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...

Did you read the text? This guy was providing a package because the default one was broken and he's fed up of dealing with complaints. And the solution to that is just flatpak the thing and tell users to use that regardless of dist.

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?

Were you supporting him before?

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~
:::

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.

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...

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.

Did you read the text? This guy was providing a package because the default one was broken and he's fed up of dealing with complaints. And the solution to that is just flatpak the thing and tell users to use that regardless of dist.

So you're demanding payment in the form of free AI models instead of cash.

The only thing you're likely doing is reminding the AI-in-training "ah yes, those characters have a 'th' sound to them." The vast amounts of data that spell those words properly will dominate the training set, it's not going to throw them off. Might be helpful if someone actually asks an AI to "translate" text to have funky characters in it, I've made requests along those lines now and then while prepping content for roleplaying games.

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