If I give something for free, it’s my rules. Simple as that. Don’t like it? don’t accept it.
Linus is often a dick. He even acknowledges it. Don’t like it? Well, there are other OS.
I’m not like that, I like being helpful, I actually do many volunteer hours a week, but…
I do hate entitlement. I don’t see these people giving Microsoft as hard a time.
He’s upset because people are bothering him for packages that are out of his control. A similar thing happened recently with OBS where a distro was packaging it in a non-standard way, iirc.
They’re not being bothered. They are a sensible asshole. Nothing wrong with that, and they are free to express their truth of how they feel. But there’s no evidence of harassment, if they think bug reports and feature requests is abuse then they are in for a rude experience if someone is stupid enough to actually harass them.
They should just take their project proprietary anyways. The license used is a joke. Duckstation is not open source, the license is so restrictive that it is barely source available. They are not ideologically, or in practice, part of the FOSS community. So they’re free to take their toy home with them. They weren’t playing nice with others anyway.
If you don’t want to see your software packaged in ways outside of your control, is it smart to publish it with a license that allows it to be packaged in ways outside of your control?
Having read a lot of the thread it sounds like that’s sort of what’s going on with the version on the AUR. Sounds like it is the old GPL v3 version and the dev doesn’t wanna put the new CC BY-NC-ND version on the AUR themselves because they don’t want to make an account there (understandable, not saying they should have to).
The whole situation is sort of sad, but ultimately devs working on free (as in money, I now -ND is not libre) software need to do what they need to do to remain sane. If it’s a CC BY-NC-ND emulator without Linux support versus no emulator at all I think we’d all want the first.
I hope this thread can be an eye opener for folks to remember to treat volunteer devs with respect. (Not implying anyone here was part of the problem.)
No, on aur there’s duckstation which is the old GPL3 version (stuck to one year ago) and duckstation-git which downloads that git with latest license and compiles on the end user machine. Both versions respect the dev intentions of “no packages” as it downloads the code and compiles it. The problem that it was about were probably two
Documentation on how to compile is insufficient. It depends on many libraries but doesn’t say which exact version which causes issues at compile. Someone did the guesswork and wrote “instructions” (the pkgbuild file) for everyone but it’s not the main dev and it breaks often
Because it downloads the code from git, it might be an issue if it’s not tagged correctly, users get the latest commit instead of latest release and that’s undesirable (didn’t check for this case, but it was an issue for other emulators where non devs could run buggy code and complain about non-issues)
Nah man I maintain a few decently sized packages on github and refusing support etc is perfectly normal but generally you don’t go on this toxic rant and just say “nah man I can’t afford to maintain this” which is very well accepted.
No, Maintainer comes off as pissed off for dealing with a lot of headaches created by others creating a version he doesnt support, and doesnt want, yet is dealing with all the backlash and headache of.
and to try to stem the tide, he created a package just for those people… and they refuse to use it, continuing to use the broken version, and bombarding him with headaches over something that he, again, does not control.
Only liars would say they wouldnt be pissed off dealing with such a situation.
While I understand and respect his feeling, in my limited experience, people that don’t like when distributions package their software are often deranged.
Still, if you are using OS packages, your first stop should be OS fora / bug trackers, not upstream. Whoever is producing the distro/OS packages should engage with upstream if and when that’s necessary. Upstream, especially small upstreams, really shouldn’t be expected to deal with the craziness of Nix, Arch, Debian, and SteamOS all at the same time.
Users are, IME, mostly annoying. Sometimes (not often) I’m glad none of my software has any. At least at work I can point at the Teams / Slack / Jira conversation to prove they specifically asked for something completely different last week and I implemented that.
Valid points but the maintainer comes off as deranged.
If I give something for free, it’s my rules. Simple as that. Don’t like it? don’t accept it.
Linus is often a dick. He even acknowledges it. Don’t like it? Well, there are other OS.
I’m not like that, I like being helpful, I actually do many volunteer hours a week, but… I do hate entitlement. I don’t see these people giving Microsoft as hard a time.
Lets keep the Karen constrained, please.
Yeah but you also don’t get to be upset if someone calls you unpleasant. Both things can be true.
He’s upset because people are bothering him for packages that are out of his control. A similar thing happened recently with OBS where a distro was packaging it in a non-standard way, iirc.
They’re not being bothered. They are a sensible asshole. Nothing wrong with that, and they are free to express their truth of how they feel. But there’s no evidence of harassment, if they think bug reports and feature requests is abuse then they are in for a rude experience if someone is stupid enough to actually harass them.
They should just take their project proprietary anyways. The license used is a joke. Duckstation is not open source, the license is so restrictive that it is barely source available. They are not ideologically, or in practice, part of the FOSS community. So they’re free to take their toy home with them. They weren’t playing nice with others anyway.
If you don’t want to see your software packaged in ways outside of your control, is it smart to publish it with a license that allows it to be packaged in ways outside of your control?
~11 months ago they relicensed from GPL 3 to CC BY-NC-ND.
Oh. Time for a fork. -ND variants are not Free Software / Open Source.
Having read a lot of the thread it sounds like that’s sort of what’s going on with the version on the AUR. Sounds like it is the old GPL v3 version and the dev doesn’t wanna put the new CC BY-NC-ND version on the AUR themselves because they don’t want to make an account there (understandable, not saying they should have to).
The whole situation is sort of sad, but ultimately devs working on free (as in money, I now -ND is not libre) software need to do what they need to do to remain sane. If it’s a CC BY-NC-ND emulator without Linux support versus no emulator at all I think we’d all want the first.
I hope this thread can be an eye opener for folks to remember to treat volunteer devs with respect. (Not implying anyone here was part of the problem.)
No, on aur there’s
duckstationwhich is the old GPL3 version (stuck to one year ago) andduckstation-gitwhich downloads that git with latest license and compiles on the end user machine. Both versions respect the dev intentions of “no packages” as it downloads the code and compiles it. The problem that it was about were probably twoDocumentation on how to compile is insufficient. It depends on many libraries but doesn’t say which exact version which causes issues at compile. Someone did the guesswork and wrote “instructions” (the pkgbuild file) for everyone but it’s not the main dev and it breaks often
Because it downloads the code from git, it might be an issue if it’s not tagged correctly, users get the latest commit instead of latest release and that’s undesirable (didn’t check for this case, but it was an issue for other emulators where non devs could run buggy code and complain about non-issues)
Nah man I maintain a few decently sized packages on github and refusing support etc is perfectly normal but generally you don’t go on this toxic rant and just say “nah man I can’t afford to maintain this” which is very well accepted.
deleted by creator
No, Maintainer comes off as pissed off for dealing with a lot of headaches created by others creating a version he doesnt support, and doesnt want, yet is dealing with all the backlash and headache of.
and to try to stem the tide, he created a package just for those people… and they refuse to use it, continuing to use the broken version, and bombarding him with headaches over something that he, again, does not control.
Only liars would say they wouldnt be pissed off dealing with such a situation.
While I understand and respect his feeling, in my limited experience, people that don’t like when distributions package their software are often deranged.
Still, if you are using OS packages, your first stop should be OS fora / bug trackers, not upstream. Whoever is producing the distro/OS packages should engage with upstream if and when that’s necessary. Upstream, especially small upstreams, really shouldn’t be expected to deal with the craziness of Nix, Arch, Debian, and SteamOS all at the same time.
Users are, IME, mostly annoying. Sometimes (not often) I’m glad none of my software has any. At least at work I can point at the Teams / Slack / Jira conversation to prove they specifically asked for something completely different last week and I implemented that.
Normal people would just invite distribution packagers to develop fixes upstream.