Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The OBS Project is threatening Fedora Linux with legal action

gitlab.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

131–140 of 229 posts

Re: The OBS Project is threatening Fedora Linux with legal action

#131

Post by JavierFlores09 »

gbraad wrote: post #99
gbraad wrote: post #88

The package was already updated before this post was made: https://src.fedoraproject.org/flatpaks/obs-studio/history/co... which reads: ``` end-of-life: The Fedora Flatpak build of obs-studio may have limited functionality compared to other sources. Please do not report bugs to the OBS Studio project about this build. ```

Honestly, the flatpak should be made on only published by the project maintainers; I do not understand why someone still puts efforts into a Fedora-based flatpak to publish the application. Who understand better how the application works? I had this discussion with several packagers on the project, and they insist on their work. I do not understand why a Debian or Fedora packager would know better how to do this. It…

> It does not take away that this feels pretty unnecessarily hostile, as Neal already informed him to work with the packager to resolve this: https://pagure.io/releng/issue/12586. It is not clear if the reporter actually ever did.

Just providing context here, this is what one of the OBS maintainers said in Brodie Robertson's video [1] about this issue:

> Hi, Joel from OBS here, thanks for the coverage! I can confirm that we absolutely did not want to have to resort to this, but did not feel that they were taking the concerns seriously, and when they resorted to calling us "terrible maintainers" we felt they made their position clear. I'd like to also let folks know that Neal Gompa (who opened the request to remove the Flatpak in addition to ours) manages the RPM, and we do not, and have not, ever had any issues with the RPM which is packaged properly.

With that in context, I'd like to believe while still a bit hostile, it was necessary since they really didn't care about what's being asked here.

1: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dJJvq3dpylM

Re: The OBS Project is threatening Fedora Linux with legal action

#132

Post by rafram »

blibble wrote: post #122
walrus01 wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can hate jwz as much as you want but the fact remains that probably 95% of ycombinator funded startups couldn't exist without making extensive use of the gpl, bsd, Apache and similar licensed software produced by a lot of open source curmudgeons and greybeards. Many of whom share his same opinion on VCs and late stage capitalism.

> You can hate jwz as much as you want but the fact remains that probably 95% of ycombinator funded startups couldn't exist wait, this would be a bad thing?

But without six different AI-enabled VSCode forks to choose from, how would I ever write software?

Re: The OBS Project is threatening Fedora Linux with legal action

#133

Post by ikiris »

alexjplant wrote: post #44
rincebrain wrote: post #42

This seems like a flashback to the xscreensaver fights with Debian of yore, given that the entire fight seems to distill to "OBS is shipping EOL Qt because of unfixed regressions in newer Qt, Fedora views shipping EOL Qt as unjustifiable neglect and repackaged it with newer Qt, which, as described, breaks things." [1] For those who don't have that in their context - jwz got very upset at people reporting bugs against…

Don't link to this guy's site. He has a serious personal problem with every reader of HN (including the vast majority he's never met and knows nothing about) and serves an NSFW image to anybody that has this site in the referrer request header.

He seems to have a pretty good grasp of the average commenter here, I don't know what your problem is with him exercising his free speech rights on his own website to deal with people he feels that way about.

Re: The OBS Project is threatening Fedora Linux with legal action

#134

Post by gbraad »

thomasfortes wrote: post #119
gbraad wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Honestly, the flatpak should be made on only published by the project maintainers; I do not understand why someone still puts efforts into a Fedora-based flatpak to publish the application. Who understand better how the application works? I had this discussion with several packagers on the project, and they insist on their work. I do not understand why a Debian or Fedora packager would know better how to do this. It…

One of the comments in the main thread says that the original vision for the fedora flatpaks was to be mainly for things that fedora wanted to have tight control and be preinstalled in their distros (Firefox, LibreOffice, GNOME and apps, etc...), which makes a lot of sense, but at some point it lost their original vision and started packaging everything under the sun. In another comment someone says that most of the…

Not sure where you saw this, as that was also my argument why Flatpak gave "application developers are in control of the release cycle" again instead of this being the packager; they can't perform the same quality control.

They should never package what rpmfusion offers, or distribute a new flatpak when something is already available. That worked when flathub didn't exist or was mostly empty, but that time is gone now.

Note: I want to understand what led to the comment of the C&D-like legal threat.

Re: The OBS Project is threatening Fedora Linux with legal action

#135

Post by Jap2-0 »

MatthiasPortzel wrote: post #80
tecleandor wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This thread is giant, but I feel like it could come from here (and further responses): https://pagure.io/fedora-workstation/issue/463#comment-95541...

These two comments stand out to me as inappropriate (directed at OBS). > keeping up with runtime updates is one of the most basic expectations of a maintainer, and I suspect it's a sign there may be other problems as well. > I won't mince words: allowing the runtime to go EOL is unacceptable and indicates terrible maintainership. I don't use Fedora but I do use OBS… on Mac, because OBS is hands-down the most popular…

Those two as well as

> Flathub maintainers are sometimes just bad at maintaining their packages, and, well...

Re: The OBS Project is threatening Fedora Linux with legal action

#136

Post by nullc »

wilg wrote: post #20

Lots of Linux-related drama on HN lately. Maybe someone should offer free conflict resolution classes for libre software maintainers.

The people most likely to offer that service are the same people most likely to ferment useless conflict.

Re: The OBS Project is threatening Fedora Linux with legal action

#137

Post by darylteo »

SCUSKU wrote: post #63
rincebrain wrote: post #42

This seems like a flashback to the xscreensaver fights with Debian of yore, given that the entire fight seems to distill to "OBS is shipping EOL Qt because of unfixed regressions in newer Qt, Fedora views shipping EOL Qt as unjustifiable neglect and repackaged it with newer Qt, which, as described, breaks things." [1] For those who don't have that in their context - jwz got very upset at people reporting bugs against…

Aforementioned image for those who are curious: https://cdn.jwz.org/images/2024/hn.png

Gilfoyle (Silicon Valley character) vibes

Re: The OBS Project is threatening Fedora Linux with legal action

#138

Post by mappu »

worble wrote: post #14
iamjackg wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, in this case it seems like there already is an official Flatpak, but Fedora is overriding it with their own, which is of lower quality. The problem was already solved, unless Fedora is claiming that their Flatpak is better in some specific way.

From what I can tell reading the pagure.io thread ( https://pagure.io/fedora-workstation/issue/463#comment-95541... ) the claim from Fedora is that is that OBS is using an EOL qt. It's hard to follow exactly what the issues are with the Fedora flatpak but I can only assume they forcefully updated qt and that's what caused the issues (just a guess from the context). There's a lot of interesting debate in the linked th…

Is that all there is to it? That doesn't mesh with the separate claim that Fedora's RPM package of OBS is acceptable to upstream - surely that uses the same latest Qt that Fedora offers? Fedora 41 already ships the very latest Qt 6.8.2 release.

Re: The OBS Project is threatening Fedora Linux with legal action

#139

Post by thomasfortes »

gbraad wrote: post #134
thomasfortes wrote: post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One of the comments in the main thread says that the original vision for the fedora flatpaks was to be mainly for things that fedora wanted to have tight control and be preinstalled in their distros (Firefox, LibreOffice, GNOME and apps, etc...), which makes a lot of sense, but at some point it lost their original vision and started packaging everything under the sun. In another comment someone says that most of the…

Not sure where you saw this, as that was also my argument why Flatpak gave "application developers are in control of the release cycle" again instead of this being the packager; they can't perform the same quality control. They should never package what rpmfusion offers, or distribute a new flatpak when something is already available. That worked when flathub didn't exist or was mostly empty, but that time is gone no…

Hey, here they are :)

Original vision https://pagure.io/fedora-workstation/issue/463#comment-95406...

Person with more than 700 packages https://pagure.io/fedora-workstation/issue/463#comment-95541...

As for the C&D, the github has some issues with Fedora distros and labeled as "Dependency issues" and there's no indication if the user is using the fedora flatpak or the flathub one, so if I had to guess I would guess that they aren't that happy with:

    1. Being asked to fix bugs introduced by downstream.

    2. Having their brand damaged because it isn't clear that the fedora 
       flatpak is a way more limited version than the verified one.

    3. Having their issues with their complaints minimized and ignored by
       the people responsible for the fedora flatpak system.

Re: The OBS Project is threatening Fedora Linux with legal action

#140

Post by MathMonkeyMan »

uneekname wrote: post #120

I am a happy Fedora user, but the "Software" application it ships with has always been a joke. Pushing flatpaks (and especially poorly-maintained ones like this) has made it worse. When I open Software I always think it's going to be a clean GTK interface for dnf. But it appears to just do its own thing, and I've learned not to trust the app listings in there.

Similar story with Ubuntu's software app and Snap, though to be fair snap is mostly fine these days.

I still uninstall it and use apt instead (and "downgrade" packages that are wrappers around snaps, and block snapd from being able to install...).

Post reply on HN