The Linux desktop has a maintenance problem due to the lack of volunteer contributors.
-
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 the downstream contributors, 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The idea that the distribution model expects users to report issues to downstream is no longer valid.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have already been solved in previous releases, so the upstream team has to regularly triage and close duplicate and outdated bug reports. This creates an additional burden for upstream 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 the upstream team 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
@TheEvilSkeleton This generalization would sound nice if it hand't come after the concrete example from yesterday.
-
@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 @TheEvilSkeleton That would make sense and while I did not pay too much attention until around... 2 years ago, I swear that used and still is to some degree the case.
-
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 the downstream contributors, 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 team has to regularly triage and close duplicate and outdated bug reports. This creates an additional burden for upstream 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 the upstream team 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
@TheEvilSkeleton We agree on a lot of things and sure, generally what you write here comes from a fair perspective, but ultimately, I don't think that matters.
Upstream has a problem and they need to work together with downstream to fix it. That will require collaboration, including the *tone* of collaboration. Framing issues as a shared problem to be solved together. You saw me write that in the other thread: No amount of being on the right side here will get you past that fact.
-
@TheEvilSkeleton We agree on a lot of things and sure, generally what you write here comes from a fair perspective, but ultimately, I don't think that matters.
Upstream has a problem and they need to work together with downstream to fix it. That will require collaboration, including the *tone* of collaboration. Framing issues as a shared problem to be solved together. You saw me write that in the other thread: No amount of being on the right side here will get you past that fact.
@TheEvilSkeleton Impart onto them the human cost this has if need be. Give them numbers to make them understand the problem and thus be your ally in solving it, rather than demanding solutions.
Show them that this caused a X support request in the past while, wasting Y hours.
If being confronted with a problem they created and its effects fails to convince them to help, then it's entirely fair to publicly call them out on it. That'll likely give you more public support than what we saw earlier
-
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 the downstream contributors, 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 team has to regularly triage and close duplicate and outdated bug reports. This creates an additional burden for upstream 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 the upstream team 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
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 This generalization would sound nice if it hand't come after the concrete example from yesterday.
-
@TheEvilSkeleton Impart onto them the human cost this has if need be. Give them numbers to make them understand the problem and thus be your ally in solving it, rather than demanding solutions.
Show them that this caused a X support request in the past while, wasting Y hours.
If being confronted with a problem they created and its effects fails to convince them to help, then it's entirely fair to publicly call them out on it. That'll likely give you more public support than what we saw earlier
@Isofruit https://social.treehouse.systems/@TheEvilSkeleton/116557125069876147
As for "wasting Y hours", I don't think any of us keeps track of how much time it wastes. Even then, it's not just the time, but the energy too. Making volunteers do something they don't want is a significant misuse of their energy.
-
@Isofruit https://social.treehouse.systems/@TheEvilSkeleton/116557125069876147
As for "wasting Y hours", I don't think any of us keeps track of how much time it wastes. Even then, it's not just the time, but the energy too. Making volunteers do something they don't want is a significant misuse of their energy.
@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*.
-
@reflex @TheEvilSkeleton That would make sense and while I did not pay too much attention until around... 2 years ago, I swear that used and still is to some degree the case.
@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.
-
@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
