191–200 of 229 posts
The 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
Are you using Linux? I cannot think about an operating system in which it's so easy and safe to install software on. I use Arch BTW.
Earlier 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.
Debian is the most stable distro for a reason. They don't rebase from upstream every 30 minutes because it is a community project. It is wonderful that volunteers have continued the Debian project for so long. In contrast, Red Hat Enterprise Linux, a distro funded by IBM and countless faceless backers, has recently stopped patching many vulnerabilities, recommending to their users to rely on mitigations instead, desp…
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…
And Quod Libet vs. Gentoo (2006): - https://bugs.gentoo.org/101619 - https://bugs.gentoo.org/124595 And Quod Libet vs. Debian (2007): - https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=421167 - https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=477454
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's "changing the code." The main issue that I see, is that OBS doesn't want to be held responsible for the Fedora version, which is different from the "officially-supported" OBS version. They didn't modify anything other than the build, to exclude certain dependencies. But modifying the build, is modifying the code. They are allowed to do that, but they probably aren't allowed to slap the OBS name on the result.
> They didn't modify anything other than the build, to exclude certain dependencies. To be clear here: They do modify it further than that by applying a number of patches. For example, they replace libx264 with OpenH264 which also requires some changes to the UI code since it is (unfortunately) hardcoded to expect x264 to exist. While there have been efforts to upstream those changes, they have not yet been merged.
It seems (to me) to make sense, for OBS to want their name off of it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Trademark isn't only about the ownership of the brand. Its about who can use the brand on what. By using the brand on something else, the reputation can be damaged
Is somebody using the brand on something that isn't OBS? https://bazaar.launchpad.net/~mozillateam/firefox/firefox.ja... is the config for what becomes Ubuntu's firefox package https://gitlab.archlinux.org/archlinux/packaging/packages/fi... is the equivalent for Arch Both apply different configurations, use different versions of dependencies, and in Arch's case applies a patch to the upstream code. Which of them isn'…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This doesn’t seem similar at all. Debian didn’t break xscreensaver, they merely shipped a two-year old version at some point, in line with their stable releases. This is unlike how Fedora apparently broke their own OBS repackage.
I love Debian but the version of xscreensaver was old and if there were security issues unpatched and getting the blame sent to jwz, that’s not right.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I find it insane that everybody is seemingly okay with the fact that websites get to know what a user was browsing before landing on their site. And that there's no straightforward way to disable this behavior without the use of extensions. Highly recommend installing https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/smart-referer
Hmm, the addon description says "has been largely superseeded by better browser defaults"
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Are you using Linux? I cannot think about an operating system in which it's so easy and safe to install software on. I use Arch BTW.
yes I'm using linux.
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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
> I just install it through the package manager and it just works. It just works if the software you require is not only provided by your speciic distribution but also you require the specific version of the software that is provided by your specific distribution. Good luck if it not the case. For windows or mac, 1 or 2 files each cover all systems from the last 10 years or more. It's not by masochism that people reg…
Utter nonsense. What about code signing? A 10 year old installer won't be signed, and Windows/mac will scream at you about malware and you might have to jump through a bunch of hoops to get it actually installed.
> You compare hunting for pirated software to installing open source software
Pirated? How do you download MS Office? Adobe Acrobat? VLC? For all of those, on Windows and on Mac, you have to search the net for an installer. And pray that your vision is good enough to detect phishing/scam websites. (And sometimes it isn't obvious, VLC is downloaded from videolan.org).