Historically, OpenOffice.org has been one of the most downloaded Free Software out there and one of the most used (the real market share was estimated to be around 15%, far higher than the estimates based on the shipment of MS Office) all around the world. But for all its user base, OpenOffice.org proved incapable to growing a vibrant ecosystem of support and service providers, value-added resellers, OEMs and integrators. Initiatives had been launched with mixed success. Judging by its yield and popularity, OpenOffice.org was a complete business failure – and not just to Sun’s own bottomline.

The reasons for this are a bit difficult to explain, but a certain number had to do with the lack of project governance and ability to decide for itself on one side, and the lack of business development and proper management of the project towards the wider FOSS business ecosystem. Beyond the poor growth of the business ecosystem, this led to unsatisfactory situations. Potential or existing professional users of OpenOffice.org very often asked questions about the future of the project, and wanted to know what would happen if Sun ever pulled the plug. They wanted to make sure that the service provider they had selected would be able to effectively contribute a patch. Worse, because of the hazy governance of the project, trademark enforcement was almost non-existent and anyone could claim to be an expert in OpenOffice.org migrations and support. This is how some large scale migrations ended up in disaster, while real experts were not called and no revenue was coming to them; this is also how fraudulent websites could trick unsuspecting visitors in downloading spyware or in making them pay their download.

The certification program we announced does nothing in the way of trademark enforcement of course. But it helps with the former, that is, to grow the business ecosystem and make sure potential users and customers enjoy a real clarity when it comes to professional skills around LibreOffice. Right now we are starting with LibreOffice development professionals, but we will be rolling out other skills category such as migration specialists, trainers, etc. The net benefit is that by structuring the business ecosystem around LibreOffice we let the people who provide real added value gain visibility and official status, while on the other end of the rope, companies or administrations are able to make a clear and informed choice. This in turn greatly diminishes failures in deployments and migrations and provides interested professionals with the opportunity to train and become certified professionals.

We will see how this program works, and I’m confident it will; after all, while it’s correct to assume it’s a first for a FOSS project to create such a certification program, it’s however not unusual to have trained and certified professionals in the FOSS industry. I’m particularly thinking about the LPI certification from the Linux Professional Institute or the JBoss certified professionals. We, in turn, would like to see the Certification Program becoming as prevalent as these two, but only time will tell how well it is accepted and adopted. In any case, we’re in this for the long run, so stay tuned for more announcements in this field.

Today I would like to discuss one topic which may be regarded by some as somewhat futile, and in a sense it is: the legacy of OpenOffice.org . But these past days I have noticed blogs and mailing list threads as well as discussions on social networks that the leaders of the Apache OpenOffice project (incubating) are having a filiation problem. I would like to address this, because while I think it’s better not to feed trolls, I think this is a deep issue as it pertains to the very identity and the raison d’être of the Apache OpenOffice project (incubating).

I cannot pinpoint accurately what caused to inflate the whole issue, but it seems that some  at Apache OpenOffice (incubating) would like to stress that there are the rightful continuation of the now defunct OpenOffice.org project, to the point of showing outright hostility to LibreOffice. They base their claims upon the following elements:

• they own the OpenOffice.org domain name
• they own the trademark of OpenOffice.org
• they must be the right heirs of OpenOffice.org since the Apache incubating project they’re contributing to was born out of the will of the copyright holder (Oracle) through its donation to the Apache Software Foundation.

These three points above are of course accurate. Do these make Apache OpenOffice (incubating) the “rightful” heir and continuation of OpenOffice.org ? Well, the real answer, I think, amounts to a marketing problem. If we solve this particular marketing problem, we will in fact be able to address the psychological side of the issue, the “who am I and why do I contribute to Apache OpenOffice (incubating)?” question. It might be weird to answer such an issue through a marketing perspective, but as we’re considering FOSS development projects, trademarks and corporations, it does make real sense.

The way the Apache OpenOffice (incubating) project was formed is in fact rather simple. Oracle, out of boredom and because of its shareholders’ greed, did dump the trademark of OpenOffice.org (and its attributes, such as domain names) over to Apache Software Foundation, and set up a specific software grant to the same entity, so that the code would be properly relicensed under the Apache Software Foundation’s policies. Oracle did not transfer its assets over to the Document Foundation. I am not so sure about Oracle’s initial thinking on this, although it seemed to have acted the same way with Jenkins.  In essence, what happened when the assets of the OpenOffice.org project were donated to Apache was just that. Assets got transferred, and it seems IBM felt they had acquired a good trademark. IBM was publicly vocal about the transfer and seemed to regard it as a very good thing.  This is essentially what prompts some inside the Apache OpenOffice (incubating) project to claim they are the continuation of OpenOffice.org . Let’s deal with this assertion marketing-wise first by taking another example.

Let’s imagine a case where the Boeing company acquires the Sukhoi aircraft corporation. Sukhoi gets merged and integrated inside a new entity or division of Boeing called “Boeing-Sukhoi” and sells whatever new aircrafts will be designed by the division or even by Boeing  itself. Now the real question the customers of Boeing and Sukhoi will care about (that would be, in this case, airlines) will be the maintenance of the existing Sukhoi aircrafts, the ones that have been designed and manufactured prior to the merger or the acquisition. In some cases (just like in the aerospace industry) the maintenance of existing products will be provided for a long period of time. Sometimes though, it’s just not the case; it depends of the industry practices and the business agreement.

Let us now go back to Apache OpenOffice (incubating) and OpenOffice.org . The real question users really care about is the future of OpenOffice.org . The Document Foundation has shown to everyone that we were ready from day one to give the OpenOffice.org project a future, and a bright one. But if we stick to the brand here, we should look at the Apache OpenOffice (incubating) project. Let’s ask the question of the maintenance. We live in an environment where most of the large and not so large professional users of OpenOffice.org both from the private and public sector are using OpenOffice.org 3.2.1 or even 3.1 . A few of them already transitioned to LibreOffice and many are in the process of migrating to LibreOffice. But there is a large amount of these users who do not update their office suite every six months or even each year. These people are asking the question of the maintenance, and the question of the future. If we take LibreOffice out of the picture for a few moments now, what do we see? Apache OpenOffice (incubating): no stable release yet, but it’s planned anyway; other than that, no support nor patches for the previous versions of OpenOffice.org. Yet the important matter is the support of existing versions of OpenOffice.org . In other words, if you want to know whether anyone can claim to be the “real” continuation of OpenOffice.org, just ask this: will you support and fix the bugs that were found in OpenOffice.org 3.2.1? or OpenOffice.org 3.1? or even in the 3.3?

Today, neither the Apache OpenOffice (incubating) project, nor its steward, IBM, can answer positively to the question above. And no one should be mad at them for that. There are two reasons to this. The “OpenOffice” in “Apache OpenOffice (incubating)” does not imply a direct continuation. It’s a brand transfer. It’s a brand that got donated over to a respectable chartity. But it does not mean there’s a direct continuation. The other reason is because thanks to IBM, the Apache OpenOffice (incubating) will have a future, and no one should have any doubt about the success of the incubation of this project. I, for one, don’t have any. Just look at how much support from IBM this project gets: you see them at every corner of Apache OpenOffice so I’m really not worried about the outcome of the incubation period. More precisely, IBM does have very interesting plans for Apache OpenOffice, as it is turning a great deal of its Symphony code to the Apache OpenOffice code base. This is important as it outlines once again that Apache OpenOffice is not so much the continuation of OpenOffice.org “product-wise” as it is the IBM’s productivity suite ‘s future on the desktop. Again, this is great and positive news for the users in general as well as for the Document Foundation.

Marketing-wise we now have a better perception of the reality when it comes to the filiation of Apache OpenOffice (incubating) and it’s clearly not a poor one. Something this project does not acknowledge, however, is that the community at large has gone over to LibreOffice, which was created before by the OpenOffice.org community. The filiation of LibreOffice is quite clear and I had the opportunity to explain it on this blog the very day the Document Foundation was announced: We are OpenOffice.org . We are the next Decade and  we have no problems sharing our legacy. In fact, we’re dealing with the legacy of unused code agressively as we are acting upon it in the present, thereby improving our future versions. We don’t ask ourselves many questions about filiation: we know we must innovate in order to stay relevant and to offer a genuinely Free and Open Source Software of choice to the largest number of users out there. It was the mission of OpenOffice.org, and it is the mission of LibreOffice. But the important lesson we took out of OpenOffice.org and the LibreOffice adventure so far is that we must accept to change, to evolve and to be very aware of what we are wishing for. Legacy should not be a burden. It should not be something we should argue about. Rather, it ought to be a starting point, the point of origin. It’s neither a goal nor something we own; it’s something we’re proceeding from. If some at Apache OpenOffice (incubating) feel they are the rightful continuation of OpenOffice.org, I wish them good luck. They got a good brand but I hope they haven’t paid too much for it. If they feel so strongly about being the successors, the Document Foundation should gladly let them share that role, it’s not an easy one; the LibreOffice project, on the other hand, is not just a successor of OpenOffice.org. It has success. Legacy is only the starting point, our work define who we are and where we go.

When the Document Foundation and the LibreOffice project were announced by the end of September 2010 we explained that the only way for the community to secure the future of the OpenOffice.org project and its very soul was to create a foundation that would serve for the “next decade”. Our manifesto was very clear and still stands today. Our commitment to an independent foundation and to our core values, the respect of software freedom, our belief in a meritocratic community, the fundamental importance of true open standards, the preservation and growth of mothertongues everywhere in the world will remain the same for a long, long time. Incorporating our community as a foundation in Germany is an essential tool to ensure these values and the community will be given the full means to live and grow, while the software itself, freed from the barriers and limitations created by vendor lock-in, is getting better and better everyday.

It took us a long time to create the foundation in Germany. We highlighted our plans in a clear fashion one year ago when we called the community to donate money so that the initial capital stock and we were surprised and happy to see that, in less than a month, the double amount of donations necessary to secure the capital stock had been collected. The reason we spent almost one year to make the foundation a reality is that the type of legal entity we were aiming for was not the usual NGO people usually think about. It is a very specific kind of entity that is designed to secure and protect assets. Its real name is a “Stiftung bürgerlichen Rechts” or just “Stiftung ” (pronounce it “Stee-ft-oong”) and its litteral translation is “foundation”. Basically this entity does not work like a business or a corportation. It operates on a non-for-profit basis but it is designed to never allow anyone to seize its assets and what it is deemed to protect. You just cannot buy or take over this kind of entity. It almost works like a vault in a bank, except that there’s no bank and no one to ask you for the keys: you, the community, own every piece and parcel of the foundation. No bank, no third party is necessary here, we all inhabit the castle we just built, and mind you, this castle is made of steel and reinforced concrete to make sure there will be no capture of any kind; but at the same time, it lets the community free to operate as it wants.

Part of our mission is accomplished and I feel deeply good about this. We secured the future of the OpenOffice.org project and we have given its community a forever home. But it does not stop here. In fact, it’s just the beginning, as what we have achieved is to lay the cornerstone of our construction. Don’t be afraid, we’re not looking to build a cathedral but even bazaars need basilicas (in fact basilicas’ first purpose was to host bazaars).

Now we are free to move on, to innovate, to grow and to show the world that this old office suite of ours can be turned into the most exciting piece Free Software will see in a long time. The community is getting strong, growing by the day, but we need to strengthen it, to fix our own bugs, and to extend our reach to the web, to the tablets, while changing our codebase and our user interface. This is a job that is going to keep us busy for quite some time, but it’s worth the challenge: this is the new chapter in our history, the history of OpenOffice.org and now LibreOffice. It is probably not per chance that the same month the foundation was incorporated we released LibreOffice 3.5, our version with the largest amount of changes and fixes we ever offered and that we announced this great partnership with Intel. It shows the momentum a community can achieve, when, starting from the ground up, it is able to grow and move forward by making sure it keeps things simple, remains true to its spirit and realizes its full potential by being in charge.

To everyone who made this possible, I’m truly grateful. This has been an exciting month, and I look forward many more months to be (at least) that exciting.

Listening to user feedback hardly makes up a democracy. It’s user feedback. In some cases it might be a case of “nice customer service”. But it does not help that much. I’ll explain myself.

Let me describe to you what I called limited democracy here and how “power” and influence are distributed in FOSS projects.

A FOSS project mainly produces code. Its sole reason, in fact, is to produce code; whether someone pays for it or manages to be a guru at product strategy and marketing so well he can even entrance hackers in its “Reality Distortion Field” is another question. FOSS projects produce code. Then, around that rough code you have another categories of contributors: the QA testers, the localizers, the documentation writers, the marketers (no particular order here); sometimes you have the extension developers as well. All these people do something very specific: they contribute to the project. Granted it might not only be code, but that’s beside the point. They contribute and they make the project. The reason they contribute might be completely unknown to you, or there might be as many reasons as there are contributors. It’s good sometimes to question or to know what’s the “general reason” to contribute from one or two active contributors, but it’s not always necessary. Back to our contributors; they form the active people who push the project forward, heck, they are the project themselves. But because each of them might contribute for various and sometimes opposite reasons, any of them, sometimes even all of them or a good majority of them, will stop contributing; conversely, they might even increase their contribution. If you stick to the original line from Eric Raymond (the Cathedral and the Bazaar, a must read), the reason any developer would contribute is because he/she’d like to “scratch an itch”. Granted that scratch might be for hire or is already funded, but that’s besides the point.

In the end, it’s the people who make the software (and distribute it, promote it) who call the shots. They call the shots because they get to “make” the software at various levels. So it’s a meritocracy because it’s a “do-ocracy” in a sense. The good news here is that it makes up for quite a lot of people. The not so good news in a sense, is that “mere” users, by which I mean “passive” users, who do not contribute anything in terms of code, tests, localization, documentation, dictionaries, pamphlets, designs, etc. are only left with one choice: to use the software if they like it, or to stop using it. The only reason is not that it’s not a democracy, it’s just that they don’t have the power to act on the software project unless they adopt or reject it.

There is also a more subtle good part in this: no user is barred to join the contributors’ ranks; and when this user actually does, he’ll have a say as long as he remains a contributor.

There are projects who do not formally formalize too much who specifically are their contributors. Some others do. The Document Foundation does formalize it to the extent that it is our contributors who “own the foundation” and nobody else does. It’s not just in our social contract or an unwritten assumption, it’s legal . There are rather broad criteria to define what a contributor is and does (our bylaws and statutes define them) and anyone who qualifies become thus a member of the foundation with rather large ” political” rights. In this sense we have democracy. But FOSS projects do not run on open and democratic structure; they run on transparent and agreed processes, with a free and open source code at their core.

Picture by Eliane Domingos of the Document Foundation

If you wish to read our official wishes, we have them here, and they come from all of us. My thanks go to everyone who is making the LibreOffice project possible and what it is today. We have grown quite a lot in 15 months, probably more than we would have thought. 2012 is going to be the opportunity for the Document Foundation to solidify its successes and turn them into a powerful entity and structure. It will also be the year where several strategic project, such as LibreOffice OnLine, will see their development hopefully take off. Adoption-wise things are already well on their way. Deployments are ongoing on a worldwide basis, large and small, and what we  need at this stage is to push our brand name in a more consistent way. It will also be the year where our friends at the Apache Foundation release their first Apache OpenOffice; what will be interesting will be not their first release(s) but the one that will see most of the Lotus stack be injected into it. This will actually be a good opportunity to clearly differentiate Apache OpenOffice, and that in turns will improve the Apache OpenOffice project’s health and its relation with the outside world (LibreOffice being one example).

But 2012 will be the year where you will be able to experiment the benefits of the LibreOffice development’s effort as we will bring the 3.5 and the 3.6 lines to life. I think it will illustrate that a community-based development model does effectively work and brings real and regular improvements and changes to an aging codebase.

On a more personal note, 2012 will be an important year: I’m getting married in June (expect full delays in blog posting) and this is something I was not expecting even a few years ago. But there are a few people in this world (in this case, only one) who can change everything for the best, and for this I’m truly blessed and very, very happy.

Last but not least, I would like to express my gratitude to my family and my friends at the Document Foundation and at Ars Aperta for making all this a reality. You truly rock. What else is there to wish? Health, happiness, and love.

Merry Christmas and a happy new year 2012.

LibreOffice has an aging interface. It’s not just that it has many defaults, because, as much of the software packed with features tends to have this problem; it’s that LibreOffice looks a bit like it’s living in 2003. That reason alone is enough to want to change the whole UI. However the LibreOffice codebase is, despite constant clean-ups somewhat too complex to have its UI change overnight. Therefore we will be able to do so in an incremental fashion. What is needed is specifications developers can work with that target one specific user interface feature. With that, developers are able to “swallow” the specification and possibly implement it in a specific time frame. Will Citrus be the next LibreOffice UI? I don’t know. But if the design team is good at writing specifications (something some of its active members are in the process of learning) we might get to something that will have much in common with Citrus. The fineprint on this, however is that we need motivated volunteers able to work on UI improvements in an effective fashion, and developers’ resource to implement them.  If you are interested and would like to help, please join!

]]> http://standardsandfreedom.net/index.php/2011/12/11/citrus-reality/feed/ 2 http://standardsandfreedom.net/index.php/2011/11/20/a-few-thoughts-on-innovation/ http://standardsandfreedom.net/index.php/2011/11/20/a-few-thoughts-on-innovation/#comments Sun, 20 Nov 2011 18:22:01 +0000 Charles http://standardsandfreedom.net/?p=438 I was invited the other day to a conference about innovation in the information technology sector. There was nothing remarkable about that event, except perhaps that it led me to voice an opinion I held for years: I do not understand what people are really talking about when they talk about innovation, at least in software, that is.

It might be odd to write this, but if there’s any concept that’s both fuzzy and dangerously misleading in the software industry, that would be innovation. I have read for many years and listened to people explaining how to “stirr and create innovation” in a company or in a community. Maybe these words have been used for lack of a better term; but I still don’t see how you can create innovation. I think you might be able to stirr it somehow, as it’s already a humbler verb. But frankly, can someone out there tell me what does innovation mean in the software world?

In general terms, I would define innovation as the big and small changes constantly leading to a change of the art in any given field. I think that’s pretty much what one usually understands by that word. So why could this not be applied to software? Precisely because software is rarely -if at all- the result of big changes happening all of a sudden and by accident. Software development usually happens at an incremental pace, whether openly so (think about the agile development practices) or even when there’s a structured corporate environment favoring traditional code reviews and quality assurance processes through stable product development cycles. Software is not produced by accident. Software is the result of process, and in theory accidents do not happen there. In fact, I could also point out that incremental changes or a period of technological incubation might be observed right before the emergence of almost any given technology. Take the medieval rudder for instance: it’s been rumored to have been imported in Europe around the 12th century by Chinese ships, but there are tracks and evidence of previous try-outs by European sailors and shipyards to design wooden rudders and articulate them with a complete mechanism. Similarly, it is hard to say how “innovation” happened in the sixties when the U.S. decided to send manned flights to the moon, but the wave of small and not so small innovation that was the result of this huge project is still visible to everyone (think of the Tefal pans, among many other things).

Thus there are, I think, two points that need to be highlighted: First, innovation does not happen all of a sudden if the field of software field and more generally ICT. It is a set of processes that ultimately lead to new software, or software that’s supposedly not as bad as the former state of the art. Second, what’s unclear is how -to quote several people I listened to- innovation “happens”. It sounds sometimes that innovation is a mystery or the philosophers’ stone that require care and secrecy to happen. Yet in the software industry, it does not work that way, for all the marketing and bells and whistles that come out of software vendors do not brush aside the fact that even inside these corporations software development is a set of very well defined, but non-public, processes.

Innovation is not a mystery and I don’t think that you can track how it works. You can assume that a certain set of circumstances and an environment letting people code start-ups emerge and Free & Open Source Software projects grow will ultimately translate into something that someone, whether a journalist, consultant, politicians or venture capitalists will call innovation. Anything else besides that, innovation sounds more like vapor and magical boxes. This should probably express what I feel about software patents, by the way.

One last thing: Innovation is different than progress. Progress is usually applied to fields that do not necessarily belong to science or technology; it can be more a perception and may concern society as a whole. Yet the interesting thing is that while progress seems to be an even more elusive term than innovation, you can actually tell progress from regression or stagnation: people perceive it almost immediately, however relative it sometimes may be.

Enjoy the beginning of the Holiday season!

I had several colleagues, friends and people asking me whether they should run Arch Linux on their desktops or laptops. I even read someone’s blog today on his impression on Arch Linux and Ubuntu. It’s time for me to jump in and clarify what you should expect with Arch Linux as a desktop on a daily basis.

Arch Linux is a rolling release system. What this means is that you do not get releases at specific intervals in time, like you do with Ubuntu, OpenSuse or Fedora. Instead there is a constant stream of updates that are uploaded on the distribution servers and that you can pull almost everyday. These updates are uploaded after a testing period by the Arch Linux  testing community (you can switch to the testing mirrors if you wish) and it is up to you to choose if you want to install them or not.

Such a rolling release process eliminates the need to accomplish major upgrade and makes you gain time, as you typically end up installing your Arch Linux system once, or twice if you really screwed up something. Also, Arch Linux does not come with very specific tools (aside the pacman package manager) and therefore you do not end up with Unity vs. Gnome Shell or YAST and PUP, or whatever control center. You get the latest KDE version, the latest Gnome 3 version, the latest Unity and the latest Xfce (these are examples). Pretty much everything is configurable as the distribution gets to make choices on core components versions (glibc, python, etc.) and exercises its value and role on testing and QA (what happens after each kernel upgrade, etc.)

Yet all this does not mean the distribution is hard to use. Not at all. The installation process may take a while (several hours.. or less) and I would be tempted to claim that what takes time is to transfer your own content and granular application settings to the new system, such as themes, pictures, etc.

But let’s focus a bit on the installation process: that’s where things tend to get rougher. Arch Linux uses a command line installer. It does not make things very difficult to understand – besides, you can always refer to some very good documentation – but it definitely makes the process more intimidating and any issue or inconvenience tends to be perceived as a bigger annoyance than what it really is. Of course, such a comment has to be put in context of other Linux flavors where you insert a DVD and don’t do much aside choosing your keyboard and entering your name. Not so long away you still had to be careful when partitioning your hard disk even with an user-friendly interface. In any case, the installation process is what will make you reach a working, fully graphical and modern system or a glowing command-line mess. There’s nothing specific to avoid here, only know that your patience and work will be rewarded and that in a sense, such an installation is not that hard to perform.

Once your system is up and running, everything tends to run smoothly and you end up with a nice, fully customizable desktop. You can use  “community contributed packages” from the Arch Linux User Repository to complement your software tools, themes, fonts, games and utilities.

As a conclusion, I would say that while Arch is not as easy to install as, say, Ubuntu, once you’ve gone past it, you will be surprized how easy it is to use it, almost as easy than Ubuntu or any other distribution. Arch Linux is a very fun and stable distribution that successfully blends the bleeding edge, stability and hackability of Linux. Don’t be fooled by the rumours saying it’s for the elite. It is made for you, if you can give it 3 hours maximum of your time to install it, and it is likely you will never switch back.

Fast forward to the LibreOffice Conference in Paris. On the evening of the 14th we thought we would set up some beer and music party in a hacklab and we contacted the LOOP in Paris. While they had to migrate from one location to another we ended up in an alternative cultural space shared by hackers but also completely different people as well. What was really interesting to watch was the general blending of these populations. In the end, it should remind us that even the coming of the Document Foundation was and is at the same time the answer to the decay of a free software project struggling under the iron fist of an irresponsible and greedy corporation (Oracle)  and the perfect example of a community deciding what’s good for itself, having reached a point where “enough is enough”.

The LibreOffice Project is thus more than a free software project developing an office suite. It has started a bit before the events in Tunisia, but roughly at the same time the Iranian revolts were taking place (and they’re still going on by the way). It is about freedom and the individual power to refuse the will and the agenda of a large corporation. It is about realizing that something had been failing in our community and that it was time to fix it.

The Document Foundation was started because of that; and just like the people on the streets of the world, it was prepared  somewhat in a stealth mode at first, otherwise it  would have failed. Now things have become quite different, and we just celebrated our first year as a project and as a free community where everyone can fit in and contribute meaningfully to the greater good. The numbers speak for themselves, and the OpenOffice.org community has chosen to go for LibreOffice, not just as a product but as model, as a set of values and as a refusal to compromise one’s freedom to corporate agendas. Our manifesto highlights the goals and the values of the LibreOffice community and why the Document Foundation has been created and set up.

Yet we are not one fork among others. We are the next chapter of the next decade. We are LibreOffice, we are the Document Foundation. We are the people of OpenOffice.org . We are no puppets and no useful idiots. We bow to no one. We are here to fulfill the destiny of this great project: to create instruments of freedom and tools for knowledge.  We are “OOO”, we “Occupy OpenOffice” we stand for freedom, community, excellence and collaboration.

We are the 99%. Expect us.

I’m a rather outspoken user of Arch Linux after having used and tried many other distributions (MandrakeSoft/Mandriva, Suse, Debian, Fedora, Ubuntu, Mint, SLAX, Chakra and even a few others) and I think I got to like the rolling release concept quite a lot. The rolling release concept essentially takes away the notion of milestone release for a Linux distribution and replaces it by incremental and almost continuous updates. Which means that everyday I can update my system and it’s thus almost always running the most recent stable software versions. Note that the upgrade is my choice only, I could stop doing this for 3 weeks instance and that would be fine. Using Arch Linux does not only mean embracing the rolling release distribution model. It also  means being ready to install your system from the command line (granted, you only do that once in theory) which can be tedious but not reall difficult. Another “side effect” of using Arch Linux is that the distribution’s package management is done entirely through the command line and with the help of the excellent package manager pacman. Pacman is however not a graphical package manager, or rather, it does not come with a default, out of the box graphical front-end. Several of them do exist but it does not seem to be in the culture of Arch Linux to use one on a regular basis. Enter AppSet. AppSet is a very nice graphical package manager written in Qt; it even got me use KDE again on par with Gnome. AppSet does not only run on Arch Linux, it also supports Chakra (a very close fork of Arch Linux) and works in theory with any other packaging system.

In the times of ubiquitous App Stores, even the ones that actually values and promotes Free Software such as the Ubuntu App Store, it’s good to hear you still have innovation happening in this field, with tools being developed that let users be in total control of their system. I’m sure that the AppSet team would welcome more contributors and more distributions!