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.
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.
This should be top comment if true.
This is a great case for a “reader added context” feature for Lemmy, if it could be implemented in a decent way.
It is implemented. It’s known as “comments”. You are looking at it. There’s no need for any particular UI feature for this stuff.
Reader added context is nice because it averts drive by upvoting of titles that are misleading (and vice versa), as most voters do not dig through the comments.
Hence this very phenomenon of highly upvoted posts that probably wouldn’t be so with the missing context.
Tbf a substantial amount of voters did see the comment - at the time of writing, 297 upvotes on the comment vs 483 upvotes on the post, or ~61%. So actually most people do dig through the comments, if the upvote count is something to go by at least.
Anyone who doesn’t read comments is unlikely to read reader added context, so you’re probably not getting a large amount of the remaining 39% of people to get the context just because you add some extra UI feature.
Besides, explaining the context is a much longer affair than a title and just wouldn’t fit. It’s not like I would even say that the title of this post is misleading in the first place, it’s actually pretty to-the-point.
There’s also a chance that people will get the wrong idea about posts without the context - i.e. that posts without reader added context are super truthful somehow. I feel that people should rather accept that all titles of a few sentences are missing context. That is after all the point of a title - to summarize and bring only the most important information, which inevitably leads to a loss of context.
Could be a good feature to add to PieFed, which is built on Python specifically to allow more developers to have access to building extensions and plugins.
Programming language isn’t a problem as much as the mechanics of the implementation.
I mean, how does it work on Twitter? Do they have oldschool language models parse upvoted comments and automatically generate it? Basically the options are:
-
Involve some kind of ML model for partial automation, which is not going to go over well with Lemmy users.
-
Leave the UAC completely to mods, which is going to both overburden them and make power-tripping issues far worse
On old Twitter, community notes was simply a function of raising a flag for tweets that got ratio’d. This would open those tweets up for Community Notes users to submit a fact check. Then, the fact check with the highest upvotes gets displayed as the default one.
Now? Not sure. Elon is a sneaky fucker. But I do think it could be implemented as a simple comment queue that admins and moderators could set user roles to help with.
-
It is the simple truth
This happens way too much.
“What? People are doing things with my Apache project I don’t like!?”
“What? People are doing things with my Apache project I don’t like!?”
Well, at least for the GPL https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html exists, so there is no excuse because of incomprehensible legalese.
deleted by creator
So that’s why he hates Linux lol. What a fucking weirdo.
Like Aether all over again
Remind me please. I just made an analogy, I want to see if it’s the same narcissistic dissonance.
Same dev. Different alias.
lol
One of the most entitled takes I’ve ever read.
The guy built software and opened sourced it. People started packaging it for their favourite distribution repositories and then users started coming to him for support on problems he didn’t create!
It’s like if you were a farmer selling eggs and some kids bought your eggs and started throwing them at people’s houses and then instead of the cops arresting the kids they come arrest you for selling eggs. It’s bullshit!
How does that analogy make any sense? No one has done anything malicious to him. He released open source software, got mad and revoked the open source license for newer versions, then got even more mad when people continued using the old open source version. Which is a problem he brought on himself. And his continued tantrums still won’t keep distros from packaging the only version they even can package.
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.
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.
deleted by creator
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!
deleted by creator
You can just not publish your actual contacts and choose what you will and wont offer support on your public facing persona.
That’s what I do 😁. No real names unless it’s something I don’t care about.
I only support a couple of pip/composer/ect…and others package it up for any specific is or implementation. I always tell people “I will accept new prs” but if say I’m on vacation, I just don’t look at the package. If it’s bad enough, someone can fork and everyone else can move on with their lives. Hasn’t happened yet on the couple of packages that got popular (?) but it’s the lifecycle of open source.
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.
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.
Most people arguing from analogies are doing so because they can’t actually make a coherent argument against THING so they make a bad analogy and then expect you to unwind the 17 ways the analogy and the thing are different. This being a waste of time. I’ll just tell you that your analogy is trash and you should do better.
It would be saner to drop direct tech support than to drop support for an operating system
You mean “self-entitled”. When you’re “entitled”, you are owed something.
Issue isnt so much the 12 arch users that actually know what they are doing, but all the fucking posers
Arch users can be the most annoying arrogant and conceited people to exist online.
Ðe maintainers are ðe same. I don’t know if it’s ðe chicken, or ðe egg, but distro maintainers do tend to set ðe tone.
And, yeah, I use Arch everywhere, because so far everyþing else is worse.
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
deleted by creator
Agreed.
No idea what is going on with your comment, but whatever it is is not English. I typically only block spammers and trolls, but happily you definitely fall into one or the other (or both.)
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…
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.
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”.
TIL dolphin can emulate psx.
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.
Seriously, this thread is honestly vile and these people are a perfect example as to why this is happening.
How they are this blind to their own toxicity is beyond me
I haven’t read anything VILE here. It’s happening because he’s both controlling and implicitly bad at maintaining said control. Had he not insisted on trying to control packages he would have had a working package like every other software project in the ecosystem that is properly maintained for free by other people’s labor.
deleted by creator
it’s honestly why I don’t open source any of my projects.
like, I want to make the world a better place but at the same time it cannot cost me my QOL because some entitled punk thinks they can demand shit from me.
I don’t think you have any projects anyone would use. If you did you could ust tell the imaginary entitled punk you don’t have time.
You don’t have time to tell them all you don’t have time.
Removed by mod
youths
y’all
Reddit
Defending a dick head dev they know nothing about or their history and insulting end users under false assumption. Overly self righteous.
Yep, reddit as fuck.
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.
deleted by creator
You know, you don’t need to censor yourself on here. I don’t think anybody’s going to be offended if you just write “shit” or “asshole”.
I thought they said ahunter2.
I understand. Thanks a lot for the info.
I’d go further, you should help with the development. Seems like some people would rather spend hours hounding a developer to implement their thing, rather than figuring out how to do it themselves…
deleted by creator
OK I didn’t know that, stupid move on his part then… What do you mean by likely illegally?
Not a license expert but he changed the license to a more restricted one but did not ask contributors which the previous license may have required.
Except the Duckstation developer changed the license to where they don’t accept contributions from others, so we couldn’t help even if we wanted to.
You might want to look up the meaning of the word “entitled”.
I just cannot wrap my head around an emulator dev who isn’t daily driving Linux…
Damn people are really misunderstanding this comment. Legitimately just don’t know anyone who is involved in FOSS projects who doesn’t primarily use Linux. Not really passing judgement here, just making an observation.
I’m passing judgement. He’s a weirdo
I’m all for jerking around on Windows folks to use Linux in jest and fun, but to purposely shit on a major contributor of any foss for not using Linux makes my blood boil.
honestly, I hope the dev reads this and takes my advice.
as a Linux guy, run dude. fuck these assholes. they don’t deserve your time, your talent, or your efforts. gank your shit, rewrite the license, and block any Linux use. and make sure you call out the distro(s) responsible. sometimes assholes have to be put in their place to learn anything. even then, if history tells us anything they’re just going to go poison some other poor dev and forget about you.
The original code was GPL which he illegally re-licensed to creative commons.
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.
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
This is true, but it’s also true that the older gpl versions can’t be revoked.
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.
Assuming newer versions are derived from code that was licensed GPL in the old version, the newer versions (which include new code) are also licensed GPL, whether the person writing the new code likes it or not.
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.
Dolphin is the poster child example of changing licences properly. It was a painful job just getting in touch with all the long inactive devs.
yes, correct, assuming a solo project!
thank you for the correction.
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.
You’ll find the copyright owner is Sony.
So the original code wasnt gpl at all then. If this was true i would be pretty sure this repo would already be closed.
Not really sure how you read my comment as “shitting” on anyone. I’m just commenting that it’s unexpected and unusual for a FOSS dev to not be Linux user. Idc what they do, just making the observation as someone involved in the FOSS space that most of my peers are more likely to shit on windows than Linux.
you didn’t make an observation. you made a statement. you stated that it’s impossible to fathom why anyone doing foss would continue using Windows over Linux.
it’s not impossible, you just choose to disregard their personal preferences.
“It’s impossible” is often used not to literally describe a logically impossible event but instead as an exaggeration. “I can’t possibly fathom why” is also not literal, it means under regular circumstances.
I cannot imagine why anyone would prefer grass that cuts your skin over regular grassmeans for typical people using grass in typical garden/field situations. That could be someone’s person preference but that it’s not typical, it’s unexpected.
Just open source it and leave it to the Linux community.
I understand not wanting to support something you don’t use yourself.
He chooses to do direct support over discord vs making people make github issues and wants to whine that this is taxing
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.
I see a few top level comments agreeing with the sentiment that users are being entitled or abusive, but what are they actually referring to? The linked image certainly has no evidence of such behavior. Someone who claims to be the developer filed a deletion request for the duckstation-git AUR package on the AUR and they say:
Every time, it turns into abuse towards me, as you can also see in the comments for the package.
I read through a few pages of the comments here and they’re mostly people talking about fixing issues with the package, and what to do about the dev purposely breaking the build… I only found a single message that could be called abuse:
@eugene, not really but i suspect it’s an uphill battle, check the commit message: https://github.com/stenzek/duckstation/commit/30df16cc767297c544e1311a3de4d10da30fe00c
FWIW, I’m moving to pcsx-redux, I rather run a little bit less advanced PSX emulator than software by this upstream asshat. Regardless, much thanks for maintaining the AUR package so far.
And even this is not a good example of what stenzek is describing. For one, it’s obviously a reaction to stenzek’s hostile changes and not the sort of user coming for support and being abusive that stenzek is talking about. The user is also explicitly moving to a different emulator and not expecting any change from duckstation.
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.
deleted by creator
Just because it’s open source
It’s not open source. The maintainer relicensed the project from GPL to the current source-available license last year.
The AUR package uses the last GPL release before the change and thus does the current license does not apply.
deleted by creator
Seems like just repackaging it would solve the problem a lot easier than alienating a userbase- even if small
deleted by creator
The overwhelming majority of Linux users are on 4 distros + derivatives. Debian Fedora Arch Suse not “thousands”
Where would what end? Most actually open source projects just publish releases to source and provide as much or as little support as they feel like. Slap a github issues page up and tell every user that you are only interested in dealing with bugs in the most recent version in whatever official channel you prefer eg provide appimage of releases and insist that users reproduce and document bug.
Time wasted mostly wont even bother to create a github account and if they do close issues if they can’t follow directions.
Plus you can just make a flatpak or appimage and be done with it since those are distro agnostic. Wouldn’t be the first software where the flatpak is the only supported version and the AUR isn’t; see OBS
deleted by creator
It should end at the dev putting out some sort of communication stating they’re not responsible for packaging, and to reach out to the package maintainers with issues installing from a package and not from the officially documented/supported installation procedure. That isn’t out of the norm at all for the open source community, and is one of the main reasons for releasing source code - to enable other people to build it and try to get it to work in whatever environment they want to.
That shouldn’t require a change to a much more restrictive license, and it certainly shouldn’t require implementing changes to your code that force it to fail on specific OSes (like what was recently added for Arch).
deleted by creator
No, the duckstation dev obtained the consent of contributors and/or rewrote all GPL code.
I have the approval of prior contributors, and if I did somehow miss you, then please advise me so I can rewrite that code. I didn’t spend several weekends rewriting various parts for no reason. I do not have, nor want a CLA, because I do not agree with taking away contributor’s copyright.
So this is more like source available rather than open source…
Open but not free.
deleted by creator
Just because it’s open source doesn’t mean it’s necessarily open for all uses. His license explicitly denied using his code in packages. People did it anyway.
There exists pkgbuilds for arch and previously packages of the older GPL builds.
A pkgbuild is just a recipe for each users computer do do the stuff needed to fetch and or build publicly available software. It is copyright the writer of the recipe not the owner of the software thus fetched. That is to say the owner of foobar can’t copyright the functional equivalent of a bash script which does git clone and make install foobar.
The older versions thereof are still available under the GPL and aren’t subject to being removed.
Neither of these are actually subject to the authors whims. He doesn’t own the pkgbuild and if he chooses to offer the file to users they can download it either by manually git cloning it or having a script do it.
So no they didn’t “do it anyway”
He explicitly states that it is not 0% of his time due to being bombarded with support requests.
Are you volunteering to field the support requests?
What I’m saying is that a more reasonable stance is to say “package as-is or fork it if you want I will put 0 effort to accomodate”.
Others have clarified that they are not as extreme as I thought though so maybe that’s fine.
I just think that from a perspective this seems like a “people in X country keep writing gay fanfic about my book and asking if A and B characters are gay. so I’m gonna stop selling there and also destroy All copies left in their language. Because I’m a petty man-child”.
But, once again, I hope this is not what’s actually happening here and my reading was off.
You cannot fork the current project because it is not open source anymore. A fork of the last available GPL release would be possible, though.
As an open source developer, I’d love to have had contributors to help package my apps. It was killing me maintaining everything by myself. It sounds like the control issues I had when I first had contributors, where I didn’t want others to touch my babies too much when people actually started writing code.
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.
Sometimes external packaging is a huge issue for certain projects, where their support gets flooded with stuff that isn’t in their control and their reputation gets tanked.
…That being said, a PS1 emulator doesn’t seem so extreme to warrant that?
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.
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
“I don’t want to get bad reviews so I’m going to be a massive dick to my users”
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.
In his defense, a LOT of emulator maintainers have this sentiment about RetroArch, so I can’t fault him too much for that one in particular.
I do get the sense this is more common with emulators in general.
In his defense, a LOT of emulator maintainers have this sentiment about RetroArch, so I can’t fault him too much for that one in particular.
Then release your emulator as a paid app for iOS with a closed source and go nuts. Otherwise it’s like going out naked during a rainy day and shouting you’re getting wet.
Agreed really, but less about the RetroArch part and more just in general with the way this person in particular is. In my mind, if you’re not ready to be able to turn the project over to the community to maintain instead of yourself because you’re as much of a controlling prick as this guy, then you should never make it even source-available and should just keep it private source.
What is the problem with retroarch ? Am curious.
I’ve seen multiple emulator devs frustrated with how demanding the project itself is, but moreso toxic behavior from the lead developer towards emulator devs and users alike. Can’t handle any kind of even constructive criticism worth a damn and when people understandably are frustrated by him lashing out he then turns it back around to say they’re out to get him.
Ha thank you for your informations. Much apreciated.
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.
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
Eh, I use Linux and am annoyed at issues from users on other systems. I don’t know Windows dev very well, so fixing issues on Windows is a pain for me. Likewise for macOS.
So I get it.
That said, the proper way to handle this is to make it explicit what platforms are supported and which are not, accept fixes for unsupported platforms that don’t break supported platforms, close issues related to packaging and whatnot on other platforms, and leave open and ignore issues for unsupported platforms. Let the community support what they want, and focus on what you want.
Can you help me underatand where you proved him wrong?
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.
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.
Too many FOSS users are toxicly entitled… It ruins things for everyone.
It isn’t toxic* entitlement to seek tech support on the platform the developer offers tech support on.
Edit: added “toxic” for clarification
Why wouldn’t I be entitled to tech support if they’re offering tech support?
No, but carrying the grudge this long and vocally leaves me to wonder if the story is as crisp as put forth.
And FOSS die hards put many people off of lemmy early on.
Seek? Yes. Expect? No.
deleted by creator
It’s more than just FOSS users. It’s “The Internet” in general. At least two of the modding scenes I’ve been in have had multiple developers (and artists and translators) just quit due to their users aggressively complaining about the stuff they give away for free.
Of course, it doesn’t get that much better when people have to pay for things – ask customer service representatives how much toxicity they see from unsatisfied customers.
What are they entitled to? And how is it toxic?
Entitled to nothing. Toxic by acting like they are entitled and now a slew of other people are toxic about a FOSS dev.
But we sure do love FOSS, am I rite?
It’s like introspection or game theory mean nothing to people…
And android users are not obligated to give a good review after not receiving support.
I have no problem with his actions, (if he doesn’t have the resources/energy/time to support on all platforms, who can complain about that?), but I don’t think he’s very good at the whole communicating with other humans part of software that sadly in the OSS world tends to fall on the same devs that do the work, he could have avoided both this comment thread and the angry android user above with zero extra effort by simply phrasing things better.
The particular poor phrasing he chose seems to imply to me that he’s lumping all users of each platform together in his head, and each negative interaction builds on the previous, which isn’t the healthiest attitude, and does indeed make him look like an arsehole to anyone who’s just turned up and hasn’t yet done anything wrong.
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.
Sounds like hes just tired of dealing with idiots.
Which I can sympathise with.
Who forces him to respond to such messages on Discord? He can just not engage with people of whom he thinks are idiots.
If he doesn’t want to engage with users at all, maybe not set up a Discord in the first place.
No. Some people just simply can’t ignore that shit. Why can’t those users just not post asinine comments.
So not setting up a Discord in the first place is not an option because some people are so desperate to get feedback even though they are annoyed by feedback?
Eg., Phil Fish of FEZ and Indy game: the movie fame is another who seems unable to ignore negative feedback and massively overreacts to it.
I mean, he’s not wrong, plenty of pre-release games allow you to download before it’s out, then android users go and give it 1 star because the servers aren’t open yet.
it genuinely seems like this guy hates developing duckstation at all.
I don’t think you get it. He probably enjoys creating, and achieving something awesome. He has no obligation to deal with entitled users of what he gives away
Then he really shouldn’t have a discord server where he offers tech support.
It’s one thing to not give anyone lemonade, you’re never obligated to do that for no reason, however it’s another thing to set up a free lemonade stand and tell whoever tries to get lemonade that they’re annoying and to go away.
If he only wants to create something and not deal with any user issues, he could just do that. Going out of his way to tell users to fuck off is extra work he could just not do and everyone would be happier
You mean “self-entitled”. “Entitled” means that you actually are owed something. It’s like the difference between righteous and self-righteous.
Merriam Webster seems to agree with me.
I think this should have been anticipated after the license change.
Yeah. That’s a pretty shitty license to move to for endusers and others. Disallowing derivatives, etc. is within their rights but, really a dick move but, considering this commit message, not surprising.
It’s actually not within their rights (I am NOT a lawyer)
GPL code is still owned by the person who wrote it, that includes contributors who have made a PR. Unless they all signed CLAs (Contributor License Agreements) to hand over their copyright to the repository owner, the repository owner does not hold copyright for this code, and as such can’t legally change the license. They can use and distribute it as specified in the license terms of the GPL, but that excludes changing the license.
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.
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.
Exactly. It isn’t clear if duckstations author really has permission from all contributors or rewrote those contributions he didn’t have rights to change the license on. If he didn’t then technically even the latest version is still GPL but it’s fairly murky and I doubt shy sane person wants to fork it and have all that drama.
I remember the maintainer claiming they had permission from all contributors to change the license but I can’t find a link to it now.
It was if I remember right, just not by the dev
Linux pros: FOSS, free, private, secure, etc.
Linux cons: Linux users
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).
Just fork it lol
This is the dev that changed the license a while back from GPL to CC-BY-NC-ND because they got mad about forks.
The kicker here is that the AUR package they’re whining about here is based on the last GPL version.
So he fucked his own packaging with the licenses and now blames the users for complaining? Common Windows Dev L
changed the license … from GPL to CC-BY-NC-ND
oof. Good luck with that in FOSS world.
I can sympathize with being frustrated but that’s silly
Eh. PCSX core ain’t broke. Whatever. I’ll live.
I suggest using Beetle mednafen, unless you’re on a very slow system. Or Swanstation, it’s not like that’s going away.
PCSX is a lot less accurate.
So couldn’t someone just fork from the version on AUR?
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.
Yeah im sure someone will fork and it will be named chickensation or whatever. Then we will move on.
Hope the developer feels better. Its easy to get burnt out on passion projects. If I were to guess, this is what is happening. They are going to say some pretty insane things in the next couple of weeks and then get a handle on their life.
Ive always liked: epsxe myself. Works well and no real drama. Its a very old console.
Yeah im sure someone will fork and it will be named chickensation or whatever. Then we will move on.
Ha! Yeah ok. And looks like its maintained.
Ha! Yeah ok. And looks like its maintained.
It is but it’s also just a libretro plugin without any stand-alone GUI. That said, with the great strides projects like ES-DE brought in terms of usability atop of standard components make stand-alone GUIs more and more unnecessary.
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.
It’s also a PS1 emulator. A console that’s been emulated for over 20 years now.
Getting flashbacks to installing qmail back in the day…
I have a heard time imagining it to be worth it with other psx emulators readily available without weird hoops to go through.
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.
but really would feel bad for any packager maintainers.
It’s already unpackageable because of the license anyway.
The only “legit” way to get the emulator is their provided AppImage bundle, and nothing else. The author also has a rant about Flatpak being broken and unreliable and refusing to support that, so…
I have some issues with flatpak, myself, but that mainly stems from having trouble finding documentation to clear up how to properly use extensions and non-standard dependencies that are easy to do with OCI images.
Ex. I had a really hard time trying to get Vega Strike built as a flatpak.
If it’s only available via appimage, as the reply to this comment states, then it will still run just fine on Arch.
Yeah… That’s pretty terrible. I was meaning packaging patchsets for other distros. Hopefully the GPL-preserving fork is better.
Why is it terrible? Appimages are fine.
Appinages are fine. Needing to apply changes as patchsets rather than just building normally sucks. Especially in deb and rpm distros.
You cannot forbid forking a public GitHub repository, per their terms of service
Yes. The license doesn’t technically appear to forbid forking, just sharing the fork.
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.
Theres a LOT of emulators that got caught in all that not just the ones that were taken down for legal reasons. Theres a reason quite a few new emulators are not on Github/public git sites anymore.
Im not saying your wrong, what I am saying is that the situation is a bit nuanced and if a PSX emulator wants to push their “rights” they might find they actually dont have any when push comes to shove.
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?
thats a name I haven’t heard in years! Oh wow blast from the past.
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.
Please. Stenzek is smart but unhinged.
Fortunately, it looks like that was done already with Swanstation, which also has many more contributors.
I hate TwinAphex’s guts so I won’t use Retroarch/Libretro.
I got mednafen standalone for PS1.
Is TwinAphex still involved in Libretro? Can’t seem to find evidence of them from the last few years.
Daniel still has the RetroArch trademark registered in his personal name and continues to oversee the project and that’s enough for me that he’s still in a mangerial role, but you’re right in that the last shitty thing I heard about him is fucking up netplay in 2022.
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
Valid points but the maintainer comes off as deranged.
If I give something for free, it’s my rules. Simple as that. Don’t like it? don’t accept it.
Linus is often a dick. He even acknowledges it. Don’t like it? Well, there are other OS.
I’m not like that, I like being helpful, I actually do many volunteer hours a week, but… I do hate entitlement. I don’t see these people giving Microsoft as hard a time.
Lets keep the Karen constrained, please.
Sounds a lot like I would like Debian to stop shipping Xscreensaver.
Can’t believe it’s been 9 years since that drama
Their right to do so, but the comment sounds like a whiny bitch.
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).
I’m on a mobile 1050 and wayland, thing rocks 👌
I waited a long while to try it
look inside
crash to login manager.
Not sure if you’re using some non-proprietary driver or what, but I’m not worried about switching over. Maybe nice with AMD GPU, unlikely for me though.
I don’t want GNOME or Plasma (I’ve had issues with Plasma on X11 when I tried it) so that could be it, too.
I’m on bazzite KDE and haven’t reconfigured anything because everything just ran smooth, but I realise I might be the minority here.
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”.
