101–110 of 129 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The open source maintainers won't have the Windows source, unless it's given to them.
I meant the binary. With enough patience and spit it should be possible to understand it. And AI can do it while we sleep.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
When I started using a graphics tablet, long ago, I was confused about why all this stuff was labelled Wacom, and whether it was applicable to me or not, when using a device of another brand. Some parts of it seemed to be, and other parts didn’t? It was very confusing, and a genuine confusion that made me uncertain even in purchasing. (It would be less confusing now because user-facing parts don’t touch the “Wacom” n…
We had to refactor all our internal and external documentation from Master -> leader and slave -> subordinate. So you get things like “… in subordinate mode”. Thankfully the actual code remained the same (because only engineers look at it).
Feel free to reply to that email and let them know that your readers just discovered that instead of considering Wacom alternatives, they now believe that Wacom is the only brand they can use on Linux. It seems like the only valid response to that is to give money to the people who make their hardware usable on my software.
The venn diagram for Linux user and an artist is so small they probably wouldn’t bother. You can continue to use Wacom (only)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
And it's been a decade long argument? Sounds like someone is just emotionally attached to something not changing. Those are the hardest problems to solve.
Preach. And it's a disease . Signed, the guy who will forever believe GIMP could have been a contender with a name change decades ago.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I would categorize all those as emotional reasons not to change, not logical reasons. "It's hard!" So? "It's complicated" So? "Some of it other people control." This will always be the case, you can't let the perfect be the enemy of the good enough. If the status quo means a worse project, then you're not changing because you don't WANT to, not because it's a good idea. And that's an emotional, not logical ,decision.
i am not sure why you would say that they are "emotional reasons". comparing the cost (difficulty, complications, etc.) against the benefit of doing something before doing it seems quite logical.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Preach. And it's a disease . Signed, the guy who will forever believe GIMP could have been a contender with a name change decades ago.
Yep. I was an intern at Disney Feature Animation when GIMP first came out. It was really exciting, an alternative to Photoshop (which used to run on linux!) and our in-house painting tools. I pushed for artists to use it, but was told by management to stop mentioning it as "Disney could never use a tool called GIMP". Also that reaction from several artists (who were already tech-savvy, linux using folks in the exact…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Name changes are controversial. Nothing gets nerds going more than changing a project name so companies work better with OSS.
Yet name changes happen easily when legally forced. Wireshark, MariaDB, and LibreOffice.
Ignoring what "legally" forced entails, and just focusing on the mechanics of renaming stuff: Even if your code base can be updated with a simple "s/old/new/" regex (and, IME, this never, ever works as well as you thought it would, and always creates a long tail of manual grepping and editing), you still have to fix the docs, deal with breaking API changes, support multiple versions, provide upgrade paths, deal with confused users, etc. etc. etc.
And, um, confusingly, the examples you cite are actually even more complicated and work-intensive than what is being talked about in this article, because they also require URL / domain name updates, legal document changes, regulatory filings, etc. etc.
TLDR: the contention that "name changes happen easily" is not an accurate description of the situations you are citing.
> Well, because it's true: many of the repositories are named after "Wacom". It's a historical legacy on GNU/Linux. It's also a decade-long debate that these repos should be renamed differently. If the project being named after Wacom is actively causing other companies to not contribute because they believe it’s a Wacom lead project and they’d be helping a competitor, I don’t understand why this is even a debate vs.…
Devil's advocate: why should the project have to rename because some companies want them to? That just shifts the window slightly closer to corporate control, something that millions of people worldwide bemoan.