Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
Oh wow, love it, a testacle in a teacup, dudes just made my day!
> Oh wow, love it, a testacle in a teacup, dudes just made my day!
It's an eggcup.
The OBS Project is threatening Fedora Linux with legal action
81–90 of 229 posts
Re: The OBS Project is threatening Fedora Linux with legal action
#82Earlier 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…
Also worth pointing out, Qt versions are supported for 6 months before EOL, unless you purchase enterprise support.
Re: The OBS Project is threatening Fedora Linux with legal action
#83who should do packaging for each distro? - upstream maintainer: too much work. each distro requires certain best practices/convention. - distro: may not meet certain standard set by upstream maintainer.
This problem was already solved. OBS ships a package on Flathub which can be installed on any distro. There is no reason for Fedora to package their own broken version.
Re: The OBS Project is threatening Fedora Linux with legal action
#84Centralized App stores are bad enough, but App Stores tied to each OS release and the random whims of distro maintainers is insane. It holds back the whole ecosystem.
There's little real difference between OBS packaged as flatpak and OBS packaged as distro RPMs. This is basically the same conflict between upstreams and distro developers that has been raging since time immemorial.
I think there's two big things involved: firstly, that distros just bump library versions of frameworks like Qt and regressions in the frameworks introduce regressions in the app, which is exactly the kind of conflict that causes annoyed users and upstream devs (and it'll especially annoy the devs if they're called 'irresponsible' for not keeping on top of the release treadmill for vague security concerns). Secondly, OBS has features which need various API keys to integrate with different services, which I think third-party builds can not easily include just by the rules of those services. That's a bit more of an annoying one to deal with, because it means even a packager doing a good job and actually testing the software still can't reach feature parity, but it's also not something OBS can really do that much about.
Re: The OBS Project is threatening Fedora Linux with legal action
#85Moral of the story: Don't use flatpack...
It works if you use OBSs own flatpak. It's just Fedora which modified it, broke it, and shipped it broken.
Re: The OBS Project is threatening Fedora Linux with legal action
#86Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
This is a piece of Internet lore I'm not familiar with! Any good summary or article or anything you'd recommend?
There's nothing much to it. Jamie Zawinski just doesn't think highly of Venture Capital etc. He thinks that the first tech boom ruined San Francisco and he thinks that Paul Graham is terrible. That's pretty much it.
Considering that I've spent many a night at Bootie SF (back when it was at DNA Lounge) on too many drugs or alcohol to respond to on-call issues, it's entirely possible that he had more power over tech than it had over his life.
Like many people in San Francisco, he is an intelligent guy with great will to power and eccentric views.
Re: The OBS Project is threatening Fedora Linux with legal action
#87This 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…
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.
Yeah, I'm a bit disappointed at how quickly the perception turned against OBS. Maybe I'm missing something, but their "threats" actually seem pretty reasonable: They asked Fedora to stop shipping a broken version of OBS/make it clear that the Fedora version is unofficial, they got absolutely no response for three weeks, then they requested that Fedora cease using the OBS trademarks. This is not like xscreensaver, this is much closer to Firefox/Iceweasel/etc.
Re: The OBS Project is threatening Fedora Linux with legal action
#88The 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. ```
Re: The OBS Project is threatening Fedora Linux with legal action
#89Moral of the story: Don't use flatpack...
Wouldn't the moral of the story be "don't use Fedora Flatpack"? Tbh, the moral I drew from the story was "Don't use Fedora".
Re: The OBS Project is threatening Fedora Linux with legal action
#90Earlier 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.
Yeah, I'm a bit disappointed at how quickly the perception turned against OBS. Maybe I'm missing something, but their "threats" actually seem pretty reasonable: They asked Fedora to stop shipping a broken version of OBS/make it clear that the Fedora version is unofficial, they got absolutely no response for three weeks, then they requested that Fedora cease using the OBS trademarks. This is not like xscreensaver, thi…
I wasn't trying to suggest I thought OBS was in the wrong here, to be clear, just that the debate between maintainers and developers, and not wanting to get bugs for things that were external, reminded me of that exchange.
There's plenty of other examples, of course - one that springs to mind was when Ubuntu shipped a patch of their own design in OpenZFS that caused data loss, and it got reported to upstream.