Duckstation(one of the most popular PS1 Emulators) dev plans on eventually dropping Linux support due to Linux users, especially Arch Linux users.
-
Gamers can be the most entitled demanding assholes. Arch users can be the most annoying arrogant and conceited people to exist online.
I wouldn't dare imagine dealing with the unholy mix of arch gamers min-maxing social skills for inferiority complex.
I'd rather drop support too.
Issue isnt so much the 12 arch users that actually know what they are doing, but all the fucking posers
-
Well, then fuck you too, buddy.
-
While users can be demanding, this reads like a very immature response. Going out of your way to block support and prohibit packaging, which you can let others do with 0 seconds of your time, is kinda rude.
Author may have been harassed for all I know, but this is still an emotional response. They could have just said "yeah I'm not supporting this at all, figure it out yourselves if you want to" rather than actively blocking Linux functionality/packaging, which is what this sounds like.
-
It's good to hear, but it's not only about emulator core itself, it's also about UI/UX of the shell. Duckstation's interface and options are quite intuitive and easy to use. I remember Retroarch being a bit confusing/unfriendly last time I tried it, but it was so long ago, that it might not be the case anymore.
-
Well, it's typical of FOSS users. Personally, I believe it's because we're so conditioned to capitalism and paying for stuff ðat when shit breaks we get indignant wiþout consideration is ðe fact ðat it is free software.
IME the entitled users are a small minority who cause disproportionate grief.
Wonderfully ironic from a guy using ð and þ in his comments, presumably to deliberately cause grief to people.
-
It's good to hear, but it's not only about emulator core itself, it's also about UI/UX of the shell. Duckstation's interface and options are quite intuitive and easy to use. I remember Retroarch being a bit confusing/unfriendly last time I tried it, but it was so long ago, that it might not be the case anymore.
I remember Retroarch being a bit confusing/unfriendly last time I tried it, but it was so long ago, that it might not be the case anymore.
Similar for me. Something wasn't working and it took me a while to figure out that some issue was preventing the settings from saving/loading properly.
-
Is there a specific interaction that made them angry?
Is there a specific interaction that made them angry?
Stenzek's feeling got hurt when DuckStation was still proper open source software and people used the software fully in accordance with its license, i.e. they distributed modifications and not all permitted modifications were the most polished ones, so he felt that they give his name a bad reputation. Again: Stenzek released DuckStation under a license that explicitly allows this.
So he rage quit open source and released new DuckStation versions under a very restrictive "source available to look but not touch" license that's so insanely restrictive, Linux distributions are not allowed to make their own packages. So they ship the old version that works just fine because PlayStation 1 emulation was figured out very long ago. Stenzek feels that they should not ship the old version (which they are fully entitled to) and instead make a special exception for his software alone to point their users to DuckStation's website where instead of acquiring the emulator from their package manager (or "app store" in case you're not familiar with that term), Linux users should take extra steps to manually download and install DuckStation.
And since users may not know about this rift, they may post bug reports and feature ideas to Stenzek, even though these bugs may have been long fixed by non-open source DuckStation.
Basically: Stenzek did not read the license he picked for his software and then got mad when people made use of provisions explicitly allowed by the license.
-
Imagine if Linux developers building the libraries this was built on where as petty.
-
Imagine if Linux developers building the libraries this was built on where as petty.
-
Well, it's typical of FOSS users. Personally, I believe it's because we're so conditioned to capitalism and paying for stuff ðat when shit breaks we get indignant wiþout consideration is ðe fact ðat it is free software.
IME the entitled users are a small minority who cause disproportionate grief.
Why are you using those characters like you were Ye Olde British?
-
ArchLinux users can be a pain sometimes, but we're also often right when calling out someone's broken software.
Given other drama around that project and the developer clearly being a Windows fanboy, they're probably doing a lot wrong and blaming the Linux fragmentation for it instead of doing things properly, getting called out on it, and then being pissed at the users for it.
Makes me want to write an intentionally buggy PKGBUILD with wildly unsupported patches out of spite.
-
That’s true, but only contributors have standing to do something about it. Unless there are contributors with contributions that are not easily patched out that are willing to make a case out of it, we’re stuck with the last GPL version.
There's a GPL compliance lawsuit where they're suing NOT as a copyright holder of contrubtor's code but as a user of the software (a 3rd party beneficiary, under contract law). The GPL was intended to give standing to users of the software, so hopeful this makes presidence.
-
Would have to go back to before the license change in September 2024. The current license basically forbids forks, from my reading.
You can't fork it or redistribute it... but you can distribute patches for users to apply, and those are easy to add in a PKGBUILD. That's how a lot of game/ROM patches are distributed and they appear to be legal.
It's an emulator, lets be real, the majority of the users couldn't give a shit about license terms anyway.
-
wrote last edited by [email protected]
After being on Lemmy, I have some kneejerk sympathy.
Seems harsh though.[edit: I rescind my harsh comment. It was a classic didn’t read the article situation along with just wanting to mock arch dorks without starting a fight.
So instead: Stop being toxic and demanding arch users! I don’t care if the title is misleading or editorialized or totally false.]
-
Sounds a lot like I would like Debian to stop shipping Xscreensaver.
Can't believe it's been 9 years since that drama
-
Just grep the source for "wayland" and you'll see what I mean.
and
# Refuse to build in Arch package environmentsMATCHES ".*archlinux.*")Not sure if there is more to this, but it seems like it screws over X11 users for no reason (I'm still using a 1050Ti).
Can someone grep Wayland and tell us what you find?
IDK how I would do that on my phone.
-
Is there a specific interaction that made them angry?
Stenzek's feeling got hurt when DuckStation was still proper open source software and people used the software fully in accordance with its license, i.e. they distributed modifications and not all permitted modifications were the most polished ones, so he felt that they give his name a bad reputation. Again: Stenzek released DuckStation under a license that explicitly allows this.
So he rage quit open source and released new DuckStation versions under a very restrictive "source available to look but not touch" license that's so insanely restrictive, Linux distributions are not allowed to make their own packages. So they ship the old version that works just fine because PlayStation 1 emulation was figured out very long ago. Stenzek feels that they should not ship the old version (which they are fully entitled to) and instead make a special exception for his software alone to point their users to DuckStation's website where instead of acquiring the emulator from their package manager (or "app store" in case you're not familiar with that term), Linux users should take extra steps to manually download and install DuckStation.
And since users may not know about this rift, they may post bug reports and feature ideas to Stenzek, even though these bugs may have been long fixed by non-open source DuckStation.
Basically: Stenzek did not read the license he picked for his software and then got mad when people made use of provisions explicitly allowed by the license.
wrote last edited by [email protected]This should be top comment if true.
-
Can someone grep Wayland and tell us what you find?
IDK how I would do that on my phone.
I find mostly complaints around Wayland not working like Xorg, like complaining they can't just get the absolute cursor position and things like that.
Sounds very much like parroted points from probonopb's rants, like claims of "broken by design".
-
So how would that work? I know we say emulators are allowed...but Nintendo came knocking a while ago, Github removed the repos pretty quick. If they go and applies their fork-less license in a court of law....that would have very nasty consequences for them.
the big thing that caused nintendo to take action against the switch emulators was that the creators were taking money for it, and explicitly pirating games. like, they set up a patreon where you could pay for early access to builds specifically tailored to games that were not released yet.
-
There's a GPL compliance lawsuit where they're suing NOT as a copyright holder of contrubtor's code but as a user of the software (a 3rd party beneficiary, under contract law). The GPL was intended to give standing to users of the software, so hopeful this makes presidence.
Yes, but this suit about a different matter (access to source code) which is a user right in the license. It’s the whole point of the GPL. In this suit the users (ie. The buyers of the devices that have received the binary distribution) obviously have standing.
The problem with relicensing is that the “authors” of a creative work (remember, this is copyright law) are changing the terms of the distribution, and the authors are allowed to do that. The issue at hand is whether the person doing the changing of the terms is allowed to make this change on behalf of “the authors”.
The users may be impacted by this decision, but they are not a part of the decision making process. Hence, no standing.
What you need in a relicensing is someone that asserts (co-) authorship of the work. That’s a much taller order.
