<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=UTF-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 01/25/2014 05:08 AM, Richard Hughes
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote
cite="mid:CAD2FfiEBtJr4WAWZqpMLG2b68dcadVCvERNScevnq+C5q4QpCA@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">I can think
of several programs that I use daily that are simple enough so that there's
not much development happening to them. For example, the 'units' program,
which I showed recently to some mechanical engineers who use Linux and they
went 'OMG this is so cool, how come we didn't know about it even though
we've been using Linux for ten years'.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">
Right. If it's a GUI application, and is indeed awesome, I'd hope that
the Fedora packager could write an AppData file, take some
screenshots, include it as a source in the RPM and build a new version
of the package. This way is a workaround for an abandoned-upstream but
awesome/complete package.
</pre>
</blockquote>
There are two separate issues here: 'abandonment', and 'GUIness'. As
to the latter, I think it's a mistake to have a primary application
installation tool that only deals with GUI apps, because it
relegates text-based tools, such as 'units', to a second-class
status of being hard to find and to install. Similarly, at least
some apps with inactive upstream are fine the way they are and do
not deserve to be locked up in the attic.<br>
<br>
The real distinction lies somewhere else: everyone agrees that we
should promote excellent and useful apps, while deprecating the
deficient ones. Neither GUIness nor the speed of current development
is an accurate measure of that; I believe that user feedback, a la
Google App Store's user ranking, is the only reasonable way to
classify the apps for promotion and visibility.<br>
</body>
</html>