271–280 of 367 posts
It's crazy the amount of power maintainers hold over someone else's software. This reminds me of the time when Fedora maintainers disabled GLES1 support in Mesa because "nobody should be using it anymore (there are newer OpenGL versions)", disregarding the fact that GLES1 was well and fully maintained upstream, and was and is still the only option on many devices.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Because maintainers have an opinion and explicitly wanted to change the default.
Perhaps, and that's not unreasonable in and of itself. But to do so in such a user-hostile manner? That's a bit over the top. A new minimal package, advertising it, and only then eventually making it the default would have been far, far more effective. If an engineer of mine pulled this on our user-base I'd have them reverting it in a heartbeat regardless of the technical merit. They already failed just in how they e…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Debian maintainer, Julian Klode, has a "pointed" opinion: > I'm afraid that's not going to happen. It was a mistake to ship with all plugins built by default. This will be painful for a year as users annoyingly do not read the NEWS files they should be reading but there's little that can be done about that. > It is our responsibility to our users to provide them the most secure option possible as the default. All of…
My favorite part is that this guy works at Canonical.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Because maintainers have an opinion and explicitly wanted to change the default.
Perhaps, and that's not unreasonable in and of itself. But to do so in such a user-hostile manner? That's a bit over the top. A new minimal package, advertising it, and only then eventually making it the default would have been far, far more effective. If an engineer of mine pulled this on our user-base I'd have them reverting it in a heartbeat regardless of the technical merit. They already failed just in how they e…
This isn't user hostile.
You know what'd be user hostile? Removing the functionality and not providing the -full package alongside.
Looks like pretty reasonable decision to me - network features and browser integrations are huge potential holes / exploit entry points. And without network-related features and only running the trusted databases, the tool should be impossible to exploit even if exploits are found, which is a very desirable trait for something as important as password manager. Even original maintainer agrees [1]. Remember, the full n…
The keepassxc account is being ridiculously sensationalist. Removing ALL features? Lol
It's crazy the amount of power maintainers hold over someone else's software. This reminds me of the time when Fedora maintainers disabled GLES1 support in Mesa because "nobody should be using it anymore (there are newer OpenGL versions)", disregarding the fact that GLES1 was well and fully maintained upstream, and was and is still the only option on many devices.
>power maintainers hold over someone else's software There's some subtle assumptions about ownership in this comment that aren't accurate, insofar as free and open source software is concerned. FOSS software is not "someone else's" software. They may own the trade mark, but by releasing the software under a FOSS licence, they lose the right to control the direction the software may take. I'm free to copy it, edit it,…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
So the Debian maintainer complains about the upstream project (which they decided to maintain the package for) bringing "crap" and having "utterly misguided" development? And somehow people say that this is the reasonable person here, basing a major change of a software's featureset on such an opinion? Independent from whether the original change is good or bad, so much of what's wrong with Open Source is people tryi…
what leads you to suspect he's wrong? from the quotes in your comment i suspect it's his choice to use plain language and openly disagree with others. in my experience that's how trustworthy, competent people talk people working together successfully in free software doesn't depend on them having the same values or getting along or wanting the software to do the same thing. it just depends on being clear and open abo…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Sorry, why do maintainers owe us anything? They’re typically unpaid or poorly paid and are doing everyone a favour. The code is open source and anyone who doesn’t like their work can easily fork the project. They don’t need to justify anything to us
This isn’t the project maintainer we’re talking about, it’s the Debian package maintainer. Their job is building a working .deb with working software, not randomly messing with it. Users have the right to demand their packages to be trustworthy.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Perhaps, and that's not unreasonable in and of itself. But to do so in such a user-hostile manner? That's a bit over the top. A new minimal package, advertising it, and only then eventually making it the default would have been far, far more effective. If an engineer of mine pulled this on our user-base I'd have them reverting it in a heartbeat regardless of the technical merit. They already failed just in how they e…
> user-hostile manner This isn't user hostile. You know what'd be user hostile? Removing the functionality and not providing the -full package alongside.
The software has been broken - the UI wasn’t designed with those toggles in mind so now users suddenly have non functioning features presented to the in the UI.
The argument the all users should be keeping up to speed on NEWS - especially in the stable channels this will end up in - to explain why their UX is suddenly broken is not exactly ‘user friendly’.