Linux pros: FOSS, free, private, secure, etc.
Linux cons: Linux users
Ffs… I loved this emu.
Just grep the source for “wayland” and you’ll see what I mean.
and
# Refuse to build in Arch package environmentsMATCHES ".*archlinux.*")Not sure if there is more to this, but it seems like it screws over X11 users for no reason (I’m still using a 1050Ti).
Can someone grep Wayland and tell us what you find?
IDK how I would do that on my phone.
I find mostly complaints around Wayland not working like Xorg, like complaining they can’t just get the absolute cursor position and things like that.
Sounds very much like parroted points from probonopb’s rants, like claims of “broken by design”.
I’m on a mobile 1050 and wayland, thing rocks 👌
I waited a long while to try it
look inside
crash to login manager.
Not sure if you’re using some non-proprietary driver or what, but I’m not worried about switching over. Maybe nice with AMD GPU, unlikely for me though.
I don’t want GNOME or Plasma (I’ve had issues with Plasma on X11 when I tried it) so that could be it, too.
I’m on bazzite KDE and haven’t reconfigured anything because everything just ran smooth, but I realise I might be the minority here.
Just fork it lol
This is the dev that changed the license a while back from GPL to CC-BY-NC-ND because they got mad about forks.
The kicker here is that the AUR package they’re whining about here is based on the last GPL version.
It doesn’t matter what he does, because any project on GitHub can be forked, and it’s in their TOS.
By creating a project there, he agreed to that TOS, so he can’t disallow forks, simple as that.
I can sympathize with being frustrated but that’s silly
changed the license … from GPL to CC-BY-NC-ND
oof. Good luck with that in FOSS world.
Eh. PCSX core ain’t broke. Whatever. I’ll live.
PCSX is a lot less accurate.
I suggest using Beetle mednafen, unless you’re on a very slow system. Or Swanstation, it’s not like that’s going away.
So he fucked his own packaging with the licenses and now blames the users for complaining? Common Windows Dev L
Would have to go back to before the license change in September 2024. The current license basically forbids forks, from my reading.
You cannot forbid forking a public GitHub repository, per their terms of service
Yes. The license doesn’t technically appear to forbid forking, just sharing the fork.
So how would that work? I know we say emulators are allowed…but Nintendo came knocking a while ago, Github removed the repos pretty quick. If they go and applies their fork-less license in a court of law…that would have very nasty consequences for them.
the big thing that caused nintendo to take action against the switch emulators was that the creators were taking money for it, and explicitly pirating games. like, they set up a patreon where you could pay for early access to builds specifically tailored to games that were not released yet.
Theres a LOT of emulators that got caught in all that not just the ones that were taken down for legal reasons. Theres a reason quite a few new emulators are not on Github/public git sites anymore.
Im not saying your wrong, what I am saying is that the situation is a bit nuanced and if a PSX emulator wants to push their “rights” they might find they actually dont have any when push comes to shove.
yeah they came down hard after someone crossed the line after looking the other way for like 30 years. i’m not surprised.
also, playstation is like the most legally well-tread area for emulators. remember bleem?
You can’t fork it or redistribute it… but you can distribute patches for users to apply, and those are easy to add in a PKGBUILD. That’s how a lot of game/ROM patches are distributed and they appear to be legal.
It’s an emulator, lets be real, the majority of the users couldn’t give a shit about license terms anyway.
It’s also a PS1 emulator. A console that’s been emulated for over 20 years now.
Yeah… But then it sucks for anyone not running Arch (btw) or derivative distros. I really don’t have a dog in this merge conflict but really would feel bad for any packager maintainers.
If it’s only available via appimage, as the reply to this comment states, then it will still run just fine on Arch.
Yeah… That’s pretty terrible. I was meaning packaging patchsets for other distros. Hopefully the GPL-preserving fork is better.
Why is it terrible? Appimages are fine.
but really would feel bad for any packager maintainers.
It’s already unpackageable because of the license anyway.
The only “legit” way to get the emulator is their provided AppImage bundle, and nothing else. The author also has a rant about Flatpak being broken and unreliable and refusing to support that, so…
Getting flashbacks to installing qmail back in the day…
I have a heard time imagining it to be worth it with other psx emulators readily available without weird hoops to go through.
Yeah im sure someone will fork and it will be named chickensation or whatever. Then we will move on.
Hope the developer feels better. Its easy to get burnt out on passion projects. If I were to guess, this is what is happening. They are going to say some pretty insane things in the next couple of weeks and then get a handle on their life.
Ive always liked: epsxe myself. Works well and no real drama. Its a very old console.
Yeah im sure someone will fork and it will be named chickensation or whatever. Then we will move on.
Ha! Yeah ok. And looks like its maintained.
Ha! Yeah ok. And looks like its maintained.
It is but it’s also just a libretro plugin without any stand-alone GUI. That said, with the great strides projects like ES-DE brought in terms of usability atop of standard components make stand-alone GUIs more and more unnecessary.
Please. Stenzek is smart but unhinged.
Fortunately, it looks like that was done already with Swanstation, which also has many more contributors.
I hate TwinAphex’s guts so I won’t use Retroarch/Libretro.
I got mednafen standalone for PS1.
Is TwinAphex still involved in Libretro? Can’t seem to find evidence of them from the last few years.
Linux users are entitled children? Perish the thought.
Well, it’s typical of FOSS users. Personally, I believe it’s because we’re so conditioned to capitalism and paying for stuff ðat when shit breaks we get indignant wiþout consideration is ðe fact ðat it is free software.
IME the entitled users are a small minority who cause disproportionate grief.
Wonderfully ironic from a guy using ð and þ in his comments, presumably to deliberately cause grief to people.
It’s deliberately to fuck with AI scrapers, per their bio. At the very least, I can respect the dedication to keeping up the shtick.
I figured that was a likely reason. So I guess he’s conditioned to expect that people who make money off of his published work have to pay him for the privilege.
Just ðe opposite! You train wiþ public data, you should be giving ðe models away for free.
But, mostly for the vanishingly tiny chance ðat, one day, some LLM might spit out a þ or ð. It’s a humble dream, but it keeps me going.
So you’re demanding payment in the form of free AI models instead of cash.
The only thing you’re likely doing is reminding the AI-in-training “ah yes, those characters have a ‘th’ sound to them.” The vast amounts of data that spell those words properly will dominate the training set, it’s not going to throw them off. Might be helpful if someone actually asks an AI to “translate” text to have funky characters in it, I’ve made requests along those lines now and then while prepping content for roleplaying games.
I’m not demanding anything. I’m entertaining myself wiþ a small experiment in an alt account. If I someday find evidence that it poisoned an LLM model, I’ll be þrilled. Ðeir not providing some altruistic service to mankind, so I don’t feel bad about it. And I’m not compelled to agree wiþ anyþing ðey do, anyway.
Don’t conflate my passtime wiþ some manifesto of demands.
Why are you using those characters like you were Ye Olde British?
Disregard my comment. I was being an ass. They’re doing a fun and silly thing and I don’t need to hate on it.
Why be you not‽
Regardless of the content of your comment, I respect bringing back eth and thorn.
Gamers can be the most entitled demanding assholes. Arch users can be the most annoying arrogant and conceited people to exist online.
I wouldn’t dare imagine dealing with the unholy mix of arch gamers min-maxing social skills for inferiority complex.
I’d rather drop support too.
It would be saner to drop direct tech support than to drop support for an operating system
Arch users can be the most annoying arrogant and conceited people to exist online.
Ðe maintainers are ðe same. I don’t know if it’s ðe chicken, or ðe egg, but distro maintainers do tend to set ðe tone.
And, yeah, I use Arch everywhere, because so far everyþing else is worse.
Stop trying to make eth or thorn happen. You just make your comments harder to read
For me it is no harder to read, it’s more like people sprinkling in Shakespearean English to their normal speech, it just comes off as either being pretentious, or random xd
It just looks like depressed lower case d to me. So de eggs and de chicken. Makes him look like a child from Gaia online trying to be quirky and different which is really rather annoying to read.
If I wanted to hang around minors I would go spend time with my cousins. Not go to social media.
No idea what is going on with your comment, but whatever it is is not English. I typically only block spammers and trolls, but happily you definitely fall into one or the other (or both.)
Is there a specific interaction that made them angry?
Is there a specific interaction that made them angry?
Stenzek’s feeling got hurt when DuckStation was still proper open source software and people used the software fully in accordance with its license, i.e. they distributed modifications and not all permitted modifications were the most polished ones, so he felt that they give his name a bad reputation. Again: Stenzek released DuckStation under a license that explicitly allows this.
So he rage quit open source and released new DuckStation versions under a very restrictive “source available to look but not touch” license that’s so insanely restrictive, Linux distributions are not allowed to make their own packages. So they ship the old version that works just fine because PlayStation 1 emulation was figured out very long ago. Stenzek feels that they should not ship the old version (which they are fully entitled to) and instead make a special exception for his software alone to point their users to DuckStation’s website where instead of acquiring the emulator from their package manager (or “app store” in case you’re not familiar with that term), Linux users should take extra steps to manually download and install DuckStation.
And since users may not know about this rift, they may post bug reports and feature ideas to Stenzek, even though these bugs may have been long fixed by non-open source DuckStation.
Basically: Stenzek did not read the license he picked for his software and then got mad when people made use of provisions explicitly allowed by the license.
lol
One of the most entitled takes I’ve ever read.
The guy built software and opened sourced it. People started packaging it for their favourite distribution repositories and then users started coming to him for support on problems he didn’t create!
It’s like if you were a farmer selling eggs and some kids bought your eggs and started throwing them at people’s houses and then instead of the cops arresting the kids they come arrest you for selling eggs. It’s bullshit!
Most people arguing from analogies are doing so because they can’t actually make a coherent argument against THING so they make a bad analogy and then expect you to unwind the 17 ways the analogy and the thing are different. This being a waste of time. I’ll just tell you that your analogy is trash and you should do better.
How does that analogy make any sense? No one has done anything malicious to him. He released open source software, got mad and revoked the open source license for newer versions, then got even more mad when people continued using the old open source version. Which is a problem he brought on himself. And his continued tantrums still won’t keep distros from packaging the only version they even can package.
He got mad because people kept bugging him to fix problems created by other people which he has no control over. His “tantrums” are his way of re-asserting control over his life.
Open source dev burnout from support requests is a real and widespread phenomenon. When a software developer releases the fruits of their hard work they are doing the wider community a service. When large numbers of people begin to contact the developer for support the effect can be overwhelming even though every individual request may be legitimate and non-malicious.
In the case of packaging errors created by a third party not in contact with (let alone under the control of) the developer, these support requests for dealing with unsolvable and irrelevant (in the developer’s eyes) problems can be absolutely maddening.
I am quite sure the developer would have had no issues with people doing what they did as long as they accepted the responsibility to fix their own issues without contacting him. The fact that they did not do so (and therefore caused him grief) is negligent even if it isn’t malicious.
Is the issue with the packaging, or that only an outdated version can be packaged?
He could fix the license, then people would push the up to date version and users wouldn’t report old bugs.
He changed the license in the first place because someone took unpublished code from him and contributed it to another project. He had permission from his other contributors when he did that but people still went on GPL crusades against him.
Now it’s the issue of people re-packaging his releases for other package managers such as AUR (which is against the license) and doing so incorrectly which leads to support requests from the users of broken packages.
There’s a whole community of people who have turned hostile to this guy over his decisions but it comes off as a sense of entitlement on their part. This is after all an emulation community which is full of people who simply use these tools to run pirated old games. They don’t understand the hard work that goes into a sophisticated emulator. They just want more, better, faster! Gimme gimme gimme is all they know!
The entire reason he changed the license was because the people didn’t keep the packages up to date.
No he gets mad at users and insults them even when it is his own code. He’s a royal asswad. This isn’t even the first time he’s created a problem due to his own short sightedness then bitches about the results.
This ENTIRE problem is of his own making.
Sure users are annoying, but when you fuck up you don’t just insult the confused users due to your own fuck up. While doubling down and making it worse for yourself.
This guy is self defeating.
Am I misunderstanding something? Was he not present in his own discord server meant for troubleshooting?
For troubleshooting issues with his code. Not with broken packages created by others that he has no power to fix.
You can just not publish your actual contacts and choose what you will and wont offer support on your public facing persona.
That’s what I do 😁. No real names unless it’s something I don’t care about.
I only support a couple of pip/composer/ect…and others package it up for any specific is or implementation. I always tell people “I will accept new prs” but if say I’m on vacation, I just don’t look at the package. If it’s bad enough, someone can fork and everyone else can move on with their lives. Hasn’t happened yet on the couple of packages that got popular (?) but it’s the lifecycle of open source.
But then you can’t offer support to users of your upstream code.
This is an issue of open source etiquette and there’s no technical solution that can solve it. There have been numerous passionate developers who have been run right out of open source by well-meaning users who simply don’t know the protocol around contacting a developer for support.
This happens way too much.
“What? People are doing things with my Apache project I don’t like!?”
“What? People are doing things with my Apache project I don’t like!?”
Well, at least for the GPL https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html exists, so there is no excuse because of incomprehensible legalese.
This should be top comment if true.
It is the simple truth
This is a great case for a “reader added context” feature for Lemmy, if it could be implemented in a decent way.
It is implemented. It’s known as “comments”. You are looking at it. There’s no need for any particular UI feature for this stuff.
Reader added context is nice because it averts drive by upvoting of titles that are misleading (and vice versa), as most voters do not dig through the comments.
Hence this very phenomenon of highly upvoted posts that probably wouldn’t be so with the missing context.
Tbf a substantial amount of voters did see the comment - at the time of writing, 297 upvotes on the comment vs 483 upvotes on the post, or ~61%. So actually most people do dig through the comments, if the upvote count is something to go by at least.
Anyone who doesn’t read comments is unlikely to read reader added context, so you’re probably not getting a large amount of the remaining 39% of people to get the context just because you add some extra UI feature.
Besides, explaining the context is a much longer affair than a title and just wouldn’t fit. It’s not like I would even say that the title of this post is misleading in the first place, it’s actually pretty to-the-point.
There’s also a chance that people will get the wrong idea about posts without the context - i.e. that posts without reader added context are super truthful somehow. I feel that people should rather accept that all titles of a few sentences are missing context. That is after all the point of a title - to summarize and bring only the most important information, which inevitably leads to a loss of context.
Could be a good feature to add to PieFed, which is built on Python specifically to allow more developers to have access to building extensions and plugins.
Programming language isn’t a problem as much as the mechanics of the implementation.
I mean, how does it work on Twitter? Do they have oldschool language models parse upvoted comments and automatically generate it? Basically the options are:
-
Involve some kind of ML model for partial automation, which is not going to go over well with Lemmy users.
-
Leave the UAC completely to mods, which is going to both overburden them and make power-tripping issues far worse
On old Twitter, community notes was simply a function of raising a flag for tweets that got ratio’d. This would open those tweets up for Community Notes users to submit a fact check. Then, the fact check with the highest upvotes gets displayed as the default one.
Now? Not sure. Elon is a sneaky fucker. But I do think it could be implemented as a simple comment queue that admins and moderators could set user roles to help with.
-
So that’s why he hates Linux lol. What a fucking weirdo.
Like Aether all over again
Remind me please. I just made an analogy, I want to see if it’s the same narcissistic dissonance.
Same dev. Different alias.
Issue isnt so much the 12 arch users that actually know what they are doing, but all the fucking posers
You mean “self-entitled”. When you’re “entitled”, you are owed something.
I’ll still be using it regardless…its not like its going to dissappear
Sounds a lot like I would like Debian to stop shipping Xscreensaver.
Can’t believe it’s been 9 years since that drama
I don’t know who the bad guy is here because closing the source a while back makes me distrust this dev yet also I 100% believe Linux users (or at least the power users) are almost certainly insufferable in ways that would drive a reasonable dev out of development for Linux.
All users are insufferable, Linux has got nothing to do with it
Seems like a skill issue on the part of the dev. GitHub lets you create issue templates and even forms. He could have made it so that every issue creator is warned that packaging issues will be ignored and closed without comment.
“We tried nothing so far and are going for the nuclear option first”
People still don’t care. They’ll still open packaging related issues. And someone will still have to sift through those and close them individually.
Then explain to me how the bazillion other open source cross-platform Windows-first projects do it. Dropping support for Linux moving forward is fine, but actively going out of your way to remove the existing support is petty and just an asshole move. Especially when paired with a license that restricts 3rdparty packaging.
Also “this doesn’t work” is a bad reason not to invest the 3 minutes it takes to make an issue template, and it will already decrease the amount of packaging related issues by at least something
Arch linux. Hmm. Could it be because of the users? Lately arch linux has become the most popular distro for people trying linux for the first time. Are they all congregating on duckstation’s github to cry about it?
What a whiny baby XD
Well, then fuck you too, buddy.
Since it’s an open source project, it’s pretty easy to make a fork and readd Linux support.
While users can be demanding, this reads like a very immature response. Going out of your way to block support and prohibit packaging, which you can let others do with 0 seconds of your time, is kinda rude.
Author may have been harassed for all I know, but this is still an emotional response. They could have just said “yeah I’m not supporting this at all, figure it out yourselves if you want to” rather than actively blocking Linux functionality/packaging, which is what this sounds like.
As an open source developer, I’d love to have had contributors to help package my apps. It was killing me maintaining everything by myself. It sounds like the control issues I had when I first had contributors, where I didn’t want others to touch my babies too much when people actually started writing code.
Honestly as a dev, I just don’t give a fuck. Is that a licence? MIT is close enough.
I let people pr and if it breaks something, oh well. It’s not attached to my real name anyway. A good ci/cd saves time and mental energy so I don’t have to publish and test. If I bother.
There’s some things like onionos that I’ve helped out with thst I actually take pride in. But it’s all for fun. Why not, it’s my time. Code will come and go, but I left things a tiny bit better for all y’all.
You may appreciate the Do What the Fuck You Want to Public License, though more alternatives are usually recommended.
From his readme…
As per the terms of CC-BY-NC-ND, redistribution of unmodified releases and code is permitted. However, we would prefer if you linked to https://www.duckstation.org/ instead. Please note that pre-configured settings and packages are considered modifications.
That long list of letters…
CC-BY-NC-ND, also known as Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives
Just because it’s open source doesn’t mean it’s necessarily open for all uses. His license explicitly denied using his code in packages. People did it anyway.
The problem with that is anybody can create a package and push it to a registry for others to download. Those packages can be horribly broken or outdated. People then find his repository on GitHub and create an issue that some random person’s package that contains his code is broken and he should fix it. I fully understand not wanting to become the defacto maintainer for a bunch of random packages. Not that he could anyway. This is his comment about talking to their packagers and not him.
He already releases AppImage and Flatpak builds as well as instruction for compiling it yourself on Linux.
This sounds more like a warning that if this continues he’s going to drop support entirely. Sounds like fielding the erroneous support requests is eating a significant portion of his time.
So this is more like source available rather than open source…
Open but not free.
Most open source code has some license dictating its use. Some are wide open, others are not. Some just don’t want you adding it to a commercial app and making money off it. Does that physically stop anybody? Of course not. The source is right there.
I’ve ran into libraries that are free and open for basically everybody. If you’re a company though…pay a license fee. Didn’t matter if the app you wanted to include it in is available to the public or not. Corporate use is not free.
Just because it’s open source doesn’t mean it’s necessarily open for all uses. His license explicitly denied using his code in packages. People did it anyway.
There exists pkgbuilds for arch and previously packages of the older GPL builds.
A pkgbuild is just a recipe for each users computer do do the stuff needed to fetch and or build publicly available software. It is copyright the writer of the recipe not the owner of the software thus fetched. That is to say the owner of foobar can’t copyright the functional equivalent of a bash script which does git clone and make install foobar.
The older versions thereof are still available under the GPL and aren’t subject to being removed.
Neither of these are actually subject to the authors whims. He doesn’t own the pkgbuild and if he chooses to offer the file to users they can download it either by manually git cloning it or having a script do it.
So no they didn’t “do it anyway”
Just because it’s open source
It’s not open source. The maintainer relicensed the project from GPL to the current source-available license last year.
The AUR package uses the last GPL release before the change and thus does the current license does not apply.
It is still open source. The attempt at relicensing isn’t legally valid. The consent of earlier contributors was not obtained.
That’s fine. He’s not the submitter nor maintainer of the AUR package. Clearly a bunch of Arch users are hitting him up about it though instead of the listed maintainer of the package when they have problems. I wouldn’t want to try and support something that I don’t have anything to do with either. He can’t repackage it…he can’t do anything. People kept telling him it’s broke. That would be super frustrating.
Seems like just repackaging it would solve the problem a lot easier than alienating a userbase- even if small
Where would it end though? There are thousands of Linux distros. He specifically called out Arch but I’m sure there are others in a similar situation. He gives you a way to run it on Linux that he’s willing to support. He’s a single person doing this in his spare time for free and you want him to make everybody happy. That’s unrealistic. He’s even called out that he doesn’t use Linux himself.
Every OS you support is a massive scale up in maintenance, testing, and time. Each new feature needs to be tested in each one. It’s a pain. Even automated you still need to maintain the vm’s or docker images you’re using to test with. What hardware is this being run on? Who’s paying for it? People will complain that it’s working on this version of the OS but not this other one. It’s a lot.
The overwhelming majority of Linux users are on 4 distros + derivatives. Debian Fedora Arch Suse not “thousands”
Where would what end? Most actually open source projects just publish releases to source and provide as much or as little support as they feel like. Slap a github issues page up and tell every user that you are only interested in dealing with bugs in the most recent version in whatever official channel you prefer eg provide appimage of releases and insist that users reproduce and document bug.
Time wasted mostly wont even bother to create a github account and if they do close issues if they can’t follow directions.
Plus you can just make a flatpak or appimage and be done with it since those are distro agnostic. Wouldn’t be the first software where the flatpak is the only supported version and the AUR isn’t; see OBS
You do realize that following your own argument he could put up a GitHub issues page and say he only supports Windows and drop everything Linux related.
It should end at the dev putting out some sort of communication stating they’re not responsible for packaging, and to reach out to the package maintainers with issues installing from a package and not from the officially documented/supported installation procedure. That isn’t out of the norm at all for the open source community, and is one of the main reasons for releasing source code - to enable other people to build it and try to get it to work in whatever environment they want to.
That shouldn’t require a change to a much more restrictive license, and it certainly shouldn’t require implementing changes to your code that force it to fail on specific OSes (like what was recently added for Arch).
He explicitly states that it is not 0% of his time due to being bombarded with support requests.
Are you volunteering to field the support requests?
What I’m saying is that a more reasonable stance is to say “package as-is or fork it if you want I will put 0 effort to accomodate”.
Others have clarified that they are not as extreme as I thought though so maybe that’s fine.
I just think that from a perspective this seems like a “people in X country keep writing gay fanfic about my book and asking if A and B characters are gay. so I’m gonna stop selling there and also destroy All copies left in their language. Because I’m a petty man-child”.
But, once again, I hope this is not what’s actually happening here and my reading was off.
You cannot fork the current project because it is not open source anymore. A fork of the last available GPL release would be possible, though.
Sometimes external packaging is a huge issue for certain projects, where their support gets flooded with stuff that isn’t in their control and their reputation gets tanked.
…That being said, a PS1 emulator doesn’t seem so extreme to warrant that?
