Duckstation(one of the most popular PS1 Emulators) dev plans on eventually dropping Linux support due to Linux users, especially Arch Linux users.
-
Just ðe opposite! You train wiþ public data, you should be giving ðe models away for free.
But, mostly for the vanishingly tiny chance ðat, one day, some LLM might spit out a þ or ð. It's a humble dream, but it keeps me going.
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.
-
I can sympathize with being frustrated but that's silly
-
So this is more like source available rather than open source...
Open but not free.
-
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.
Just open source it and leave it to the Linux community.
I understand not wanting to support something you don't use yourself.
-
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.
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.
-
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.
.
-
big words from an anonymous user who has never contributed to foss outside of a whiney bug report or two.
Hi, I'm a subsystem maintainer for the Drupal project, a security team member, and over the years have helped maintain several of the largest projects in the ecosystem. I've also contributed to a number of open source projects over the years and have a lot of experience collaborating with maintainers to get fixes committed going back to early amd64 fixes coming out of testing in the gentoo project before Intel even had a real 64bit platform. I've got a pretty good feel for how this works and it's safe to say FLOSS is kinda my day job.
-
Imagine if Linux developers building the libraries this was built on where as petty.
Petty is pretty harsh and reading this message I wish I'd paused and chosen a better word.
That said, the way the commit reads, the relicensing, the fact they seem to be upset the aur is locked to the GPL version to comply with the license but also poisoning the build scripts like it's somehow going to affect the old GPL code. It just does not sound like someone acting in good faith with the open source community they're clearly building on top of and that does rub me the wrong way.
-
I don’t know how Duckstation does it, but Retroarch cores (Beetle/Mednafen and PCSX) support widescreen?
I also don't see Swanstation going away any time soon, even if it gets no new features. It's pretty close to feature complete in the ways that matter anyway.
-
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.
-
Always respect the dev, never respect the user
-
Seems like just repackaging it would solve the problem a lot easier than alienating a userbase- even if small
-
So what other ps1/2 emulators are on Linux yall would recommend. I don't wanna support this dev
-
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.
-
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
-
A dev with some sense.
Fuck Linux.
-
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.
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!
-
A dev with some sense.
Fuck Linux.
A dev with some sense.
I mean, you’re not wrong. The dev does have some sense, not a lot, not a little, just some a very broad some.
Fuck Linux.
-
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.
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.
-
I think this should have been anticipated after the license change.
It was if I remember right, just not by the dev