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

221–229 of 229 posts

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

#221

Post by quickslowdown »

dTal wrote: post #66
quickslowdown wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is a piece of Internet lore I'm not familiar with! Any good summary or article or anything you'd recommend?

Why do you need an article? Just find a link to some page on http://jwz.org somewhere on news.ycombinator.com, and click it. Note that you will get a (really quite tame) NSFW image. Said image will explain jwz's feelings regarding Hacker News.

Alright, maybe "article" was a poor word choice? Thanks for an example of of what happens when you link to their site from here, I was just curious to read into the drama, it sounds like an interesting story from a pocket of the internet I'm not familiar with.

When I said "article," I guess I meant that I don't want to watch a youtube video detailing the drama or whatever, I was hoping to just read about it. Either way, thanks for the link and the explanation further down the thread.

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

#222

Post by lmm »

thomasfedb wrote: post #184
nindalf wrote: post #168

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah it’s not fair to expect volunteers to show up on weekdays, I agree with you. But equally, I don’t think it’s fair that packagers want to have it both ways. Packagers want to make subtle, possibly breaking changes to software they didn’t author. The end users feel the pain and complain to the author. The author has no control over the situation, and they’re feeling the pain during the working week . So the packag…

Sometimes changes are required to meet packaging guidelines, sometimes you can get exemptions. Of course users often don’t realise who’s done what. I suppose my advice to upstream would be to direct the end user to the Fedora bug tracker, where the bug can land in my queue. Or advise the user to install from a different source. The upstream that I’ve dealt with have been kind enough to lodge a bug themselves on the p…

> I suppose my advice to upstream would be to direct the end user to the Fedora bug tracker, where the bug can land in my queue. Or advise the user to install from a different source.

How is upstream supposed to make this happen when distro maintainers not only don't mark the package as modified by them, but also silently change the flatpak configuration so that installing packages from flatpak in the way that would normally install a clean upstream build doesn't do so?

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

#223

Post by lmm »

akdev1l wrote: post #161
thayne wrote: post #128

Earlier 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.

> How is fedora “closely tied to Gtk” in any way that it isn’t also “closely tied to Qt”?

RedHat employees make the majority of commits to Gtk and I think are some of the maintainers/managers?

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

#225

Post by cxr »

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

More importantly, the link to the referenced article, properly marked up, since some quorum of nincompoops who hate the Web flagged the other comment destroying the link for any user/agent without showdead on (which will include every agent not operated by a user):

https://jwz.org/blog/2016/04/i-would-like-debian-to-stop-shi...>

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

#227

Post by Sincere6066 »

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.

"I am a happy Fedora user"

...why?

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

#228

Post by vrighter »

foul wrote: post #182
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…

>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. Why do they still mingle with sw distributions? Wasn't the sandboxed blob trend born also to try blackbox strategies and have parallel versions without dealing with too much hell? Was that laziness/economical advantage (EOL'd lib…

Backwards compatibility is not in style anymore. Upgrading several libs system-wide is likely to cause breakage in old apps. A statically linked application doesn't rot (because linux guarantees userspace compatibility). By "doesn't rot" I mean "will keep running indefinitely without requiring some maintainer to keep working on the code indefinitely."

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

#229

Post by foul »

vrighter wrote: post #228
foul wrote: post #182

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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. Why do they still mingle with sw distributions? Wasn't the sandboxed blob trend born also to try blackbox strategies and have parallel versions without dealing with too much hell? Was that laziness/economical advantage (EOL'd lib…

Backwards compatibility is not in style anymore. Upgrading several libs system-wide is likely to cause breakage in old apps. A statically linked application doesn't rot (because linux guarantees userspace compatibility). By "doesn't rot" I mean "will keep running indefinitely without requiring some maintainer to keep working on the code indefinitely."

This is crazy because it's a flatpak, which should be a blob with all its deps in there, like a statically linked application "but better" for other system reasons because e.g. you can sandbox the app by design.

For this reason I don't understand why did they changed the library in there (that build of OBS wasn't broken because of system-wide libs, it was because allegedly they changed the lib in the flatpak), whatever the security hole couldn't they block it "from the outside"?

Post reply on HN