Talk:Ubuntu Software Center

Expansion

Including details of which programs this single software management system replaces (Synaptics, Update, etc). Broader sources - launchpad, software sales. Widefox (talk) 07:04, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

As far as I know. It will not replace anything yet (in ubuntu 9.10 - karmic koala). --SF007 (talk) 07:46, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

correct, replacement is scheduled for 10.04 Widefox (talk) 07:16, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

I’m one of the project developers, so I’ll refrain from editing the article myself. But you may find the project specification useful as a reference, particularly the rationale and roadmap sections. (Keep in mind, though, that it’s a wiki page subject to frequent change.) — Mpt (talk) 00:21, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

User:Mpt: Thanks for posting those links! - Ahunt (talk) 12:41, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

How is that for a start? - Ahunt (talk) 14:40, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Pretty good. A few errors jump out though:

• “Operating system: Debian” is weird. It may run on Debian (I haven’t tried), but it currently contains quite a bit of Ubuntu-specific code.
• The Center cannot “be used to … upgrade software packages”. (This was briefly true, and the feature may return, but not for 1.0.) That in turn means “More complete information of security updates” does not apply either.
• It’s unclear what the article means by “completion”. April 2011 is as far as the roadmap goes at the moment, but I doubt we’ll stop there.
• “4.0” should be “0.4.0”.
• “21 August 2009” should be “24 August 2009”.

—Mpt (talk) 19:31, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

All fixed (I think) - see how that reads now! - Ahunt (talk) 19:56, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Will it replace Add/Remove for 10.04? Sounds quiet weird to replace almost everything but Add/Remove. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.227.6.174 (talk) 21:11, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

It has already replaced add/remove in 9.10. The other replacements will start from 10.04. Papa November (talk) 21:27, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

No, it should not be 24 august because even on the link provided above, it says 21 august in the changelog. The date on which it is published on Launchpad does not matter. - Simeon (talk) 12:51, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

The version produced on 21 August was not released until 24 August. The date it was published on Launchpad is the date it was made available to anyone other than the developers; that’s what “released” means. —Mpt (talk) 13:31, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

One question...

I'm looking at the articles for Ubuntu Software Center, CNR (software), and Synaptic (software), and one thing is a little ambiguous. Do you need to use them like an App-store to download and install software from a certain associated website? Or can you use some/all of these to install a .deb program file that's sitting on your desktop? Which (if any) of these can you use as a GUI to install software if you don't have an internet connection and you copy the package to your computer from a flash-drive? (Or you download something obscure from the project's own website, or SourceForge, or bit-torrent, or where-ever...) Maybe this should be obvious, but it seemed a bit unclear to me, so a clarification would be appreciated, and some other readers would probably appreciate more clarification in the articles as well. Thanks! :-) 84.138.195.88 (talk) 10:49, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Like Synaptic, USC is for installing applications from an online repository. Installing from a download or CD requires other methods, such as a command line installation. I need to find a ref to add this to the article. - Ahunt (talk) 11:36, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply, Ahunt. So it sounds like you're pretty sure that neither Synaptic, nor any of the similar programs, can install software packages that are sitting on the desktop. Nothing personal, but I'm hoping you're wrong ;-) The lack of a GUI method of installing/uninstalling software is one of the main reasons that stopped me from using Linux, and was hoping that that issue had now been fixed. And yeah, I know that whatever online "apt-store" associated with each installer software will probably have a whole bunch of different packages published there. But I like to have some flexibility, and often I don't have internet access. I also don't see why it should be able to install software from its website but not software that's already on the computer waiting to be installed. Well, if anyone else knows more about this let me know. In the mean time I'll keep asking around... 84.138.220.75 (talk) 11:05, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Actually the difficulty of installing random applications found on the internet (unlike Windows) and only being able to easily install from a repository is one of the main things that keeps Linux systems secure and virus free - viruses are hard to install. We only use Linux here and have almost never had to install from outside the repositories. The one recent exception is Google Chrome, but unlike most apps it is easy to install from Google as it utilizes Dpkg to install. Hopefully it will be in the repositories in April. - Ahunt (talk) 12:41, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

"the difficulty of installing random applications found on the internet (unlike Windows) and only being able to easily install from a repository is one of the main things that keeps Linux systems secure and virus free" I would agree to a certain extent...Having software be installed from a single source that's been (at least somewhat) vetted by the makers of the distribution would tend to make it less likely for malicious code to be installed. But I think it's still best for the user to have the choice. And there could still be a warning that would pop-up and say something like "Warning!!! Installing software not from the Ubuntu Repository can pose a serious risk to your computer! The program you're about to install may contain malicious code!" And then the user could either click "cancel" or "I understand the risks, proceed." As I understand it, the principle of choice is integral to the Free-Software movement, and I don't think many people want to see Linux go the way of iPhoneOS, where you can only install software from one source ;-) Also, I can think of a number of instances where it would be necessary, or at least a whole lot easier, not to have to install software directly from an internet repository...the most obvious being if you have a desktop computer with no internet connection (or a really slow one). So then you go to your friend's computer or school/office/library computer and download the program and put it on a flash drive to install back at home. And it's a whole lot easier if you don't have to do an in-depth apt-get procedure each time you want to install a new program or a new version of software already installed. 84.138.192.224 (talk) 10:08, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

@84.138.195.88: Synaptic and Ubuntu Software Center use what is called "repositories", most repositories are online, but it is perfectly possible to make a local repository with .deb files you have on your desktop; however, you have to use the command line to make the repo. search for "APT repository" or "local APT repository", that is what you want (Note: this will only work with software in .deb format). Cheers --SF007 (talk) 15:19, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks SF007, I will play around with it once I have access to a computer of my own again in a month or so, and should be able to figure something out :-) 84.138.192.224 (talk) 08:19, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Sweet, I did a bit of searching and found a how-to guide for this.[1] It looks like if you run a few scripts then you can have a folder on your hard drive that will act as a local repository. And once this is setup then any .deb package you drop in there can be easily installed with Synaptic. So the goodness of Linux with the convenience and easy choice of Windows. Looks like I *can* have my cake and eat it too :-) Thanks again SF! 84.138.192.224 (talk) 10:51, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Proprietary software?

Does Ubuntu currently serve proprietary software via this thingy? 85.76.65.129 (talk) 13:01, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes. The Fluendo DVD Player is proprietary. --Daev (talk) 02:07, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Mistake?

The article says that it is based on gnome-app-install, but AFAIK it was written from scratch from Canonical and bears no relation to gnome-app-install except in that it tries to fulfill the same role. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.14.101.88 (talk) 17:02, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Discrimination between free and open-source vs freeware

From the screenshots it seems that, like the Google Play Store, the Ubuntu Software Center distinguishes only between cost-free software and software with costs. It does not differentiate between freeware and free and open-source. Is this correct? Are there statistics on how much percent of the software served by the Ubuntu Software Center is free and open-source software, freeware and commercial software? Is the amount of freeware, so low, that it would make the design of the GUI so much more confusing to the end-user, that it is not worth differentiating between the two types of software? ScotXW (talk) 08:44, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

That's only in the overview, if you open the details of a package, it says “License: Open source” or “License: Proprietary”. --Benjamin Schwarz (talk) 14:19, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Spelling of 'Centre'?

Shouldn't this article be filed under Ubuntu Software Centre (using the International English spelling)? The company is based in the UK, and the official website does not use the US spelling for 'Centre' or any of the other copy describing the OS. It's a minor quibble, but I think that it should be changed. --Insolectual (talk) 16:16, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Even though Canonical is UK-based, the official package name is actually software-center. - Ahunt (talk) 16:36, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

written from scratch?

AFAIK Ubuntu Software Center has NOT been written from scratch by Cannonical, but is a fork of another software. In the Debian repos it is only available until Wheezy [2] and Ubuntu is ommited. Could sombody clarify? User:ScotXW^t@lk 12:29, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

This tends to indicate that this is a different piece of software than the Debian one and not a fork of it, although it isn't totally clear. - Ahunt (talk) 19:12, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

It is the same software, it was contributed by Ubuntu into Debian and was dropped from Debian after a while presumably because it isn't as suitable for non-Ubuntu systems, so it was written from scratch by Canonical and that isn't a fork you see in Debian. Alanbelllibertus (talk) 18:49, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Active development?

So is this under active development or not? My edit was reverted despite being cited: "Canonical has silently discontinued the paid app store without informing developers, Ubuntu flavors are dropping it, and free software enthusiasts aren’t happy with it." Plantduets (talk) 18:10, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Your cited ref indicates "The Software Center is two things. First, it’s a prettier interface to the standard apt-get package manager containing free, open-source software. Second, it’s an app store that sells paid, often proprietary, applications. That app store side is no longer being maintained." That is why I reverted the claim that the USC itself is discontinued - the ref doesn't say that, just that part of it is not longer maintained. I took your ref and incorporated it in the history section with text that explains this. Also see this company ref that clearly shows that the application is still under development and that new versions are proposed for future Ubuntu releases. - Ahunt (talk) 19:21, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

References