open', concept is just completely lost on.

How so?

 

[HackModford]

Amazing how many people the whole, 'open', concept is just completely lost on.

i.e. I don't care what you guys think. I'll make this program myself because I don't need permission and you don't have to download it if you don't want to and everyone else will because obviously alot of people want this.

:lol:

 

[lulzfish]

I would call it a "Program Manager" since it's not necessarily selling anything like a store is, and since "application" is too long and "app" is one of those words that causes me physical pain when I think of it. It's a single syllable, and it's one of my least favorite syllables.

Also, is there an easy way to work torrents into this to reduce the bandwidth strain on the main repository hosting person?
Or are they not worth the effort, considering some people won't want to seed? (And should not be forced to, of course)

 

[Monk]

So you're saying that people who find it challenging to click a link on a website will be able to click an icon in a standalone app?

Yes, I'm saying that people who find it challenging to browse to/find and navigate an ancient style web site and check the possibly hudnreds or thousands of entries for anything that they might need updating, it would be easier to have a custom app that does that for them in seconds for all their "installed" applications. A little bit more, but yes I am saying THAT.

What? We already have a "nice" interface. The file archive is very clean and easily navigable (for what few files are there right now). I'm arguing against the people that think that this isn't easy enough, and trying to figure out how a stand alone app can possibly make it even easier.
Seriously, all I'm hearing is "web page = hard, standalone app = easy" with no explanations as to why. SOMEONE PLEASE EXPLAIN TO ME!

Because you're still not listening IMHO. I thought about this whilst offline earlier, and there is perhaps an easier explanation.

There is NO inherant requirement for it to be a standalone app, though IMHO that makes life easier (to hook into what's presently installed etc. etc.) but the arguments for and against an "app store" like program goe something like this:

Linux User:I don't need a fancy windowing system, everything I want to do I can do on the command line - and do it quicker and easier too!
GUI proponent:The GUI isn't for you, it's to make life easier and/or more pleasant for those NOT comfortable with the command line.

Obviously, this is an analogy - but it's exactly that level of shift in "ease of use", a move away from the "scary old geek" way of doing things towards "even easier, less requirement to know geeky terms human-style" interface - just for getting, maintaining, and removing software.

You only briefly touched on removing software in your last post. Every other post in this thread arguing in favour of an app store application has talked about the look and making it easy to install. My statement still stands: how is an app store application distinctly better than a web based repository in either of these regards?
Do not get me wrong, if it really is better than I will be behind it 100%, even if I never use it. My fear is that, in trying to make things better, you may end up making things worse.

When I first saw Linux distros getting GUIs by default I saw much the same posted by exisitng Linux users - "How is it better?" and so on. In some ways it ISN'T better, as being a local app it could be more prone to stagnation than a web page is, so less likely to grow. but the argument FOR comes in two pieces. The first, possibly most obvious, is the data store. The old File Archive does not seem to support the idea of install/remove/version comntrol (update) for apps because each file submitted, as far as I am aware, holds no versioning information against a larger "project". If we add such information (and possibly more) then we come to the second aspect which is how to display and manage the data on a users machine. Remembering that the aim is to make life easier, to acheive more with less effort than the File Archive, a local app seems very well suited to that kind of role as it has access to whatever packages are currently installed (so it can discover what needs updating without any more user intervention than conencting to the net, possibly even running the "update software" process) and should be faster to start up than a whole web browser, and doesn't need directing to the file archive as it isn 't a general web browser, it's aimed specifically at dealing with managing software from a repository of Pandora software. Presumably there would be a web-based interface to as much of the data as seems relevant, so that web browsers using their PCs would have as consistent an experience as possible - though obviously it's impossible to manage software on your powered-down Pandora at home from your office PC. the idea isn't to remove existing ways of getting programs, but to add a simpler one - and yes I personally think making it available by default would be the way to go. Otherwise the user would have to find out about it, and obtain it from the FileArchive, and...oh.

Anyone who gets a Pandora will already know how to browse a web page, one would hope.

Why? It doesn't even have mobile broadband hardware, why would one "hope" they already know how to use a browser? This cuts to the core of what you don't seem to be hearing - you are applying the concept to the idea that only existing computer users (and largely Linux / firefox users to boot) will ever want a Pandora - AND that they are willing, no happy even, to behave like a computer user in order to maintain their games machine. This flies in the face, to me, to much of the concept of a mobile gaming system, which is surely first and foremost about playing games.

This is in essence only contuning a trend already present in the Pandora's family tree - there have been "simpler GUI" efforts based on simplifying the front end to make the device seem more like a powerful games machine than an underpowered Linux computer. The idea of gaming controls, conveniently placed, to make it easier to play games right off the cuff without having to obtain, attach, install, and select gaming controls. The distro and GUI chosen for the Pandora, tweaking with the desktop manager's settings to ensure that it's not JUST a pretty face, but a pretty face that will respond well to fingertip type touchscreen control.

Do we NEED big icons and fingertip touch control? this is like that - it's extending the ease-of-use to the specific area of managing installed software. That means finding and installing new apps (mostly games I suspect) and updating installed programs and uninstalling stuff the user no longer wants - from one location. Seamlessly a "Program Manager" (hence the name of dflemstr's approach I guess) where users can maintain their installed software.

Even if they know nothing else, they have to have used a web browser at some point in time. Now you're talking about introducing a different application, and THAT would be something they may have to learn.

You don't think that "Game Manager", on the desktop or main menu or whatever, would be easier to recognise to someone who isn't a compute user than "FireFox" ? Or "Badger" or whatever it's called by then. Son-of-snow Leopard.

Much of the idea is about presentation. Some of which can admittedly be done with a web site perfectly well. Well, almost perfectly well. Good enough, I suspect
- although at present it isn't, and some of it (maintaining and removing software) probably isn't as well suited to a web page.

Wow, what a lot of apathy towards a simple suggestion of a cool idea. I thought communities like this were supposed to nurture progressive ideas, not maintain the status quo.

WizardStan may well simply be missing the point - it may come across to him like being told to look at a spot on the tip of his nose. It's just compeltely out of sight, he can't see it. Since he usually comes across as quite bright that is the way I am interpreting his posts - a search for what *the point* is (backed up with a promise to support rather than disrupt it if he can get the point).

To most of us, we're used to web browsing and downloading and installing and uninstalling and so on and so forth - it's second nature. It's very easy to assume what is - now - very easy for us is equally easy for everyone else. It can take REAL effort to see things from someone else's point of view, and to a degree the 2someone else" we are postulating isn't even here to give their own comments on the matter - because they aren't computer users (or at least not heavy own-interest computer users).

The way I've understood it, the way PNDs are designed there is essentially no "installation" as such. A PND file anywhere on the Pandora is "installed".

...

In order to get the files, the user browses the archive and downloads and saves the files.[/quote]

...

The archive *could* be improved in terms of usability perhaps (it's often difficult to tell which emu is the best for example), but it is pretty easy to use.

...

Another thing people are talking about is automatic updates, this is a feature I'd definitely like to see.

It doesn't even need to keep track of what's installed, as it can just scan the files like the menu does (which I feel would be a lot more in keeping with the idea of the PND files).

An important thing people are forgetting as well, is that some people don't have WiFi, and so making network access necessary to install apps would mean they were unable to.
[/quote]

Yes.

Yes. What happens when BeebEm 05 is superceeded by BeebEm 06?

That's a major point - "PRETTY easy, but sometimes confusing". I'd rather it was more than "pretty" easy, and ideally never confusing (though that goal is out of reach).

Yup updates, and also removal of no-longer-wanted software.

Personally, very much agreed.

A couple fo things - just like the GUI doesn't mean there is no command-line available, a Package Manager doesn't mean that the web browser, or file manager, or anything actually goes away. This is in addition to, not a repalcement for, software for the Pandora. People should still be able to download a .PND and put it whereever they like.

Not the point. Ford asked "what's wrong with horses?" and then built a car which addressed those problems. I'm asking "what's wrong with the current archive that warrants building a new system" and not getting much back. The responses seem to be that it doesn't look nice (which is an objective opinion, I think it looks clean and simple, and easily fixable even if it weren't) or that it isn't "easy". The latter just makes me ask the followup question "how will a stand alone app make it easier?" This question has yet to be answered. I am not opposed to the idea specifically, especially if someone wants to make it for themselves or as a secondary thing for others to use if they so choose. Nor am I opposed to changing the standard.
I'm opposed to the idea of people building something without fully understanding why they're building it, simultaneously proposing it as some kind of standard.

I shall use the term "game" to represent software, as I personally see this MORE as a game issue than, say, downloading high level language compilers.

1. It should act to reduce the use of terminology that sits between a gamer currently unaware of computer terms (much less individual programs) and a game which he currently does not have.
2. It should reduce the number of clicks between wanting to look for a game and being able to start that game for the first time.
3. It should make maintaining the game with any updates as seamless as possible - ideally automatically saying "There is an update to game "X" - would you like to get it?"
4. It should include removal of software that is no longer required.
5. It should look "pretty" if possible, although this is obviously a subjective term and certainly something that the file Archive could achieve if those responsible for the File Archive desired it enough.

Since this is going nowhere, I'll try a different tactic:
There ARE benefits to a stand alone app store, but looking nice and being easier are not two of them. Stop focusing on the things that can be done with or simply improved on the existing web archive and work on the features that are only possible outside of HTML.

You seem to hav emsised at least some of dflemstr's postings, but how about I switch tack too and say "If you can see benefits to the stand-alone app approach, why not help us and suggest them rather than sit on the sidelines throwing stones?"

In other words, don't detract - leap in and help make things better

@lulzfish

IIRC there's some new kind of meta link that directs people to torrrents or direct links or various other techniques. I haven't looked into it but I see no reason to discount torrents - torrents are a fairly common way of downloading distros anyway. It would have to be given more thought by anyone developing a solution.


I suspect dflemstr called his "Program Manager2 largely because that's at the heart of what's being thought of. Sure, something like an "App Store" epitomises the "ease of use" aspects, the shifting of appearance away from a cludgy hack way of getting new programs towards a more human "I want THAT ONE!" approach, but it's a "Program Manager" above all else. dflemstr's version doesn't even have any way of attaching things like prices, so the core is definately NOT commerce (tho I think including commercial OPTIONs would be a good idea).


"You have posted more than the allowed number of quoted blocks of text " really? See, I'm familiar with my web browser but I didn't expect THAT... because on the forums I am dealing with two obviously distinct entities - the web browser and the forum. Gnash gnash.

 

[Vorporeal]

The presence of a local application manager would be a big help. There are many reasons for this, only some of which I will list here. First is the ability for quick and easy (and advanced) searching of the whole package database. The way the archive is now, it isn't terribly easy for a user to find all programs uploaded by Pickle. Imagine just typing "authorickle" in the search bar in a local manager and getting a list of all packages which Pickle authored. Imagine being able to start the program up and get a list of all PNDs "installed" on your SD cards that have updated versions online. You could see what version you've got installed, and what version you'll be updating to. You could even theoretically click on the name of the program and get a pop-up box with the change-log, or click on the name and a web browser will open and bring you to the development thread for the program or the thread created to announce the release of the new version. You could look through the list of possible updates, uncheck the boxes of the PNDs that you don't want updated, click "Update!", and let it update your software in the background, replacing all of your PNDs automatically with the latest versions. You could even have the manager do offline archiving of certain PNDs, allowing you to pack more PNDs onto an SD card than normally, and you'd be able to archive and unarchive packages depending on what you want to use and how much available space you have. It's much better, easier, and more robust than having to use the current archive, as the design is, how should I say it, outdated, and there are a lot of features that would be useful to the end user that it simply cannot provide. If a well-designed local application was written to do all of these things, it would be a MUCH better alternative to the archive, even for experienced users. I'm currently trying to design such a program, and, as I said before, will attempt to create it if there is server-side support for acquiring package lists and the like.

 

[WizardStan]

So you're saying that people who find it challenging to click a link on a website will be able to click an icon in a standalone app?

Yes, I'm saying that people who find it challenging to browse to/find and navigate an ancient style web site and check the possibly hudnreds or thousands of entries for anything that they might need updating, it would be easier to have a custom app that does that for them in seconds for all their "installed" applications. A little bit more, but yes I am saying THAT.
*snip*
Another thing people are talking about is automatic updates, this is a feature I'd definitely like to see.

Which is one of the benefits I was alluding to (and someone else briefly mentioned, but was glossed over in the "make it look pretty and easier to install" posts) that a stand alone app has over web client. But you're the only person who has been discussing it as such. Nearly every other post has been about making new installs easier. I haven't missed the point, you're the only person who gets MY point, and the only person I wasn't directly arguing against, even if you didn't realize it. You just got caught in the crossfire of "web sites can be made pretty" and "it's the same number of clicks to install either way" arguments.

You seem to hav emsised at least some of dflemstr's postings, but how about I switch tack too and say "If you can see benefits to the stand-alone app approach, why not help us and suggest them rather than sit on the sidelines throwing stones?"

It's a debate tactic. Every post but yours has been focused on making it look pretty and making things easy to install. That makes them fundamental features people want. It's very difficult to get people to think about something when something else is in the forefront. I was trying to trivialize the "pretty" and "easier to install" before moving on to additional features. Once you agree that there is room for improvement, just not necessarily where your opponent thinks it is, they're more open to suggestions. I swear, it works in a live group, but as you can see, after I abandoned that tactic, they moved on to discussing what it should be called. I can't win.

Just one other point of debate though:

You don't think that "Game Manager", on the desktop or main menu or whatever, would be easier to recognise to someone who isn't a compute user than "FireFox" ? Or "Badger" or whatever it's called by then. Son-of-snow Leopard.

You can still have "Game Manager" in the menu: it just opens up Firefox to the download URL. It's effectively the same (assuming internet connectivity) to start as far as the user is concerned. Caveats being if the user had saved a billion tabs (as I tend to do) and they all have to open before it finally gets to the "Game Manager" tab. That's a point where stand alone is superior to web based, but it still has no bearing on how the site looks, or the number of clicks it takes to install something.

Anywho, since the point has been relinquished, I'll say this: queued downloads (select a bunch of stuff, hit go, and walk away), multi-packs (a single "item" that selects a bunch of common things: ie: "office pack" installs AbiWord and Gnumeri, and anything else that might be desired, etc...), scheduled downloads (there's a new GPS "map pack" every day, but I only want to update once a month), auto-updates and one click removal of course (but you've already mentioned those), and making sure it compiles for Windows and Mac so people can have the exact same interface on their Desktops as they have on the Pandora.

 

[Aninhumer]

I think people are confusing two issues here.
People are saying "The archive is confusing" and people are responding "Copying files isn't hard".

I think the former is a good point that is getting hidden by the latter, but I don't think the answer is necessarily to make a whole new application (although it is one viable solution). But regardless, the important point is to address the real concerns people are raising.

Currently there is only one problem I personally see with the archive in terms of usability, the categories are very broadly defined and therefore finding what you want requires looking through a long paged lists. Obviously you can search if you know the exact name, but the actual lists are a little cluttered.
I think currently also some of the sections have names that may be confusing to newbies, but this would be much easier to change.
I may be missing something that an experienced user just can't see, but apart from these issues I see no problems with the current interface.

If we can make the existing system easy to use, then a local application (for installation anyway) is completely unnecessary.

Once someone has actually found the app they want, it would not be at all hard to streamline the "install" to a single click, without using a fully blown appstore.


As I said before however, updating is an entirely different issue and one which I think would require a local application.

 

[sold]

Seriously, why are people who are against the idea of a program manager/browser so fiercly against it when they don't have to use it if they don't want to?

If there was something akin to the Wii homebrew browser or some other kind of repository browser/software downloader and updater, it's not like you couldn't chose to just browse a website hosting all the files for Pandora instead.

But an app (sorry lulzfish) that can list, and also update existing games and applications for the user in a simpler, more simply organised fashion would be desirable for the less tech savvy people that may chose to purchase a Pandora, and possible even eliminate all the countless topics demanding help over and over again because some people don't like using the boards' search function. Everyone else could use the web or torrents and be happy with knowing exactly what they are doing, and those who just want the freaking thing to do what it's fucking supposed to without having to fuckerize about will be happy also.

Having said that, someone would have to want to make such a Pandora thingy manager to begin with :lol:

 

[WizardStan]

I think people are confusing two issues here.
People are saying "The archive is confusing" and people are responding "Copying files isn't hard".

I think the former is a good point that is getting hidden by the latter, but I don't think the answer is necessarily to make a whole new application (although it is one viable solution). But regardless, the important point is to address the real concerns people are raising.

Currently there is only one problem I personally see with the archive in terms of usability, the categories are very broadly defined and therefore finding what you want requires looking through a long paged lists. Obviously you can search if you know the exact name, but the actual lists are a little cluttered.
I think currently also some of the sections have names that may be confusing to newbies, but this would be much easier to change.
I may be missing something that an experienced user just can't see, but apart from these issues I see no problems with the current interface.

If we can make the existing system easy to use, then a local application (for installation anyway) is completely unnecessary.

Once someone has actually found the app they want, it would not be at all hard to streamline the "install" to a single click, without using a fully blown appstore.


As I said before however, updating is an entirely different issue and one which I think would require a local application.

Someone else that gets what I was saying? HURRAY! I'm not totally crazy!

 

[sold]

Updates are an important part of the whole thing kinda. Sorta.

 

[WizardStan]

Seriously, why are people who are against the idea of a program manager/browser so fiercly against it when they don't have to use it if they don't want to?

Because, as I've said on more than one occasion, the talk has been guided in a direction that makes it seem like this should be a default install thing, not an alternate use thing. Even if I or anyone else could choose not to use it, the new users, for whom such an application is directly geared at, do not have the same choice. If you're going to replace one thing with another, even if the old one is still available, you better make danged sure that the new one is actually 1) necessary; and 2) a step in the right direction.

edit for accidental smiley removal

 

[sold]

Fair call. But I don't get why the web repository can't be accessed by such an application that would be an option for those who would like to use it. Isn't it possible that the web repository could be organised in such a way that there would be whole packages in one section and a seperate section for just updates. A standalone downloader could be used to check for updates if you already have certain software, or used to download new cool stuff sorted by type and category in an easy to use gui with tabs and whatnot?

BTW, I don't get why anyone would suggest that such a downloader should be mandatory :angry:

 

[calc84maniac]

For people who say that the end users might not know how to use web browsers - how do you think they got their Pandora in the first place?

 

[Titcher]

I agree with the points Vorporeal put forward, mostly in the update process. Who wouldn't want a nice program manager letting them know when updates are available? The update part is what most interests me, download from a web portal isn't hard and doesn't really need a front-end, but a nice update manager would be very handy.

 

[Ollonk]

I really like the Ubuntu style update notifier that checks all installed applications for updates. The repositories are extremely awesome, and if something of that style could be created for Pandora, I would be very happy.

@web browsers: Open source software sometimes has bugs. If you have only one web browser installed, and it gets bugged, you are in a pinch that could easily be solved by having a separate frontend to the repositories. I've had to reinstall Firefox due to bugs twice since I installed Xubuntu Jaunty, and it would have been a huge pain in the backside to do so if I hadn't had Synaptics Package Manager.

 

[Vorporeal]

By the way, WizardStan, I totally understand and agree with what you're saying. I guess that didn't come across in my post terribly well.

Also, one of the things that the archive doesn't have that dflemstr's site has (just in terms of features that are useful and possible but aren't currently there) is the ability to just pull application info straight from the PXML file. That file is a pretty complete description of a PND archive, and already has language support built in. It would make LOTS of sense to use that as a source of information on the archive, seeing as many/most of the files in the archive will be PNDs. Also, it would be useful for us to be able to search all of those categories (at least be able to search the mandatory ones).

 

[musicalwoods]

I don't care if there are redundant ways to get packages by default on the Pandora.

Ubuntu has Synaptics, Add/Remove, apt-get, aptitude, dpkg, makefiles, etc.

 

[Username]

Quick question, will Mozilla Prism be available for the Pandora? If so, just set it to take you to the archive website and there. You have a stand alone application to view it from (automatic updates wouldn't work though).