Duckstation(one of the most popular PS1 Emulators) dev plans on eventually dropping Linux support due to Linux users, especially Arch Linux users.
-
This is so lame for the arch community, like
I use arch btws are supposed to be the most hardcore power users and they bugged a dev that badly! I don't know how many tutorial I saw about compiling arch and building everything yourself into a minimal setup.You can't give me shit for using Manjaro for as long as I did, GLAD I LEFT.
::: spoiler can I say something a little stupid
Thx!So I don’t think there’s anything inherently wrong with ignoring emails. Emails are a kinda public way for anyone to start a conversation with you. As developers, we include our emails in commits — but we don’t have to. I don’t think GitHub even checks whether the email addresses in commits are valid.
So yeah, if you have a valid reason to reach out to a developer, go ahead. But if that developer disagrees or doesn’t want to respond, that’s just how it is — you can’t make someone email you back.
I’m just being consistent with myself. I always tell my friends and family about the importance of the block button, and I’ll say the same thing here: just ignore it. And in this case someone would have eventually fixed the problem and submitted a PR.
~sry if I was condescending~
:::wrote last edited by [email protected]I don’t know how many tutorial I saw about compiling arch
2 things wrong with that:
- No end user compiles ArchLinux from source
- One of the first things you're told when using ArchLinux is to peruse the Wiki, not "many tutorial"
You don't know what you're talking about.
-
Most arch users are casuals that finally figured out how to read a manual. Then you have the 1% of arch users who are writing the manual…
It’s the Gentoo and BSD users we should fear and respect, walking quietly with a big stick of competence.
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.
-
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
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.
-
This is true, but it's also true that the older gpl versions can't be revoked.
wrote last edited by [email protected]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. -
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.
wrote last edited by [email protected]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. -
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...G*mers are entitled pieces of shit.
Linux users are arrogant hipster assholes.
It's a perfect storm for creating just the worst people ever. And that's before we add the weird belittlement open source devs get.
-
If you are the copyright owner you can relicense any way you want learn some copyright law.
right but unless you sign a contributor licensing agreement when you contribute then the copyright owner can't relicense code you contributed.
so if you contribute to a GPL codebase it's pretty legally perilous to try to unilaterally relicense code that isn't "yours".
this is pretty nebulous territory anyways, but I'd argue it's pretty unethical to relicense to a more restrictive license essentially "taking" the GPL code from contributors
-
Who said he was wrong? He basically guaranteed that android users will respond that way by refusing to support them, thus ensuring he will always be right about them
He's not obligated to provide that support. But the tone sure makes it seem expected.
-
Then explain to me how the bazillion other open source cross-platform Windows-first projects do it.
Dropping support for Linux moving forward is fine, but actively going out of your way to remove the existing support is petty and just an asshole move. Especially when paired with a license that restricts 3rdparty packaging.Also "this doesn't work" is a bad reason not to invest the 3 minutes it takes to make an issue template, and it will already decrease the amount of packaging related issues by at least something
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.
-
Stop trying to make eth or thorn happen. You just make your comments harder to read
For me it is no harder to read, it's more like people sprinkling in Shakespearean English to their normal speech, it just comes off as either being pretentious, or random xd
-
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.
