4 ms·

> The distribution also will not be persuaded, because it’s the “stable” branch for the next 3 years. This is exactly what users want, though. Eg. if they want

by rlpb 1y ago

> The distribution also will not be persuaded, because it’s the “stable” branch for the next 3 years. This is exactly what users want, though. Eg. if they want to receive updates more frequently on Ubuntu then they can use the six monthly releases, but most Ubuntu users deliberately choose the LTS over that option because they don't want everything updated.

gjsman-1000 1y ago
But if you’re a developer, that doesn’t change that many users do not understand, will not understand, and will open bug reports regularly. When that happens, guess what you do? You trademark your software’s name and use the law to force distributions to not package unless concessions are granted. We’re beginning to see this with OBS, but Firefox also did this for a while. As Fedora quickly found, when trademark law gets involved, any hope of forcing developers to allow packaging through a policy or opinion vote becomes hilariously, comically ineffectual. The other alternative is to just not support Linux. Almost all major software has been happily taking that path, and the whole packaging mess gives no incentive to change.
- mananaysiempre 1y ago
  > When that happens, guess what you do? Ban the user that did not read go to the distro’s maintainers first.
- dredmorbius 1y ago
  What's the Fedora trademark issue?
  - mook 1y ago
    Fedora had their own OBS Flatpak that had known-buggy (but newer and "supported") dependencies. https://lwn.net/Articles/1011511/ https://lwn.net/Articles/1011511/
    - dredmorbius 1y ago
      Thanks!
- rlpb 1y ago
  > You trademark your software’s name and use the law to force distributions to not package unless concessions are granted. It isn't clear if this behaviour is legally enforceable. Distributions typically try to avoid the conflict. But they could argue that "we modified Firefox to meet our standards and here is the result" is a legally permitted use of that trademark. To my knowledge, this has never been tested.
martinald 1y ago
At the end of the day the 'traditional' Linux packaging system in where distributions do it all for you is totally outdated. Tbh I can remember in the early/mid 2000s being extremely annoyed with this so I don't know if it was ever a good model. On SaaS/mobile apps you have often daily new versions of software coming out. That's what users/developers want. They do not want 3 year+ stale versions of their software being 'supported' by a third party distro. I put supported in comments as it only really applies to security and what not; not terrible bugs in the software that are fixed in later versions. Even on servers where it arguably makes more sense it has been entirely supplanted by Docker which ships the _entire OS_ more or less as the 'app'. And even more damingly, most/nearly all people will use a 3rd party Docker repo to manage the docker 'core' software updates itself. And the reason noone uses the six monthly releases is because the upgrade process is too painful and regresses too much. But - even if it was 100% bulletproof, noone wants to be running 6-12 month out of date software on that either. Chrom(ium) is updated monthly and has a lot of important new features in it. You don't really want to be running 6-9 months out of date on that.
- HdS84 1y ago
  Exactly. In theory, the original windows 10 model is the one most users want: a perpetually up to date os which runs also up to date software. Yes, of there might be reasons the pin something to an older version, but it this pc is on a network, security alone tells you to update ASAP. Don't get me wrong, a working package manager is a very good addition to this model. But currently, most of the time setting up a ltm Linux system I spent on updating ancient git/docker whatever versions.
  - hedora 1y ago
    Which users want UIs to change (and often break) multiple times a month? Do you have any evidence to back that statement up?

by rlpb 1y ago

gjsman-1000 1y ago

But if you’re a developer, that doesn’t change that many users do not understand, will not understand, and will open bug reports regularly. When that happens, guess what you do? You trademark your software’s name and use the law to force distributions to not package unless concessions are granted. We’re beginning to see this with OBS, but Firefox also did this for a while. As Fedora quickly found, when trademark law gets involved, any hope of forcing developers to allow packaging through a policy or opinion vote becomes hilariously, comically ineffectual. The other alternative is to just not support Linux. Almost all major software has been happily taking that path, and the whole packaging mess gives no incentive to change.

mananaysiempre 1y ago
> When that happens, guess what you do? Ban the user that did not read go to the distro’s maintainers first.
dredmorbius 1y ago
What's the Fedora trademark issue?
- mook 1y ago
  Fedora had their own OBS Flatpak that had known-buggy (but newer and "supported") dependencies. https://lwn.net/Articles/1011511/ https://lwn.net/Articles/1011511/
  - dredmorbius 1y ago
    Thanks!
rlpb 1y ago
> You trademark your software’s name and use the law to force distributions to not package unless concessions are granted. It isn't clear if this behaviour is legally enforceable. Distributions typically try to avoid the conflict. But they could argue that "we modified Firefox to meet our standards and here is the result" is a legally permitted use of that trademark. To my knowledge, this has never been tested.

martinald 1y ago

At the end of the day the 'traditional' Linux packaging system in where distributions do it all for you is totally outdated. Tbh I can remember in the early/mid 2000s being extremely annoyed with this so I don't know if it was ever a good model. On SaaS/mobile apps you have often daily new versions of software coming out. That's what users/developers want. They do not want 3 year+ stale versions of their software being 'supported' by a third party distro. I put supported in comments as it only really applies to security and what not; not terrible bugs in the software that are fixed in later versions. Even on servers where it arguably makes more sense it has been entirely supplanted by Docker which ships the _entire OS_ more or less as the 'app'. And even more damingly, most/nearly all people will use a 3rd party Docker repo to manage the docker 'core' software updates itself. And the reason noone uses the six monthly releases is because the upgrade process is too painful and regresses too much. But - even if it was 100% bulletproof, noone wants to be running 6-12 month out of date software on that either. Chrom(ium) is updated monthly and has a lot of important new features in it. You don't really want to be running 6-9 months out of date on that.

HdS84 1y ago
Exactly. In theory, the original windows 10 model is the one most users want: a perpetually up to date os which runs also up to date software. Yes, of there might be reasons the pin something to an older version, but it this pc is on a network, security alone tells you to update ASAP. Don't get me wrong, a working package manager is a very good addition to this model. But currently, most of the time setting up a ltm Linux system I spent on updating ancient git/docker whatever versions.
- hedora 1y ago
  Which users want UIs to change (and often break) multiple times a month? Do you have any evidence to back that statement up?