• 0 Posts
  • 67 Comments
Joined 1 year ago
cake
Cake day: June 21st, 2023

help-circle
  • Should they? Yes. They should also be searching for previous bug reports. I’m sure a lot of people do. But if you have enough users, even if 1% of people don’t use good reporting behaviors, you wind up with a lot of duplicate or bad reports.

    There are plenty of blog posts out there that basically can be summarized as talking about how grueling open source work can be because users are often aggressive in their demands.

    But this is a prime example of debian “stable” doesn’t mean “no crashes” but instead it means “unchanging, which means any bugs and crashes will remain for the whole release”



  • Because the dev gets a huge number of bug reports for bugs that were resolved 5 versions ago.

    They actually asked debian to stop shipping the screensaver, because they were getting tired of saying “this is already fixed, debian is just not going to ship the fix for another year”. Debian didn’t want to stop, so the dev added the nag screen, because it was the only way to stop the flood of bug reports for things that were already fixed.



  • bisby@lemmy.worldtolinuxmemes@lemmy.worldlow effort maymay
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    10 days ago

    my rant was not about your meme. But people actually use this argument seriously, and that frustrates me.

    And I will admit that learning a new system has a time cost, but once you reach experience parity, the time cost per problem is less, and the number of problems is less. In that way, the “time spent” is an investment rather than wasted.

    So A+ meme, it triggered me in all the ways it was supposed to.



  • bisby@lemmy.worldtolinuxmemes@lemmy.worldlow effort maymay
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    27
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    10 days ago

    The thing I hate about the “value your time” argument is that windows is shit.

    Let’s be generous for a minute and assume that windows and linux have the same amount of problems. Someone who is on windows for the past 30 years has 30 years of acquired knowledge and will probably know quickly how to solve it on windows, but not linux. Someone who is on linux for the past 30 years has 30 years of acquired knowledge and will probably know quickly how to solve it on linux, but not windows.

    So the entire argument is just “but I have muscle memory tied to windows, and I already know how to solve those problems, but I dont know how to solve the linux ones, so they take me a lot of research and time to solve, therefore all linux problems always take a lot more time to solve”

    On windows, I have to spend time fighting BSODs and finding out where to download software from that isn’t just bloated up with viruses, and how to run registry hacks to get rid of start menu ads and to stop microsoft from phoning home. None of those things i have to do on linux.

    On linux, today my biggest issue was figuring out how to change the keybinding for taking a screenshot… And that was an easy issue, but it’s also not even possible on windows.

    So I guess different types of problems. My “wasted” time is customizing my OS/environment so it works the way I want it to, not trying to fight back any ounce of control.





  • You’re right. There are multiple definitions of the word stable, and “unchanging” is a valid one of them.

    It’s just that every where else I’ve seen it in computing, it refers to a build of something being not-crashy enough to actually ship. “Can’t be knocked over” sort of stability. And everyone I’ve ever talked to outside of Lemmy has assumed that was what “stable” meant to Debian. but it doesn’t. It just means “versions won’t change so you won’t have version compatibility issues, but you’ll also be left with several month to year old software that wasn’t even up to date when this version released, but at least you don’t have to think about the compatibility issues!”


  • Debian aims for rock solid stability

    To be clear, Debian “stability” refers to “unchanging packages”, not “doesn’t crash.” Debian would rather ship a known bug for a year than update the package if it’s not explicitly a security bug (and then only certain packages).

    So if you have a crash in Debian, you will always have that crash until the next version of debian a year or so from now. That’s not what I’d consider “stable” but rather “consistent”




  • bisby@lemmy.worldtoInsanePeopleFacebook@lemmy.worldSovcit got a ticket.
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    6
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 month ago

    A ticket while “traveling”. Driving is something you need a license for, but they weren’t doing that because magic words. Most of this is them justifying that they weren’t driving because there is a difference between capitalized words and not, so they don’t need a license to travel, but they got a ticket for it anyway, so they want justice.

    And then yes, they think you can just declare a $5 million countersuit and win by default, as part of the “I’m so smart, you can’t counter my flawless logic” delusion


  • IMO it doesn’t matter. People don’t read news on updates. Should they? Yes. Do they? No. Should they have to? Also no.

    Linus’s point is to never blame the end user for something the kernel changed. If you want software to have widespread adoption, adding homework to simple updates isn’t how you do it. People don’t want a hobby or something to babysit, they want an operating system. Debian will go out of their way to make in-release updates go as smooth as possible, but are willing to through out entire parts of functioning packages between releases.

    But this isn’t even about breaking things for the end user. This will create excessive amounts of noise on the upstream repo. People will say “Hey! My keepassxc broke!” and they report it to keepassxc, and not to Debian. To which keepassxc just has to constantly reply “no, debian changed this on you, this is not a bug.” If Debian had to deal with the fall out of their own decisions, I would say “yeah, im not sure if i agree with the decision, but oh well”… But they are increasing the workload for other teams.

    It is already happening. The debian dev’s stance is “This will be painful for a year.” But it will be painful for keepassxc, NOT debian. The keepassxc devs asked them to not do this. Debian’s response might as well be “Im inflicting this pain on you, even though you’ve asked me not to. But on the plus side, it won’t hurt me at all and it will only last a year for you.” If they really have that much disdain for the project, they should just stop packaging it altogether.

    So yeah, debian has the legal right to do whatever they want because keepassxc is open source. but “just because I can, and you cant legally stop me, and its extra work for you, not me” is kind of a jerk move. This is what drives FOSS contributors to get burnt out and abandon otherwise good projects.


  • It’ll also break all your keepassxc plugins soon. Because debian version to version compatibility is not a priority. They also don’t care if them breaking something triggers a ton of upstream bug reports, because it will only “be painful for a year”

    Linus for the kernel has a strict “don’t break userspace” policy, and Debian has a “break things whenever you want, and just blame the user for not reading the news file” policy.


  • Definitely make sure you think through all the physical security implications of having your house automatically unlock in any scenario.

    Have the house auto unlock when getting home on a bicycle, sounds convenient until, as you point out, they could get stolen and now the thief has a convenient way to unlock your house. So you would not want that.

    You would definitely not want the house to STAY unlocked when something like a tag is in range. If your kid is home alone, you want them to be able to re-lock the house (or in general, you want to be able to lock your house while the kid is home).

    Whatever solution you wind up with, you are going to be trading physical security for ease of use (and complicated fun task). Be safe. Make sure the tradeoffs are actually thought through and worth it.