The Linux desktop has a maintenance problem due to the lack of volunteer contributors.
-
@Isofruit @TheEvilSkeleton To my mind direct support by the upstream only makes sense at best on a rolling release where the user is staying up to date.
@reflex @TheEvilSkeleton From a purist point of view, only flatpaks are valid, everything else should go through the distro - even if it's arch.
From a pragmatist standpoint you could make the case that arch, tumbleweed etc. *should* be up to date enough. But at that point you can also include Ubuntu or Fedora on their freshest version since they shouldn't be too far behind with those... (Ubuntu LTS is where things start getting funky)
-
@reflex @TheEvilSkeleton From a purist point of view, only flatpaks are valid, everything else should go through the distro - even if it's arch.
From a pragmatist standpoint you could make the case that arch, tumbleweed etc. *should* be up to date enough. But at that point you can also include Ubuntu or Fedora on their freshest version since they shouldn't be too far behind with those... (Ubuntu LTS is where things start getting funky)
@Isofruit @TheEvilSkeleton For apps like Bottles I agree, if they aren't on the flatpak they are unsupported per the project. For other packages that isn't necessarily the case, I was referring to them on this.
Personally I think everything reasonable should be moved to a containerized format. It's the only thing Snap does better than Flatpak about.
-
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:
- https://pouet.chapril.org/@parrot\_33/116374864921983890
- https://vmst.io/@doctroid/116542487573304110
- https://gitlab.gnome.org/GNOME/gnome-calendar/-/work\_items/300
- https://gitlab.gnome.org/GNOME/gnome-calendar/-/work\_items/1562
- https://gitlab.gnome.org/GNOME/gnome-calendar/-/work\_items/1535
- https://gitlab.gnome.org/GNOME/gnome-calendar/-/work\_items/1526
- https://gitlab.gnome.org/GNOME/gnome-calendar/-/work\_items/1429
- https://matrix.to/#/!koZzDOwNHEzEoeuNok:matrix.org/$174759788212004HiyFg:gnome.org?via=gnome.org&via=matrix.org&via=fedora.im
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, once again, 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
@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
-
@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
@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...
-
@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...
@leniwcowaty well,
- https://social.treehouse.systems/@TheEvilSkeleton/113676105047314912
- https://youtube.com/watch?v=o2qd2RFC6Fk
I don't discriminate projects based on their size.
-
@leniwcowaty well,
- https://social.treehouse.systems/@TheEvilSkeleton/113676105047314912
- https://youtube.com/watch?v=o2qd2RFC6Fk
I don't discriminate projects based on their size.
@TheEvilSkeleton that's different. And if you don't see difference, then you very nicely show your hostility towards FOSS in general
-
@TheEvilSkeleton Would it make more sense to put end user support on the distros? Reports go there, they triage them and anything not fixed at the upstream source gets a bug filed by the distro, anything already fixed upstream they integrate the fix with their distro?
@reflex yes it does, and that's how it should be
-
@leniwcowaty well,
- https://social.treehouse.systems/@TheEvilSkeleton/113676105047314912
- https://youtube.com/watch?v=o2qd2RFC6Fk
I don't discriminate projects based on their size.
@TheEvilSkeleton and besides - please answer me, why is Mint the ONLY distro, which you try to force to remove/rebrand GNOME Calendar, based on the fact, that it ships outdated version (which is expected by an LTS distro)?
Why didn't you file such request for Ubuntu LTS? For Debian? They also package GNOME Calendar 46 and 48 respectively. Their users experience the same bugs as Mint users. And I bet, their users also come to the upstream to file bug reports. Why are you ONLY pursuing Mint? -
@TheEvilSkeleton I don't think you need to be diligent there. A simple "Issues x 2h" for a rough estimate that isn't completely outlandish would do the trick.
The only thing I'm looking at here, is what I think to be the best way for you to get what you want, since I understand your plight.
And from that perspective I can only arrive that the tone is what killed it. It is understandable that things went the way they did, your position is understandable, but it is just not *effective*.
@Isofruit at the beginning, I actually wanted to cooperate, but after that first comment of his, it was pretty clear to me that he didn't even spend 5 minutes to read the actual issue, and instead cherry picked parts of messages. Like, that's what he does later too
-
@m @TheEvilSkeleton well, so what? Should we outlaw LTS distros, on the offchance, that their user will file a bug report regarding an older version? Maybe GNOME apps should refuse to install on anything except Arch?
I'm a sysadmin. On a daily basis I get issue reports regarding systems that run for example Debian 12. For stuff that is fixed in latest Arch. Should I now force the entire company to switch their servers to Arch, because I don't feel like dealing with these issues?
-
@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
@leniwcowaty @TheEvilSkeleton @linuxmint @nekohayo There is a difference between shipping outdated packages and offloading your issues to upstream. Distributions can (and should) ship outdated software with changed branding.
> You have NO RIGHT to request removal of a package
Statements like this make me seriously question whether I should publish any of my work under an open source license, which I think is a rather sad thing
-
@TheEvilSkeleton and besides - please answer me, why is Mint the ONLY distro, which you try to force to remove/rebrand GNOME Calendar, based on the fact, that it ships outdated version (which is expected by an LTS distro)?
Why didn't you file such request for Ubuntu LTS? For Debian? They also package GNOME Calendar 46 and 48 respectively. Their users experience the same bugs as Mint users. And I bet, their users also come to the upstream to file bug reports. Why are you ONLY pursuing Mint?@leniwcowaty genuine question, have you read the entirety of my post? I explain why I don't take issue with Debian and Ubuntu
-
@TheEvilSkeleton and besides - please answer me, why is Mint the ONLY distro, which you try to force to remove/rebrand GNOME Calendar, based on the fact, that it ships outdated version (which is expected by an LTS distro)?
Why didn't you file such request for Ubuntu LTS? For Debian? They also package GNOME Calendar 46 and 48 respectively. Their users experience the same bugs as Mint users. And I bet, their users also come to the upstream to file bug reports. Why are you ONLY pursuing Mint?@leniwcowaty @TheEvilSkeleton They clearly and repeatedly stated that most issues about outdated versions are logged by Mint users.
-
@leniwcowaty @TheEvilSkeleton @linuxmint @nekohayo There is a difference between shipping outdated packages and offloading your issues to upstream. Distributions can (and should) ship outdated software with changed branding.
> You have NO RIGHT to request removal of a package
Statements like this make me seriously question whether I should publish any of my work under an open source license, which I think is a rather sad thing
@FineFindus @TheEvilSkeleton @linuxmint @nekohayo ah yes, and if a distro changes the branding, the developer will come after them for changing the branding. Because how could they steal our project?! They should give credits, link to the upstream! And don't tell me, this doesn't happen...
-
@m @TheEvilSkeleton well, so what? Should we outlaw LTS distros, on the offchance, that their user will file a bug report regarding an older version? Maybe GNOME apps should refuse to install on anything except Arch?
I'm a sysadmin. On a daily basis I get issue reports regarding systems that run for example Debian 12. For stuff that is fixed in latest Arch. Should I now force the entire company to switch their servers to Arch, because I don't feel like dealing with these issues?
-
@FineFindus @TheEvilSkeleton @linuxmint @nekohayo ah yes, and if a distro changes the branding, the developer will come after them for changing the branding. Because how could they steal our project?! They should give credits, link to the upstream! And don't tell me, this doesn't happen...
@leniwcowaty @TheEvilSkeleton @linuxmint @nekohayo I doubt it, considering they are explicitly asked to change branding.
Once again there is also a difference between having 'GNOME Calendar' with a link to the GNOME issuetracker and a forked 'Mint Calendar' which has a credit line in the about section. -
@FineFindus @TheEvilSkeleton @linuxmint @nekohayo ah yes, and if a distro changes the branding, the developer will come after them for changing the branding. Because how could they steal our project?! They should give credits, link to the upstream! And don't tell me, this doesn't happen...
@leniwcowaty@fosstodon.org @FineFindus@floss.social @TheEvilSkeleton@treehouse.systems @linuxmint@mastodon.social @nekohayo@mastodon.social I mean, it's still software licensed under GPL, anyone is free to fork. With Calender it happened many times before and will happen again. It's fine, that's how free software lives.
There are people butthurt over forking their software, but I doubt you'll see them in GNOME.
-
@leniwcowaty @TheEvilSkeleton @linuxmint @nekohayo There is a difference between shipping outdated packages and offloading your issues to upstream. Distributions can (and should) ship outdated software with changed branding.
> You have NO RIGHT to request removal of a package
Statements like this make me seriously question whether I should publish any of my work under an open source license, which I think is a rather sad thing
@FineFindus yeah :(. There's a reason why I've progressively become more vocal and hostile towards these kinds of people, especially those in position of power
-
@leniwcowaty genuine question, have you read the entirety of my post? I explain why I don't take issue with Debian and Ubuntu
@TheEvilSkeleton@treehouse.systems @leniwcowaty@fosstodon.org They are just angry person defending their fav distro. They have no interest in actual discussion
-
@FineFindus @TheEvilSkeleton @linuxmint @nekohayo ah yes, and if a distro changes the branding, the developer will come after them for changing the branding. Because how could they steal our project?! They should give credits, link to the upstream! And don't tell me, this doesn't happen...
@leniwcowaty @FineFindus @TheEvilSkeleton @linuxmint @nekohayo This take is misinformed about how copyright works, trademarks work, and licenses work
The short summary is:
- yes, stealing someone's work without credit is plagiarism and possibly copyright infringement
- at the same time, having a derivative product that uses the upstream project's trademarks to confuse customers and imply a level of endorsement or support is possibly trademark infringementBoth can be true at once
