Duckstation(one of the most popular PS1 Emulators) dev plans on eventually dropping Linux support due to Linux users, especially Arch Linux users.
-
Since it's an open source project, it's pretty easy to make a fork and readd Linux support.
Nope not according to the license. Now is the license change legit and allowed? I don't know
-
wrote last edited by [email protected]
Refuse to build in Arch package environments. My license does not allow for packages
but it's not a package. On arch it downloads the source from his own git and it compiles it on the end user machine. He is a dev and doesn't know that? Or just pretending?
AUR is just (automated) instructions on how to compile (except -bin, in that case it's packaged)
A previous commit of the readme even said:
Linux users are encouraged to build from source when possible
yes, good luck building from source without documentation on what libraries do you need
-
The licence doesn't permit derivative works, so no forks and no downstream packages.
the license change is invalid as it's based from GPL3 code and previous contributors did not allow the change
-
You can just not publish your actual contacts and choose what you will and wont offer support on your public facing persona.
But then you can’t offer support to users of your upstream code.
This is an issue of open source etiquette and there’s no technical solution that can solve it. There have been numerous passionate developers who have been run right out of open source by well-meaning users who simply don’t know the protocol around contacting a developer for support.
-
Notice how the developer argues he forbids packages and how the AIR is in violation of this? But an AUR PKGBUILD is not a package - it's build instructions. It doesn't distribute or package anything, you can check it yourself. It's not called "PKG" for a reason. He misunderstands his own license and believes the allegedly broken PKGBUILD violates it.
He may be right about some users annoying him with bug reports though I'd be surprised if it was that common. It seems like he got a couple of reports, noticed the "forbidden" PKGBUILD and then reacted like this. Just like when changing the license from GPL to CC-BY-NC-ND in order to combat... GPL violations and trademark infringements?
Frankly, the project has not had parricularly stable leadership in a while. Though a bit unfair of a comparison, compare it to Dolphin and you can see a night and day difference in project management.
Ironic that a guy who facilitates large amounts of piracy is complaining about violating license agreements.
-
I'm immediately skeptical of developers who use Windows. At best, it makes me question their judgement.
-
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)
wrote last edited by [email protected]Arch probably has more documentation online than any other distro.
Just check out the Arch wiki, it's insane.
So yeah, if you're used to looking up solutions online, Arch might actually be the best distro for you.
barely any context from what I’ve searched fixes for, nice crap comment.
I don't know what this means.
-
Is the issue with the packaging, or that only an outdated version can be packaged?
He could fix the license, then people would push the up to date version and users wouldn't report old bugs.
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!
-
this developer is a big prick. i had an issue (that turned out to be user error after getting help from another source) with the android version of duckstation so went to their discord for support. 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," which is just kind of insane imo? there's no downside to bad reviews like you're not going to get delisted? anyways, completely not surprised to hear this from that ass. it genuinely seems like this guy hates developing duckstation at all and i am confused why he bothers. give it up man, sounds like you'll be happier
Sounds like someone who uses Windows and is annoyed that anyone else uses anything other than Windows.
I dunno about anyone else, but that's a giant red flag for me when it comes to software devs
-
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.
So that's why he hates Linux lol. What a fucking weirdo.
-
He got mad because people kept bugging him to fix problems created by other people which he has no control over. His “tantrums” are his way of re-asserting control over his life.
Open source dev burnout from support requests is a real and widespread phenomenon. When a software developer releases the fruits of their hard work they are doing the wider community a service. When large numbers of people begin to contact the developer for support the effect can be overwhelming even though every individual request may be legitimate and non-malicious.
In the case of packaging errors created by a third party not in contact with (let alone under the control of) the developer, these support requests for dealing with unsolvable and irrelevant (in the developer’s eyes) problems can be absolutely maddening.
I am quite sure the developer would have had no issues with people doing what they did as long as they accepted the responsibility to fix their own issues without contacting him. The fact that they did not do so (and therefore caused him grief) is negligent even if it isn’t malicious.
Am I misunderstanding something? Was he not present in his own discord server meant for troubleshooting?
-
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.
-
Am I misunderstanding something? Was he not present in his own discord server meant for troubleshooting?
For troubleshooting issues with his code. Not with broken packages created by others that he has no power to fix.
-
Nope not according to the license. Now is the license change legit and allowed? I don't know
wrote last edited by [email protected]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?
-
So couldn't someone just fork from the version on AUR?
-
Linux pros: FOSS, free, private, secure, etc.
Linux cons: Linux users
Users are the cons of everything, including Windows and OSX
-
Yeah... But then it sucks for anyone not running Arch (btw) or derivative distros. I really don't have a dog in this merge conflict but really would feel bad for any packager maintainers.
If it's only available via appimage, as the reply to this comment states, then it will still run just fine on Arch.
-
yeah they came down hard after someone crossed the line after looking the other way for like 30 years. i'm not surprised.
also, playstation is like the most legally well-tread area for emulators. remember bleem?
wrote last edited by [email protected]Yeah, but the Bleem! case set the precedent for all emulators of all consoles. The ruling doesn't just apply to PS1.
Bleem! was able to charge for their product as long as it didn't include the system BIOS. They reverse engineered the emulator itself, so without BIOS or ROMS, no IP is being stolen.
Which has become the standard operating procedure regarding emulators for decades now.
-
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
