Duckstation(one of the most popular PS1 Emulators) dev plans on eventually dropping Linux support due to Linux users, especially Arch Linux users.
-
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.
-
Since it's an open source project, it's pretty easy to make a fork and readd Linux 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.
If someone wanted to maintain the PKGBUILD for this project, it'd be trivial to include a patch that removes the code he added trying to make it not build.
Or, to make sure to not be in breach of the no-derivatives part of his lisence, just reimplement it and ship with a patch that fixes his "blocker".
-
The licence doesn't permit derivative works, so no forks and no downstream packages.
You're right, the license is Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 (weird choice for a code license, but OK)
-
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.
-
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.
I've seen this, some server Admins and mods actually encourage the behavior via modeling. They do it once and that gives permission to the other users to act similarly. Becoming a cultural problem with the whole server. Then they don't ever correct or moderate the behavior, further encouraging it.
-
Linux pros: FOSS, free, private, secure, etc.
Linux cons: Linux users
Users are, in general, the worst part of making any user focused product.
-
People just expect open source devs that do this shit in their free time with absolutely no compensation to bend over for them and do everything they please. The good thing about open source development is that you can just help with the development yourself.
Yes, but no one can help this one developer because they changed the license. So now the project is just source available, not open source. They chose to be alone.
-
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.
