Duckstation(one of the most popular PS1 Emulators) dev plans on eventually dropping Linux support due to Linux users, especially Arch Linux users.
-
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.
-
Dev here who also happens to support Linux, and while Linux has its own challenges (whoever came up with the libevdev API, should not allowed to come up with any other API's), I think it's good to support Linux natively regardless. GNOME devs however should stop forcing their UX ideas onto others sometimes even outside of Linux. One of them when I was asking about how to I make the Alt key on Windows to stop it trying to open the nonexistent menu bar, then they told me to "just add one". I'm developing games, not just desktop apps, where the alt key isn't expected to open a menu bar. I then got told that it's "expected behavior" (Hungarian here, I'd like to expect that both alt keys are for accessing a second set of gliphs, and one of them isn't a dedicated "menu key"), and that games like Unreal Tournament "did it already" (that one used the escape key for menus).
Interesting. The only thing i knew is: the escape key is really important for Unreal Tournament.
-
itt: a bunch of entitled Linux youths that don't understand burnout or QOL.
dude has set a limit to what he wants or is willing to do. still gets called a bitch for defining the line and is still called an asshole.
some of y'all even bring up multiple cases of other foss devs doing/saying the same thing, continue to call them assholes.
There's a pattern here...but I'm just too blinded by the brilliancy of my distro to see it...wrote last edited by [email protected]The problem has originated because he changed the license resulting in older versions being the only way to ship duckstation.
Edit: lisence to license
-
Well yes and no you can release them going forward under a new licence. If you obtained your copy under the old license you can use it under the old license when you obtain a new copy you have a new license agreement. Thats absolutly possible to do.
Revoking licenses is alot harder though and changing the lizens from a foss on to another is often confusing and business inapropiate. However it is legal.
Edit:
A license is for not vopyright owners not the copyright holder. The copyright holder can basically do whatever they want.yes and no:
the copyright owner can do whatever they want, but they can't really revoke a GPL license. that's not really a thing.
and the part about
If you obtained your copy under the old license you can use it under the old license when you obtain a new copy you have a new license agreement.
seems to me like you are implying that "use under the old license" means "run the program on my own machine", but that's not true, since GPL explicitly allows redistribution and modification.
under a GPL license, you effectively give up control over your software voluntarily:
The GNU General Public Licenses are a series of widely used free software licenses, or copyleft licenses, that guarantee end users the freedom to run, study, share, or modify the software.
(highlighted the relevant portion for your convenience)
this makes revoking the license effectively impossible.
you could continue development under a different license, but that gets legally tricky very quickly.
for example: all the code previously under GPL, stays under GPL. so if someone where to modify those parts of the code and redistribute it as a patch, you couldn't legally do anything about that.
which seems to be what the OOP claims the change to a CC-BY-NC-ND forbids, apparently misunderstanding, that this new license only applies to code added to the repo since the license change, not the code from before the license change.
-
yes you can!
...for new versions. not for already released ones.
at least not with most common copyleft/open source licenses.
edit: assuming a solo project. see below.
Only if you are the sole contributor or get a written consent from all contributors. GPL doesn't hand over the copyright to the maintainer.
-
Since it's an open source project, it's pretty easy to make a fork and readd Linux support.
-
It doesn't matter what he does, because any project on GitHub can be forked, and it's in their TOS.
By creating a project there, he agreed to that TOS, so he can't disallow forks, simple as that.
-
actively going out of your way to remove the existing support is petty and just an asshole move
Sure, but the dev doesn't owe anything to anyone. He of course could ask community for help with this, sugar coat every answer, spend his (I assume already very valuable and sparse) free time to deal with assholes while trying to organize wider developer base to manage the issue and so on.
But he/she is still not obligated to do so and most definetly not obligated to deal with assholes all day every day instead of working with the passion project. Anyone around here thinking this is a wrong call can step up and volunteer to manage the thing, you don't even need to know how to code, just filter trough the crap and create meaningful tickets and find people from community who're willing to spend their time on fixing it.
wrote last edited by [email protected]Sure the dev doesn't owe anything, but he is actively putting in the work to remove existing support. Instead of just doing nothing he is sticking it to the linux user by removing support
Edit: I don't see how removing your own, working PKGBUILD will prevent people from installing broken 3rd party packages and complaining about it in your project.
-
He's not obligated to provide that support. But the tone sure makes it seem expected.
No, but the app will inevitably have bad reviews on Android because it will not be as good - both technically and in terms of "customer service".
FOSS can't usually compete with big tech in this area and it is one of the biggest drawbacks to FOSS in general. You are on your own.
-
Only if you are the sole contributor or get a written consent from all contributors. GPL doesn't hand over the copyright to the maintainer.
yes, correct, assuming a solo project!
thank you for the correction.
-
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.
-
He's not obligated to provide that support. But the tone sure makes it seem expected.
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.
-
As a 10 year Arch user* I concur. Reports of danger are vastly exaggerated. Most software comes pre-compiled and tested. I never had any more (or less) problems than with Debian stable.
Newcomers often underestimate the importance of its wiki, and some are perpetually unwilling to understand.
wrote last edited by [email protected]I’ve ever run arch, yet.
I’m used to scanning forums and wikis to find fixes, would arch be a “walk in the park” for me?
Thinking of switching from an oclp build on my old MacBook to Linux, as performance is lackluster on the latest build and I don’t even use the continuity features on my Mac
Edit: barely any context from what I’ve searched fixes for, nice crap comment.
I’ve run Ubuntu quite a lot years ago and ran popos recently. I also did quite a lot of android custom roms on a huge number of devices (saying this, only horror stories I have are android fuckery and hardware issues, guess I’ll be fine)
-
Honestly as a dev, I just don't give a fuck. Is that a licence? MIT is close enough.
I let people pr and if it breaks something, oh well. It's not attached to my real name anyway. A good ci/cd saves time and mental energy so I don't have to publish and test. If I bother.
There's some things like onionos that I've helped out with thst I actually take pride in. But it's all for fun. Why not, it's my time. Code will come and go, but I left things a tiny bit better for all y'all.
You may appreciate the Do What the Fuck You Want to Public License, though more alternatives are usually recommended.
-
Their right to do so, but the comment sounds like a whiny bitch.
-
Since it's an open source project, it's pretty easy to make a fork and readd Linux support.
The licence doesn't permit derivative works, so no forks and no downstream packages.
-
The problem has originated because he changed the license resulting in older versions being the only way to ship duckstation.
Edit: lisence to license
I wonder if he received permission from all the other contributors to change the license of their contributions.
-
The licence doesn't permit derivative works, so no forks and no downstream packages.
wrote last edited by [email protected]
️ 🦜 
️ 
-
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.
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?
-
instead of offering any aid or insight, i was immediately stereotyped as “an android user” and told “we don’t offer tech support for android” basically for no other reason than “because android users bitch too much and then give you a bad review,”
This sounds like there were several users berating you, not (just) the developer?
It's a tricky one. You can't ban every user from your Discord just for being condescending.
The developer also had a massive drama with RetroArch because, wait for it... "RetroArch users complain too much!" so that's actually a common sentiment coming from them and it's absolutely not restricted to Linux. He hates Linux users, Android users, RetroArch users... at this point I wonder why even publish this as a public user facing project at all, he clearly hates users.
