I don’t really get why people try to block people from using the software when their problem is that they don’t want to support it. Fix your support process if it’s getting spammed by idiots. Block people there. Add a dropdown that makes you choose which OS you are using and tells the user that you won’t support their distro if that’s how you feel you need to gatekeep things.
It’s not that I don’t understand the frustration of dealing with idiotic support requests, or that I deny their right to stop packaging the software for a whole OS… but it always just feels so deeply misguided to me. Providing direct technical support is such a totally different thing from simply providing a best-effort attempt to build your software on a different OS or at least not getting in the way of people who do (by prohibiting anyone from building packages).
The logic behind these decisions escapes me, it’s like moving to a different country and leaving everything behind because you went out in your shed and saw a spider in there, and then justifying it by saying you hate spiders and rarely used the shed anyway and it’s just like… why? I get that you don’t like spiders but lets be realistic it’s not going to hurt you and if it really bothers you that much throw a bug bomb in there or something, it’s a common and manageable problem whether you feel like it is or not, and you’re not managing it in a remotely sensible way.
Also, part of the problem is that there’s no proper way to submit issues. The only way to tell the dev about an issue seems to be Discord.
…does he not know how to use the issue tracker that comes free with github?
He must’ve disabled it on purpose as it’s on by default on new repos.
Literally the bicycle stick wheel comic.
Sounds like the dev is simply a neurdodivergent narcissist.
Or, maybe they don’t have enough contributors to manage all the issues coming in
Damn, if only there was a way to allow your source code to be forked and allow other devs opportunities to help contribute code. /s
Any dev can fork it and do the work themselvesEdit: Project is licenced to disallow forks (but that wouldn’t stop the community from supporting linux builds, see my comment further down the chain)- Community forks can exacerbate rather than fix the problem, see the Fedora OBS fiasco (link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dJJvq3dpylM)
I don’t know if you missed the comment referring to it, but the dev deliberately changed the license to his source code to prevent forks, so I was being sarcastic, and the dev is indeed being a stupid dipshit suffering from the consequences of their own actions.
the dev deliberately changed the license to his source code to prevent forks
The licence is a creative commons licence and hasn’t been changed in 11 months.
I’m not sure what you’re talking about
I have to disagree here thanks to one great and recent counterexample:
Remember OBS getting hammered by error reports that had already been fixed ages ago?
Fedora had a habit of building and distributing their own version of third party projects.
Fedora users were downloading OBS but they were getting the broken Fedora repackaged version instead.
- Users were pissed that OBS wasn’t working.
- The OBS devs were telling users these issues are fixed and to update to the latest version.
- As far as the users could tell, they were already on the latest version which pissed off the users even more.
- OBS devs figured out what was going on (users had the borked unofficial distribution installed) and told users to switch to the official version
- Most users didn’t know how to do that and kept bombarding OBS with issues.
- OBS devs asked Fedora to stop linking to the borked version over the official version in their OS
- Fedora devs said no.
No matter how many times OBS tried to get Fedora to change what they were doing, the Fedora devs wouldn’t budge.
It led to OBS threatening legal action against Fedora:
See: https://gitlab.com/fedora/sigs/flatpak/fedora-flatpaks/-/issues/39#note_2344970813 Video version: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dJJvq3dpylM
Fedora finally started listening to application devs after that.
Podcast interview discussing resolution: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oKP1hgdFJKo
Now for Duckstation it’s a similar thing.
Arch (AUR) has a borked distribution that they’re linked to instead of the official version.
The one difference is that OBS has financial support from paid streaming software that uses OBS as a base, whereas Duckstation doesn’t.
Which means that Duckstation doesn’t have the financial backing to legally compel Arch to drop their borked distribution.
So their only recourse is to make a public appeal saying if this isn’t fixed, I’m dropping support entirely.
Entirely understandable.
