There is an easy trick to prevent this from happening::
for every library update that
you have decided to use, pick the newest, most cutting edge feature and integrate it so deep the project maintainers will have to rewrite half the code for it to function in any version below the current...(and thats why you can't have nice things in old linuxes without recompiling it manually)
The OBS Project is threatening Fedora Linux with legal action
171–180 of 229 posts
Re: The OBS Project is threatening Fedora Linux with legal action
#172The state of software distribution on Linux has always been catastrophic and it's an incredible miracle that Linux was able to enjoy the success it had despite this
I disagree very hard on this. We mostly talk about the problematic cases, but most of the time when I need some software, I just install it through the package manager and it just works.
Compare this to Windows, where you often have to search the Internet, download some sketchy .exe or .msi and don't know if you'll get the software, a virus, or both.
It got so bad that it was common to have "cleaners", extra tools that you downloaded (often from similarly sketchy sources) that tried to delete the sketchy parts of other programs, the remnants of incomplete deinstallations etc.
I still remember when putty download was http-only, no HTTPS, and that was just a few years ago...
Re: The OBS Project is threatening Fedora Linux with legal action
#173Earlier quoted context omitted.
Doesn't seem NSFW to me at all. It's a skin textured egg with hairs in an egg cup. https://cdn.jwz.org/images/2024/hn.png
Huh, looks like he changed the image in 2024 (based on url). Before today, I'd have said the jwz image was goatse.
It was always the hairy egg/scrotum.
Re: The OBS Project is threatening Fedora Linux with legal action
#174Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Debian doesn't just ship upstream updates every 30 minutes. This grossly understates the problem. The debian xscreensaver package was years old, and contained bugs related to screen locking which were an actual security issue. Your comment is in very poor taste.
People who actually use Debian and similar distros will disagree. In their view there’s nothing wrong with shipping older, patched versions of open sourced software. The license says they can do it! So they grossly understate the problem, make it seem like it’s the person authoring the software at fault or the one who’s being unreasonable. They’re quick to tell you how great the maintainers are, how much effort they…
when it's your screensaver, and I can break into your computer using a bug that's been publicized, so every idiot with access to Google knows about it, yes there's something wrong with running old software. that's just my opinion though. btw, where's your office?
Re: The OBS Project is threatening Fedora Linux with legal action
#175The state of software distribution on Linux has always been catastrophic and it's an incredible miracle that Linux was able to enjoy the success it had despite this
I disagree very hard on this. We mostly talk about the problematic cases, but most of the time when I need some software, I just install it through the package manager and it just works. Compare this to Windows, where you often have to search the Internet, download some sketchy .exe or .msi and don't know if you'll get the software, a virus, or both. It got so bad that it was common to have "cleaners", extra tools th…
> putty download was http-only, no HTTPS, and that was just a few years ago
HTTP downloads are still fine in 2025 though, putty releases all come with signatures that can be used to check if anything was tampered with.
This is how lots of Linux package managers can still use HTTP for downloading from mirrors without worrying about malicious package modifications.
Re: The OBS Project is threatening Fedora Linux with legal action
#176Earlier 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…
it's not exactly a case of 'lost their original vision'. Fedora is generally a fairly permissive project; we let maintainers do stuff. Since the mechanism to build Fedora flatpaks was needed (for the bundled flatpaks for Silverblue), it was normal - in Fedora terms - to say hey, let's just let maintainers use to it build flatpaks of any Fedora package, if they want to.
The obs-studio Fedora flatpak exists because the maintainer (yselkowitz) decided to make one. Ditto the few hundred others that exist - https://src.fedoraproject.org/group/flatpak-sig . Some of those are dupes of flathub, some aren't. Of the ones that are dupes, in some cases the flathub build is 'official', in other cases it isn't.
and yeah, yselkowitz created a lot of them, most of which are very simple - it's not really a lot of work to create a flatpak when there's an existing package, the definitions for most of them look like https://src.fedoraproject.org/flatpaks/bless/blob/stable/f/c... . Kinda the point of Fedora flatpaks is that you get a lot of the work done 'for free' in the package build.
I don't know why he decided to create all of those, maybe the idea was to try and create a critical mass of stuff so it would be kinda viable to get all your software from Fedora flatpak repos the way you can get all your software from Fedora RPM repos, if you want to.
Re: The OBS Project is threatening Fedora Linux with legal action
#177Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
The thing about complaints being "minimized and ignored" really isn't true. There is a gigantic thread that's a direct response to their complaints: https://pagure.io/fedora-workstation/issue/463
yes, it recently got unfortunately heated with the whole "whose idea about what to do with Qt is better" argument, but the whole way through that ticket - which was filed 23 days ago, and has had active discussion going that whole time, including being the main topic at multiple workstation WG meetings - it's been pretty clear that the outcome is likely to involve Fedora flatpaks being demoted. The very first post is a proposal - by a key member of the workstation WG - to move flathub ahead of Fedora flatpaks in the precedence order. Consistently through the discussion, catanzaro and other workstation WG members have been supporting that idea, with a lot of discussion and argument about the details, as you always get in F/OSS projects. we do all the sausage factory stuff in the open, that's the point.
Re: The OBS Project is threatening Fedora Linux with legal action
#178Earlier quoted context omitted.
People who actually use Debian and similar distros will disagree. In their view there’s nothing wrong with shipping older, patched versions of open sourced software. The license says they can do it! So they grossly understate the problem, make it seem like it’s the person authoring the software at fault or the one who’s being unreasonable. They’re quick to tell you how great the maintainers are, how much effort they…
when it's your screensaver, and I can break into your computer using a bug that's been publicized, so every idiot with access to Google knows about it, yes there's something wrong with running old software. that's just my opinion though. btw, where's your office?
why are you arguing with a person you agree with?
Re: The OBS Project is threatening Fedora Linux with legal action
#179Meh. Seems like there's some unstated background context here. The proximate cause isn't the linked bug at OBS, it's this bug report to Fedora: https://pagure.io/fedora-workstation/issue/463 Basically it demands that the FlatPak be removed from the repository citing "problems" that aren't detailed. Then 22 days later they start throwing bombs on their own gitlab (again, without details about what the problems with th…
It seems that issues started here: https://pagure.io/fedora-workstation/issue/463#comment-95541... Basically, the discussion somehow got turned into berating the OBS team for relying on an EOL runtime (which, as they carefully explain, was due to regressions when upgrading). I assume that waiting three weeks for any sort of movement and then getting insults in return is what caused them to reach for the nuclear optio…
The argument about Qt maintenance and the original topic are kinda orthogonal. Even in the same messages where he's criticizing obs upstream's handling of qt, mcatanzaro is still saying he wants to demote fedora flatpaks, which is what obs upstream wants - https://pagure.io/fedora-workstation/issue/463#comment-95541... . the start of that comment is debating the Qt EOL thing. The end of the comment says "I agree with this argument. Fedora Flatpaks have had their chance but have not been successful. I'd say it's time to move on. Based on our discussion so far, I think Workstation Working Group does not want to tell Fedora developers to stop packaging things, but perhaps we can exclude the Fedora Flatpak repo from the default software sources and require that users enable it manually if they really want it."
Re: The OBS Project is threatening Fedora Linux with legal action
#180Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Fedora views shipping EOL Qt as unjustifiable neglect That's rich, coming from a project very closely tied to Gtk, which has a history of massive breaking changes, and outright removing functionality, leading to many projects continuing to use older versions of gtk for a very long time.
How is fedora “closely tied to Gtk” in any way that it isn’t also “closely tied to Qt”? Fedora KDE is literally release blocking and has been approved for promotion to be on the same level as Fedora Workstation.
Fedora is owned by Red Hat, which is a major contributor to gnome and gtk.
Red Hat isn't as involved with Qt, which is mainly maintained by yhe Qt group company.