this post was submitted on 30 Jul 2025
28 points (96.7% liked)

Technology

319 readers
381 users here now

Share interesting Technology news and links.

Rules:

  1. No paywalled sites at all.
  2. News articles has to be recent, not older than 2 weeks (14 days).
  3. No videos.
  4. Post only direct links.

To encourage more original sources and keep this space commercial free as much as I could, the following websites are Blacklisted:

More sites will be added to the blacklist as needed.

Encouraged:

founded 2 months ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] cecilkorik@lemmy.ca 4 points 3 days ago (17 children)

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.

[–] SinTan1729@programming.dev 6 points 3 days ago (2 children)

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.

[–] RickyRigatoni@retrolemmy.com 2 points 3 days ago (1 children)

...does he not know how to use the issue tracker that comes free with github?

[–] SinTan1729@programming.dev 5 points 3 days ago (1 children)

He must've disabled it on purpose as it's on by default on new repos.

[–] RickyRigatoni@retrolemmy.com 8 points 3 days ago (1 children)

Literally the bicycle stick wheel comic.

[–] sukhmel@programming.dev 3 points 3 days ago

I think, it was done because everyone kept reporting the same old issues over and over again

[–] BaroqueInMind@piefed.social -3 points 3 days ago (1 children)

Sounds like the dev is simply a neurdodivergent narcissist.

[–] spartanatreyu@programming.dev 4 points 3 days ago (1 children)

Or, maybe they don't have enough contributors to manage all the issues coming in

[–] BaroqueInMind@piefed.social 1 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago) (1 children)

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

[–] spartanatreyu@programming.dev 4 points 3 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (1 children)
  1. ~~Any dev can fork it and do the work themselves~~ Edit: Project is licenced to disallow forks (but that wouldn't stop the community from supporting linux builds, see my comment further down the chain)
  2. Community forks can exacerbate rather than fix the problem, see the Fedora OBS fiasco (link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dJJvq3dpylM)
[–] BaroqueInMind@piefed.social 0 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago) (1 children)

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.

[–] spartanatreyu@programming.dev 0 points 3 days ago (1 children)

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

[–] freeman@sh.itjust.works 3 points 3 days ago (2 children)

Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives

You tell us.

[–] spartanatreyu@programming.dev 2 points 2 days ago

Looks like you can't distribute a modified version of the project (e.g. a fork), but it wouldn't stop anyone contributing to or distributing a separate project that users could run locally to patch duckstation's build process where they can now build it on and for their own machines.

A build patch wouldn't contain any copyrighted material, so anyone could contribute and distribute it.

Ironic considering that's how many emulator get around legal issues. Emulators distribute virtual machines, but they don't distribute the copyrighted material.

[–] sukhmel@programming.dev 1 points 3 days ago

Well, that's tough then ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

load more comments (14 replies)