This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
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.
This happens way too much.
“What? People are doing things with my Apache project I don’t like!?”
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.
The problem has originated because he changed the license resulting in older versions being the only way to ship duckstation.
Edit: lisence to license
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.
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.
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.
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.
If someone on a dist wants to maintain a package then let them take the heat if it is broken.
That's quite literally what happened and why this guy is moaning though. Nobody asked him for an Arch build, people distribute it themselves on the AUR and he's annoyed anyway.
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"
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.
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).
GNOME devs however should stop forcing their UX ideas onto others
And then break them with every major release
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.
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.
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
