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.

Too many FOSS users are toxicly entitled... It ruins things for everyone.

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.

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...

Linux pros: FOSS, free, private, secure, etc.

Linux cons: Linux users

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.

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?

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).

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.

It isn't toxic* entitlement to seek tech support on the platform the developer offers tech support on.

Edit: added "toxic" for clarification

I don't think you quite understand how this works. No distro ever asks third party programmers to create packages for them—that's the job of the distro's own team, or of enthusiasts using the distro. All the distro packagers want or need from the original programmer is the source code and enough documentation to get it to compile. They take it from there.

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~
:::

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.

It's crazy that this is legal.

I'm immediately skeptical of developers who use Windows. At best, it makes me question their judgement.

Too many FOSS users are toxicly entitled... It ruins things for everyone.

It looks like the change happened nearly a year ago, and no one's kicked up a fuss, so either it was done properly (i.e. past contributors were contacted and consented to the licence change, and any that didn't had their contributions replaced), or there's a big problem once a past contributor notices.

It doesn't make it any more legal to fork the project without going back to the last GPL3 commit, though, as any contributions after the license change have to be assumed to be covered by the new licence, so the combined work would be under an invalid licence (as the old and new licences aren't compatible) rather than being still covered by the old licence.

Normally, I'd completely dismiss the possibility that a licence change like this could have been done properly, but Stenzek is associated with Dolphin Emulator, which did manage to pull off a switch from GPL2 to GPL3+ by emailing lots of people and replacing a lot of code.

You're right, the license is Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 (weird choice for a code license, but OK)

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.

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...