TheEvilSkeleton 🇮🇳 🏳️‍⚧️3d ago

The Linux desktop has a maintenance problem due to the lack of volunteer contributors. One reason for this is that upstream projects are at the mercy of downstream distributions, who have the final say.

As an upstream contributor, you have no choice but to meticulously plead for any reasonable request to be granted by downstreams, treating them as if they were some kind of deity. Not doing so with the utmost respect can get you on their naughty list, which they can then use against you just because they can, and because the license allows it — they will even play the 'you chose the wrong license' card when they have nothing else to say.

The idea that the distribution model expects users to report issues to downstream is no longer valid. In reality, many distributions advertise themselves as user-friendly. Users of these distributions are unaware of the distribution model, so they report issues to upstream rather than downstream. Often, these bug reports and feature requests have already been solved in previous releases, so the upstream has to regularly triage and close duplicate and outdated bug reports. This creates an additional burden for them because they end up spending their limited volunteer time managing these issues when it should be the responsibility of the downstream.

Whenever the upstream project reaches out to the downstream distribution and asks for a change, the response is usually with the downstream pretending to look for a solution by first asking for a list of bugs to be found and compiled, essentially shifting the responsibility back to upstream to start a virtual machine just to test the package and find bugs. If upstream objects to this absurd request, downstream proposes unrelated or unrealistic 'solutions', such as adapting the issue tracker or switching to a proprietary license, just to avoid doing any actual work. Eventually, when the tone of the upstream project changes, the downstream makes remarks on that tone and starts acting like they are the reasonable one; they end the discussion and continue misleading users into reporting to the upstream project, but this time intentionally and out of spite, just to continue avoiding taking responsibility and accountability.

#MaintainerLife #FOSS #OpenSource #FreeSoftware #Development #Linux

Show threadTheEvilSkeleton 🇮🇳 🏳️‍⚧️3d ago

All of this brings me to GNOME Calendar and @linuxmint. For years, we've been dealing with users reporting issues about Linux Mint's package of GNOME Calendar to us, that were either never present or addressed releases ago.

Just a couple of examples:

There were a couple of discussions regarding this in the past, in chat, but none of it ended up being productive. Eventually, we got fed up by it and I opened issue #1 on Mint's package of GNOME Calendar — the first issue ever in their package's repository — asking them to remove all links pointing to upstream GNOME Calendar and rebranding the app. This had no response for 6 months, all the while we were still getting bug reports about Mint's broken package. @nekohayo eventually got fed up (again!) and pinged the packager. The packager replied with something completely unrelated and asked which modifications we did not like, completely ignoring our actual request. So, I just told him bluntly that we don't have the time to look through the code just to pinpoint specific issues, so I'll just loosely say "everything", and the only way for us to be happy is if they could rebrand and we can move on.

Then, the packager responds with something unrelated once again, ignoring the essence of my comment, and follows with a whataboutism — "As i said, 46 and 48 are used by millions of people right now in Ubuntu LTS and Debian Stable. Are you going to request Debian and Ubuntu stop shipping GNOME apps?" — in other words, "what about Ubuntu LTS and Debian Stable?" — as a bonus, twisting my words and going from GNOME Calendar to "GNOME apps".

So, once again, I reminded that this is not what the issue is about.

As a side note: no, never would we go after Debian or Ubuntu over this. If the distribution in question is doing its job properly by simply not bothering the people writing the software that they package, then why should we go after them? They are not the ones misleading users into opening in the wrong place, so there is no reason for us to be upset about. In this case, Linux Mint is leeching off of Debian, and pushing their responsibility onto us.

The packager then explains what to do, and redirects us to Debian to take down the package, essentially roping Debian into Linux Mint's problem — all the while completely ignoring the premise of this post. Sure, both Linux Mint and Debian's packages share the same source; however, this is just a technical detail. The actual problem, one that regularly affects us, is that Linux Mint users report issues to us, whereas Debian users report them to Debian.

So, I remind him bluntly that this is not our responsibility as an upstream to fix his problems.

He then suggests to incorporate code upstream to check if the user is running an outdated version or not. In other words, either phoning home, somehow keeping track of releases every 6 months, or something unrealistic.

I lose my patience and hostily tell him that we upstreams don't care about how distributions operate, and reminded, once again, that all we want is for them to rebrand. To which he replied with "If you don't care, then neither do we." — confirming that Linux Mint doesn't care about Debian or even itself as a distribution. Then says "probably requires GNOME Calendar to move away from free licenses" and locks the issue — once again, completely ignoring the essence of this entire issue.

Now they know what the problem is, and have refused to act on it by shoving their responsibilities onto us, but this time intentionally, because that should show upstream for hurting my feelings, never mind the fact that we are the ones doing the hard work, and they are making us do more work. This is the length some distributors will go to abuse people's generosity.

#MaintainerLife #Linux #GNOME #GNOMECalendar #FOSS #OpenSource #FreeSoftware

Parrot (@[email protected])

Attached: 1 image @[email protected] @[email protected] @[email protected] @[email protected] Alors nous n'avons pas la même version, moi j'ai la 41.2 de Linux Mint

Mastodon Chapril
Show threadLeniwcowaty 3d ago

@TheEvilSkeleton @linuxmint @nekohayo okay, so to be consistent, I expect you to now file issues and be hostile towards every LTS distro, that ships GNOME - Ubuntu, Debian, openSUSE Leap.

You really don't see how stupid this is? The whole POINT of LTS distributions is to ship outdated packages. That's how they operated FOR DECADES. You have NO RIGHT to request removal of a package, or rebranding it, simply because you don't feel like dealing with bug reports coming from LTS

This is so stupid

Show threadLeniwcowaty 3d ago
@TheEvilSkeleton @linuxmint @nekohayo if you tried that with Ubuntu or openSUSE you would just get laughed at and the issue would be locked without any further discussion. But now you feel strong and powerful picking at a smaller project. Good job you. And then you wonder, why people call GNOME development team toxic...
Show threadTheEvilSkeleton 🇮🇳 🏳️‍⚧️3d ago

@leniwcowaty well,

I don't discriminate projects based on their size.

TheEvilSkeleton 🇮🇳 🏳️‍⚧️ (@[email protected])

Hmm... So, requiring a [sandbox](https://github.com/bottlesdevs/Bottles/pull/3583) to run @[email protected] is considered evil and proprietary software, but [patching it to remove the donate button without updating support links](https://build.opensuse.org/projects/openSUSE:Factory/packages/Bottles/files/dont-support.patch?expand=1) is considered fine? Uh huh... Edit: Please keep in mind that this was not a decision made by the entire openSUSE community. This is addressed to the people who authored and accepted the patch. Update: The patch is [no longer being applied](https://build.opensuse.org/request/show/1232727).

Treehouse Mastodon
Show threadLeniwcowaty 
@TheEvilSkeleton that's different. And if you don't see difference, then you very nicely show your hostility towards FOSS in general
May 11 at 6:02pmWeb
Show threadVictoria 🏳️‍⚧️3d ago
@leniwcowaty @TheEvilSkeleton you literally said that to a FOSS dev that did more for FOSS than you ever could achieve
Show threadNix Inch Nails3d ago

@leniwcowaty @TheEvilSkeleton Different how? Both are projects shipping downstream versions that are broken and dumping the blame on upstream and running for cover.

Except in mints case, the version of software they ship is both broken *and* an old version to their much more naive audience, who all seem to refuse to test newer versions on #flathub before complaing for some reason when pointed out how old the software they are using is.

Also (and this is not a defense of there wrongdoings at all, because they have both fucked up in the past with their distro distribution) Ubuntu/Suse parent companies hire people to work on GNOME, same with a lot of Debian contributors. Mint by comparison has done jackshit to help upstream, except dump more bugs on our table.

But sure, we are just evil and toxic for reminding people that we don't have infinite hours of the day to work on things none of us are paid to work on, so would like downstreams that do nothing but add more work on us with no gain to pretty please not do that instead. For someone who pretends to care about FOSS you have 0 interest in actually helping the people who make it.

Show threadNix Inch Nails3d ago

@leniwcowaty @TheEvilSkeleton oh and btw, if you think this is something I only critize mint or fedora for - no. I have had beef with all downstream distros at one point or another (like NixOS for the recent high score situation (https://mk.nyaa.place/notes/am2ivjwats8902qh) and Suse with the bottles situation, and Ubuntu with the very existence of snap).

Because for some reason, downstream distros just have this idea they can do whatever they want, and just make it upstreams problem to collect the bugs like pokemon, because they simply can not except no from the people who make their own software to distribute it properly.

Alice :neocat_flag_transbian: (@alice)

@[email protected] or nixos shipping highscore which hasn't had a stable release at all - it's pre-alpha software rn with a bunch of cores broken, no less - some worked when they packaged it and then broke (unstable software may change in unpredictable ways without consideration for downstreams? no shit) and some just never worked and they just didn't test them and then a nixos person wants me to "compromise". Like no, I don't want them to compromise. I want them to stop doing this shit that they should have never been doing in the first place I already didn't have a lot of respect for nixos, but now I consider it manjaro-tier bad RE: @[email protected] Arch Linux shipping Krita 6.0.1 (beta) marked as a "dev build" and which crashes when I try to open the color wheel with my tablet makes me agree with you strongly. RE: ...

Nyaa~ Place
Show threadSheikh Shakil Akhtar 🇸🇦 🇵🇸22h ago

@zoeyTheWitch @leniwcowaty @TheEvilSkeleton So which distro does this perfectly?

You are being a bit uncharitable towards a project which has made desktop Linux accessible to a large number of people.

Show threadNix Inch Nails21h ago

@shakil_tcs @leniwcowaty @TheEvilSkeleton IMO - basically none except for the build stream distros like GNOME OS/KDE Linux, but some other distros do get closer to working with upstream to resolve issues, like the UBlue distros. I am sure mint's developers have done this at some point, but unfortunately I have yet to see this.

I should clarify I am not picking on just Mint for doing things like this. This problem of downstreams wasting upstream projects time and shipping broken software to their users goes beyond just Linux Mint, this is a structural and social problem in the Linux desktop.