Duckstation(one of the most popular PS1 Emulators) dev plans on eventually dropping Linux support due to Linux users, especially Arch Linux users.
-
fair enough, but that doesn't mean he has to do everything anyone asks him. he's still within his rights to close the source down and obliterate it from the internet. others will come and pick up the torch.
And likewise, that doesn't mean people aren't allowed to give him shit for doing it.
-
Users are the cons of everything, including Windows and OSX
I'd argue that Microsoft is worse than its users
-
He changed the license in the first place because someone took unpublished code from him and contributed it to another project. He had permission from his other contributors when he did that but people still went on GPL crusades against him.
Now it’s the issue of people re-packaging his releases for other package managers such as AUR (which is against the license) and doing so incorrectly which leads to support requests from the users of broken packages.
There’s a whole community of people who have turned hostile to this guy over his decisions but it comes off as a sense of entitlement on their part. This is after all an emulation community which is full of people who simply use these tools to run pirated old games. They don’t understand the hard work that goes into a sophisticated emulator. They just want more, better, faster! Gimme gimme gimme is all they know!
wrote last edited by [email protected]What was this "unpublished code"? Something committed to a public git repository where all the code is under GPL? You act as if redistribution of GPLed code was somehow illegal or at least immortal. It's not. It's the foundation of the whole idea behind open source.
If that "unpublished code" was stored only on his hard drive and a hacker obtained it illegally, that would be an entirely different topic but that's completely outside the scope of upstream source code license. That would be an outright crime. Developers at AMD, for example, write Linux driver code for AMD hardware. Then before that code leaves AMD, AMD lawyers need to clear it before it gets published to the Linux Kernel Mailing List for review. Sometimes code is not cleared, so the developers need to rewrite it. As long as the code is behind closed doors, it's not published (therefore the GPL does not yet apply) but as soon as it's posted for review, it's public GPL code and everybody can to everything to it as far as the GPL permits.
This is even spelled out in GNU's official GPL FAQ. Edit: https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#GPLRequireSourcePostedPublic
-
This is a great case for a “reader added context” feature for Lemmy, if it could be implemented in a decent way.
It is implemented. It's known as "comments". You are looking at it. There's no need for any particular UI feature for this stuff.
-
I'm immediately skeptical of developers who use Windows. At best, it makes me question their judgement.
They might be on OSX..
-
He's not obligated to provide support but there are infinitely many ways for decline providing support without insulting someone for being an Android user, and insulting Android users in general, at the same time, literally the moment when someone sought for support.
Especially when Discord is not even inherently a support platform to begin with, Discord is a fricking instant massaging platform, this is fundamentally no different from insulting a stranger on the street the moment they started a conversation, with the most BS insult ever.
Too many FOSS users are toxicly entitled... It ruins things for everyone.
-
the license change is invalid as it's based from GPL3 code and previous contributors did not allow the change
wrote last edited by [email protected]It looks like the change happened nearly a year ago, and no one's kicked up a fuss, so either it was done properly (i.e. past contributors were contacted and consented to the licence change, and any that didn't had their contributions replaced), or there's a big problem once a past contributor notices.
It doesn't make it any more legal to fork the project without going back to the last GPL3 commit, though, as any contributions after the license change have to be assumed to be covered by the new licence, so the combined work would be under an invalid licence (as the old and new licences aren't compatible) rather than being still covered by the old licence.
Normally, I'd completely dismiss the possibility that a licence change like this could have been done properly, but Stenzek is associated with Dolphin Emulator, which did manage to pull off a switch from GPL2 to GPL3+ by emailing lots of people and replacing a lot of code.
-
It is implemented. It's known as "comments". You are looking at it. There's no need for any particular UI feature for this stuff.
Reader added context is nice because it averts drive by upvoting of titles that are misleading (and vice versa), as most voters do not dig through the comments.
Hence this very phenomenon of highly upvoted posts that probably wouldn’t be so with the missing context.
-
This happens way too much.
“What? People are doing things with my Apache project I don’t like!?”
“What? People are doing things with my Apache project I don’t like!?”
Well, at least for the GPL https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html exists, so there is no excuse because of incomprehensible legalese.
-
Reader added context is nice because it averts drive by upvoting of titles that are misleading (and vice versa), as most voters do not dig through the comments.
Hence this very phenomenon of highly upvoted posts that probably wouldn’t be so with the missing context.
wrote last edited by [email protected]Tbf a substantial amount of voters did see the comment - at the time of writing, 297 upvotes on the comment vs 483 upvotes on the post, or ~61%. So actually most people do dig through the comments, if the upvote count is something to go by at least.
Anyone who doesn't read comments is unlikely to read reader added context, so you're probably not getting a large amount of the remaining 39% of people to get the context just because you add some extra UI feature.
Besides, explaining the context is a much longer affair than a title and just wouldn't fit. It's not like I would even say that the title of this post is misleading in the first place, it's actually pretty to-the-point.
There's also a chance that people will get the wrong idea about posts without the context - i.e. that posts without reader added context are super truthful somehow. I feel that people should rather accept that all titles of a few sentences are missing context. That is after all the point of a title - to summarize and bring only the most important information, which inevitably leads to a loss of context.
-
I'd argue that Microsoft is worse than its users
Idk I've met some pretty frustrating administrators who understandably hate Microsoft but they then go and refuse to learn anything else, refuse to use anything other than some variant of Windows for anything that needs an operating system then complain when their hacks to make windows do stuff it was never designed to do (or stuff it once was designed to do but hasn't been supported since Server 2003) get broken.
As an administrator part of your job is to identify the right tool for the job. I am most comfortable in Linux, I find the general architecture to make far more sense than Windows. I fully recognize that for most businesses Windows is the best bet on many cases. But there are also situations where windows should be your last possible choice. These admins setting up IIS Server and windows-based SCSI targets, using HyperV instead of a better hypervisor for more than a handful of VMs, they frustrate me to no end and I have to suspect they just have given up on learning anything new with these choices
-
The licence doesn't permit derivative works, so no forks and no downstream packages.
It's crazy that this is legal.
-
This is a great case for a “reader added context” feature for Lemmy, if it could be implemented in a decent way.
Could be a good feature to add to PieFed, which is built on Python specifically to allow more developers to have access to building extensions and plugins.
-
The answer for this guy and other people stretched by supporting Linux is to say it's flatpak or nothing. Stop trying to build for each dist because it's not sustainable. If someone on a dist wants to maintain a package then let them take the heat if it is broken.
wrote last edited by [email protected]I don't think you quite understand how this works. No distro ever asks third party programmers to create packages for them—that's the job of the distro's own team, or of enthusiasts using the distro. All the distro packagers want or need from the original programmer is the source code and enough documentation to get it to compile. They take it from there.
-
Too many FOSS users are toxicly entitled... It ruins things for everyone.
wrote last edited by [email protected]It isn't toxic* entitlement to seek tech support on the platform the developer offers tech support on.
Edit: added "toxic" for clarification
-
I see a few top level comments agreeing with the sentiment that users are being entitled or abusive, but what are they actually referring to? The linked image certainly has no evidence of such behavior. Someone who claims to be the developer filed a deletion request for the duckstation-git AUR package on the AUR and they say:
Every time, it turns into abuse towards me, as you can also see in the comments for the package.
I read through a few pages of the comments here and they're mostly people talking about fixing issues with the package, and what to do about the dev purposely breaking the build... I only found a single message that could be called abuse:
@eugene, not really but i suspect it's an uphill battle, check the commit message: https://github.com/stenzek/duckstation/commit/30df16cc767297c544e1311a3de4d10da30fe00c
FWIW, I'm moving to pcsx-redux, I rather run a little bit less advanced PSX emulator than software by this upstream asshat. Regardless, much thanks for maintaining the AUR package so far.
And even this is not a good example of what stenzek is describing. For one, it's obviously a reaction to stenzek's hostile changes and not the sort of user coming for support and being abusive that stenzek is talking about. The user is also explicitly moving to a different emulator and not expecting any change from duckstation.
The more I look into it the more it looks like the dev is being a jerk and demanding, doesn't understand what he's complaining about. And lying about getting abuse that appears to honestly be self inflicted.
It's his project and his right to do with it what he may. But this seriously just appears to be a self inflicted man problem he's complaining about.
Zero sympathy honestly. Just be a damn adult and do what you need to do. Don't shead crocodiles tears for sympathy points.
-
I'd go further, you should help with the development. Seems like some people would rather spend hours hounding a developer to implement their thing, rather than figuring out how to do it themselves...
Except the Duckstation developer changed the license to where they don't accept contributions from others, so we couldn't help even if we wanted to.
-
Linux pros: FOSS, free, private, secure, etc.
Linux cons: Linux users
Don't forget Linux devs are also Linux users. And they are just as much a con as the non dev users!
-
Could be a good feature to add to PieFed, which is built on Python specifically to allow more developers to have access to building extensions and plugins.
Programming language isn’t a problem as much as the mechanics of the implementation.
I mean, how does it work on Twitter? Do they have oldschool language models parse upvoted comments and automatically generate it? Basically the options are:
-
Involve some kind of ML model for partial automation, which is not going to go over well with Lemmy users.
-
Leave the UAC completely to mods, which is going to both overburden them and make power-tripping issues far worse
-
-
I'm far from an expert on licenses, but logic tells me that any version that was released with the previous license is still under that previous license. So it's probably okay to fork from a previous version to maintain linux support?
wrote last edited by [email protected]That's actually the version that's in the AUR, since they can't put newer (fixed) code in there from the new versions.
