4 ms·

> They should be cut out of the loop. I disagree. This is how you get the Google Play store or the "freeware" app marketplace. It sucks. As a user, I'm quite h

> They should be cut out of the loop. I disagree. This is how you get the Google Play store or the "freeware" app marketplace. It sucks. As a user, I'm quite happy to continue using a traditional distribution even if it means I don't get to use a handful of flashy programs by developers that disagree with the concept of maintainers. So far that choice has been much more positive than negative for me, and I'm doing my best (by promoting the open source ecosystem) to keep it that way. > Maintainers don't have a right If you're creating open source software, they quite literally do! https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-3.0.en.html https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-3.0.en.html If you put in a bunch of crap that doesn't belong in an application (ads, for example), I'm glad I have a maintainer that can either strip this out thanks to the GPL (or BSD / MIT etc), or else choose not to include your app in the distribution at all.

sanxiyn 6y ago
> a handful of flashy programs This only works if "core" refuses to use Rust, so it's not sustainable. We already can't build Firefox and GNOME without Rust. Maybe Apache and curl next. And then?
- ticviking 6y ago
  We may be forced to work for free to make rusts build less of a pain. Or to abandon those projects which have abandoned us.
lifthrasiir 6y ago
> As a user, I'm quite happy to continue using a traditional distribution even if it means I don't get to use a handful of flashy programs by developers that disagree with the concept of maintainers. As a user, I'm afraid that you don't seem to be a representative of typical users. I would be happy to use a traditional distribution if they don't break on updates, which is still not the case. It's clear that traditional distros were not satisfactory on even keeping their own promises. I know they work hard, but ultimately the visible outcome says everything.
- drran 6y ago
  Distributions are not breaking software, they are just distributing broken software. Blame upstream for lack of testing. Or create your own distribution of flawless software and keep it up to date and flawless for the rest of your life.
  - lifthrasiir 6y ago
    Oh, sure. Softwares are broken, you can't fix that. Traditional distros just happen to (falsely) believe that they can somehow fix at their level. What we need instead is a distro that is resilient to software breakage, not flawless software. Does my hope look that unreasonable to you?
    - drran 6y ago
      My distro works just fine, when an X11 app crashes due to a bug in the Nvidia driver, but I cannot.
lmm 6y ago
> If you're creating open source software, they quite literally do! https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-3.0.en.html https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-3.0.en.html Clearly you missed the disclaimer of warranty in the licensing terms. Packagers are welcome to maintain their own patches, or their own fork, if they like. But they don't have any right to tell upstream what to do or demand particular guarantees from upstream.
- drran 6y ago
  It's temporary, I'm sure. When broken software or a weaponized patch will slip through weak fence of maintainers and then break critical infrastructure, Congress will vote for something to stop that.

sanxiyn 6y ago

> a handful of flashy programs This only works if "core" refuses to use Rust, so it's not sustainable. We already can't build Firefox and GNOME without Rust. Maybe Apache and curl next. And then?

ticviking 6y ago
We may be forced to work for free to make rusts build less of a pain. Or to abandon those projects which have abandoned us.

lifthrasiir 6y ago

> As a user, I'm quite happy to continue using a traditional distribution even if it means I don't get to use a handful of flashy programs by developers that disagree with the concept of maintainers. As a user, I'm afraid that you don't seem to be a representative of typical users. I would be happy to use a traditional distribution if they don't break on updates, which is still not the case. It's clear that traditional distros were not satisfactory on even keeping their own promises. I know they work hard, but ultimately the visible outcome says everything.

drran 6y ago
Distributions are not breaking software, they are just distributing broken software. Blame upstream for lack of testing. Or create your own distribution of flawless software and keep it up to date and flawless for the rest of your life.
- lifthrasiir 6y ago
  Oh, sure. Softwares are broken, you can't fix that. Traditional distros just happen to (falsely) believe that they can somehow fix at their level. What we need instead is a distro that is resilient to software breakage, not flawless software. Does my hope look that unreasonable to you?
  - drran 6y ago
    My distro works just fine, when an X11 app crashes due to a bug in the Nvidia driver, but I cannot.

lmm 6y ago

> If you're creating open source software, they quite literally do! https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-3.0.en.html https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-3.0.en.html Clearly you missed the disclaimer of warranty in the licensing terms. Packagers are welcome to maintain their own patches, or their own fork, if they like. But they don't have any right to tell upstream what to do or demand particular guarantees from upstream.

drran 6y ago
It's temporary, I'm sure. When broken software or a weaponized patch will slip through weak fence of maintainers and then break critical infrastructure, Congress will vote for something to stop that.