LockAppStore should be on OpenStore or?

[tera]

My concerns here are more about the usage of non https on non std port 8080, and questionable ads from a quick look around
This, here on the forum and in the app itself
Ps: the domain name even do not feel secure...

[cliffcoggin]

@007fred50 said in LockAppStore should be on OpenStore or?:

http://lockappstore.people8people.com:8080/?menu=vote

I have to say that I still do not understand what this application is intended to do, let alone how it works, so I am unqualified to cast a vote, and until it has some peer reviews I am not prepared to install it either.

[Alter]

@007fred50 : I will give my feedback here.

If your intentions are only good, things have to be presented better! The voting link looks creepy, so I won't click on it. But also the app's name, page on OpenStore and what you tell here is vague. And also information doesn't match.

From your explanation on this thread, your app (which is actually more than an app) is intended for large companies like Whatsapp. Those companies don't want to share source code of their apps, but they might want to publish closed versions.

If this is your goal, OpenStore already covers that. Although it promotes use of open source, it already accepts proprietary apps. Why create a new store and add fragmentation to the UT landscape?

Those companies don't even publish on the OpenStore, so why would they do this on a smaller store with only one maintainer, who also says he needs to approve every app first, and therefore needs to look at the source code? Doesn't make sense.

If companies won't use your new app store, it is only relevant for people with coding skills, who don't want to reveal the source code of their home-made app to users. Now, why would a home coder want to hide their code? In my opinion, your new store will then become a tool to create and spread malware.

As I do not see any sane purpose for this app, I would prefer to not have it on OpenStore anymore.

[domubpkm]

@cliffcoggin I'm not sure I understood it at all either: vaguely, this would be a store incorporating apps whose source code would not be accessible: the code of the apps would therefore be unverifiable by any developer who wanted it. These apps could therefore put the user at even greater risk that the current risk !!

And if I am wrong for the better, so much the better!

[Opolork]

@007fred50

Voted!

[007fred50]

Hello All,

Why do I use http and not https ?? it costs a lot of money in https when you have sub domains!
Why do I use 8080? because I have 2 server as there are point on the other server which is not standard 80

so (http://lockappstore.people8people.com:8080/?menu=vote)
lockappstore -> on the server location
8080 -> from router to another Server

Will you have source code on the server?

Just thought it was a good idea to have the LockAppStore. so big company not roll the world.

Best Regards
007fred50

[Moem]

@007fred50 said in LockAppStore should be on OpenStore or?:

Just thought it was a good idea to have the LockAppStore. so big company not roll the world.

I'm trying to understand what you are doing here, and what you mean by this... and failing. Sorry!

[Mario.CH]

@007fred50
Hi,
I agree 100% with what @Alter said. And I also think that this app approach does not fit our philosophy of alternative operating system against Android and Apple IO and others.

Greetings Mario

[Keneda]

@mario-ch
I think the fact "big companies" publish apps, therefore closed source, for Ubuntu Touch is not a problem.

That could be good to see, for exemple, a bank publishing its app, and then, user no longer have to install waydroid, to use banking app.

Installing an android on UT to use specific closed source apps is no more any good than using those apps native, it's even worse.

Then i don't see why those big companies couldn't publish directly on OpenStore.

Now like liberty is the basis in open source as reminds @AppLee on my thread , i also don't see any reason to drop this app from openstore, but it needs to be in a proper place with proper warning.

[domubpkm]

Is it really possible that a big company concentrate human resources and go to the trouble of developing a sophisticated .click for UT (for example a bank app) ?

[Mario.CH]

@keneda
So, from that point of view I agree with you, I forgot to think about it, because as a Swiss citizen I don't believe that a Swiss bank would bother to deal with UT and write an app. The banks here are very conceited.

I have the same opinion about even bigger and global companies.

My hope is that if UT can hold its own, there would be many smaller app providers that would run local social media platforms.
I'm thinking of FluffyChat on Swiss servers, cetera.

Translated with www.DeepL.com/Translator (free version)

[mateo_salta]

@007fred50 you are not doing anything to hide source of the apps - so your claim that it does not give the source is not true.
any click installed from there with qml will be visible on the system.

For what it is worth - you can already use compiled qt and the 'proprietary' licence on the openstore - therefore you do not have to reveal code for any confined app.

to really hide source you would have to use compiled qt.

as for a alternate store, I think the idea is a good one - putting a restriction on not allowing other stores would have been an eairly end for the openstore back in Canonical days. But perhaps we should update the warning on installing from third party.

[007fred50]

Hello all,

I can see you do not want the App (LockAppStore) More on OpenStore, so I have removed it. !
I stop the Vote here !

Sincerely
007fred50

[Alter]

@keneda said in LockAppStore should be on OpenStore or?:

Now like liberty is the basis in open source as reminds @AppLee on my thread , i also don't see any reason to drop this app from openstore, but i needs to be in a proper place with proper warning.

Liberty is the basis of open source. Everyone is encouraged to contribute, share, modify, use.
That doesn't necessarily mean that everything should be allowed on OpenStore. Open source fora also have moderators and anti-spam protection for a good reason. This app creates an app store outside of control of OpenStore admins, where anyone can publish a closed source app. The developer says the new store is aimed at large companies who want to make a closed source app available for UT. These companies can already do that on OpenStore. Big companies won't choose a smaller store. So why a new store devoted to closed source? This app only plays into the hands of malware creators, and I'm worried it will be inspiration for more 'apps' of its kind. For me, this feels like reason enough to ban the app. But perhaps this isn't necessary, and the developer (after reading concerns) will take it down himself. [EDIT: He just did.]

[Lakotaubp]

Personnally speaking I don't like the term ban and Opensource being mentioned too close together. They seem odd bed fellows. Whether this App would have worked, been of any use with or without a clearer warning or proved a dead end is now a moot question as the developer has removed it.
Choice is also a freedom and everyone has the freedom of choice to use or not use any app on the OpenStore.
This paticular app did raise a few good questions which again speaking personnally I don't think we got to the bottom of, and I don't mean the Big Companies making apps for the OpenStore. They will not look further than iOS or Android.
Still would have like to have seen the poll run till the end and find out the results.

[Alter]

@lakotaubp said in LockAppStore should be on OpenStore or?:

Personnally speaking I don't like the term ban and Opensource being mentioned too close together.

Just for the record: I, too, cannot imagine a situation where one would want to ban a pure open source app. The term open source was mentioned in the thread when talking about the spirit of liberty in our community. This app had a label proprietary, and any possible banning referred to a closed source (promoting) app with unclear motives.

[Lakotaubp]

@alter Yes I see the point, but sometimes the initial reaction can prove to be not quite right in the long term and maybe a strong warning would have been all that was needed.
The app in question and I maybe wrong on this is opensource. Was developed by a forum member openly asking questions and getting help on the forum then submitting it for the OpenStore and getting help with that again from community members. The app is then there to be used or not. I will agree that things could maybe have been clearer to the end intention of the app an how it would work. If people wanted to use any apps loaded onto the 'store' I am also not sure, but most would not for the very reasons you state.
I know this is not a direct comparison but there is another project that aims to open up apps from an outside store over which we have no control many from big companies. WayDroid.
Now as I said not a direct comparison but the basics are fairly similar as I see it, and I must point out that is my personal opinion.
An app is a tool really. How you pick, work with and use that tool is down to the end user, as long as all the info and risks are clear.

[Mario.CH]

@lakotaubp
Despite the reasons you mentioned, we should (in my opinion) keep the good "OpenSource" high, also because the UT project is still on very shaky legs, since we are dependent on the phone manufacturers. It would be enough if they would no longer allow rooting of the devices for some reason.

[Lakotaubp]

@mario-ch Totally agree on keeping to the full ethos of Open Source. As for shaky legs I must disagree I thing the project is on firmer ground and with a brighter future more now than ever, and this community is a big part if that.
As for phone manufacturers some are already unrootable and others are making it harder. Which I guess is nothing to do with what we or any other Open Surce projects are doing or planning but pure commercial self serving business reasons. Use our phone use our apps use our ecosystem, give us your data.

[Alter]

@lakotaubp : I also understand your point of view, and banning it has become hypothetical as the developer already took it offline. Maybe you're right, and better information and a strong warning would suffice for such an app intended to be an alternative app store. I also don't want to discourage development. In that respect, I liked @Keneda 's idea of a separate category on OpenStore for alternative app stores. This way, a standard big warning could be shown, making users aware of the possible risk of 3rd party stores. Nevertheless, for this app I personally didn't see any good reason to be, as big companies wouldn't have used it to make/distribute closed source apps, which was the developer's plan. Besides for big companies, I don't see valid reasons for closed source to exist.