3 ms·

That's a fair point, but in terms of the right to use and modify free software there's no difference between an end user and a distro creator. What if a user t

That's a fair point, but in terms of the right to use and modify free software there's no difference between an end user and a distro creator. What if a user themes their apps a bit and publishes their configs? What if that turns into a distro or a "spin" on another distro with a website? What about things like Regolith [1]? It's a scale not a yes/no question IMO, and these devs are showing hostility to some users, which comes across as an attitude of arrogance and hostility to all users. [1] https://regolith-linux.org/ https://regolith-linux.org/

imtringued 3y ago
I don't know anything about regolith but if you are a distro that does theming, then you should do the QA yourself. Yes, that means you have to check every single package every single time it gets updated. When I think about the scale of the problem I get the impression that only a commercial company that earns money would have the resources to do this. There is no way in hell you can get enough volunteers to do this in a reliable way.
shkkmo 3y ago
> terms of the right to use and modify free software there's no difference between an end user and a distro creator. Yes, but completely irrelevant as this is not asking for the right to be taken away. > What if a user themes their apps a bit and publishes their configs? Totally fine. Publishing those configs allows users to have a choice and opt in to a config that they know was not QA'd by the developer. > What if that turns into a distro or a "spin" on another distro with a website? If the distro takes on the role of providing QA, documentation and support then there is no issue. The distro could also clearly communicate about the theming so users know why stuff might break. The issue arises when they do none of these things and make the resulting breakage someone else's problem. > It's a scale not a yes/no question IMO, and these devs are showing hostility to some users, which comes across as an attitude of arrogance and hostility to all users. I don't see any hostility. I see a very politely worded request that explains the negative impacts certain behaviors have in certain context.

imtringued 3y ago

I don't know anything about regolith but if you are a distro that does theming, then you should do the QA yourself. Yes, that means you have to check every single package every single time it gets updated. When I think about the scale of the problem I get the impression that only a commercial company that earns money would have the resources to do this. There is no way in hell you can get enough volunteers to do this in a reliable way.

shkkmo 3y ago

> terms of the right to use and modify free software there's no difference between an end user and a distro creator. Yes, but completely irrelevant as this is not asking for the right to be taken away. > What if a user themes their apps a bit and publishes their configs? Totally fine. Publishing those configs allows users to have a choice and opt in to a config that they know was not QA'd by the developer. > What if that turns into a distro or a "spin" on another distro with a website? If the distro takes on the role of providing QA, documentation and support then there is no issue. The distro could also clearly communicate about the theming so users know why stuff might break. The issue arises when they do none of these things and make the resulting breakage someone else's problem. > It's a scale not a yes/no question IMO, and these devs are showing hostility to some users, which comes across as an attitude of arrogance and hostility to all users. I don't see any hostility. I see a very politely worded request that explains the negative impacts certain behaviors have in certain context.