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.
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]
ā
ļø š¦ 
ļø 
-
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 āan android userā and told āwe donāt offer tech support for androidā basically for no other reason than ābecause android users bitch too much and then give you a bad review,ā
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 āan android userā and told āwe donāt offer tech support for androidā basically for no other reason than ābecause android users bitch too much and then give you a bad review,ā
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 canāt offer support to users of your upstream code.
This is an issue of open source etiquette and thereās 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 donāt 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.
-
Iāve ever run arch, yet.
Iām used to scanning forums and wikis to find fixes, would arch be a āwalk in the parkā 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 donāt even use the continuity features on my Mac
Edit: barely any context from what Iāve searched fixes for, nice crap comment.
Iāve 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 Iāll 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 Iāve 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 itās 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.
Thereās 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 donāt understand the hard work that goes into a sophisticated emulator. They just want more, better, faster! Gimme gimme gimme is all they know!
