It’s clear for anyone who wasn’t born yesterday that the “issues” the bottles team seem to have all revolve around maintaining their control over what should be free software. The “we can’t keep up with bug reports” is a talking point for those who don’t know any better. It’s a distraction.
They don’t want people repackaging their software because their donation buttons might get removed, for example.
DoeJohn@lemmy.world
on 19 Dec 2024 08:52
nextcollapse
The creator and maintainer of openSUSE Aeon leans towards support of the decision, as he says “package maintaners can do whatever they want”.
Cris_Color@lemmy.world
on 19 Dec 2024 09:13
collapse
Thanks for the additional context!
sanpo@sopuli.xyz
on 19 Dec 2024 08:58
nextcollapse
It’s kinda shitty, but after reading the other links in the post I can’t say it’s very surprising.
Bottles devs seem weirdly hostile to the idea of anyone repackaging their software, because apparently they’re the only ones that are able to do it properly.
edit: devs also refuse bug reports from any version that’s not Flatpak, so in this context removing the button doesn’t seem that unreasonable.
edit2: now that I’ve had a closer look at the PR mentioned in the post I’m not surprised at all.
Bottles devs are actively hostile. Apparently with this PR it’s impossible to run Bottles outside Flatpak without the package maintainers patching the code.
DoeJohn@lemmy.world
on 19 Dec 2024 09:41
nextcollapse
There is an entire post from the devs on why Bottles is packaged the way it is. [usebottles.com/posts/2022-06-07-an-open-letter/]. If you put yourself in the developers’ position, it’s actually understandable. Distributions ship Bottles package filled with issues or straight up borked, users turn their frustrations to the Bottles developers instead of package maintainers, devs get frustrated and bombarded with issues that they can’t fixed. A ton of time, effort and mental health is wasted. I think the wishes of devs should be respected, even though the software is open source and you CAN package it however you’d like.
Actively resisting packaging is not the way, tho. You can just require an issue to be reproducible with flatpak, and otherwise tell ppl to bother the maintainer.
huskypenguin@sh.itjust.works
on 19 Dec 2024 10:28
nextcollapse
That’s a lot it communication for someone that’s working for free.
0x0@programming.dev
on 19 Dec 2024 10:57
nextcollapse
So, basically, you make software that doesn’t work outside flatpak without patches, then start removed about how much those patches suck, then, instead of pretty much saying “we only support flapaks, stop bothering us with distro-related issues” on the issue page, you add even more stuff that needs to be patched out because “sesurity”? Makes perfect sense, ngl.
I don’t think it’s understandable in this case, no.
The entire project depends on Wine, imagine if Wine devs restricted Bottles in what way they are allowed to use it just because Wine project doesn’t want to deal with bugs potentially introduced by the Bottles dev.
But they won’t, because of the license.
And neither can the Bottles devs.
If they want to have total control over their source code, fine, but then they cannot claim to be open-source and release it under GPL.
just because Wine project doesn’t want to deal with bugs potentially introduced by the Bottles dev.
If you have issue with Bottles, you don’t immediately go to the Wine bug tracker. If you have issue with packaged Bottles, you immediately go to the Bottles bug tracker. There is clearly a big difference.
Yes, and another big difference is that Bottles refuses to provide any kind of help to package maintainers.
According to maintainers’ comments on the Github project, they have to figure out how to build it by trial and error.
I was actually really surprised that there’s isn’t any kind of build documentation.
It’s pretty unusual.
drwankingstein@lemmy.dbzer0.com
on 19 Dec 2024 13:01
nextcollapse
actively hostile is putting it nicely, imagine being a paid supporter of bottles, you wake up, update, and find out the app you used to effectively use most of your important apps has no intentionally bricked itself and you need to either download install and setup flatpak, which breaks a good chunk of your apps by default do to the sandboxing, and now you need to spend hours trying to figure that out, or roll back.
I’ve been around the block enough times to notice greed and entitlement when I see it.
The bottles devs don’t have their heads in the right place. They should be focusing more on making their software better instead of worrying about who is redistributing it.
Oikio@lemmy.world
on 19 Dec 2024 09:43
nextcollapse
I read the drama in Twitter and PR.
While Bottles maintainer does not do a great job to politely prove the point of the patch to disable Bottles outside of sandboxed environments, he is not required to be a diplomat as mainter (though it would be better, of course) and Bottles decision makes total sense - they asked to not package their software long ago as they drown in bugs and supporting non predictable environment with unknown dependencies creates too many problems for them. I can understand that, development is hard as it is, unpredictability of environment multiplies this complexity.
They are maintainers and they do what they can to support the project, so removing donate button while packaging software done by others (who asked not to do it) is a childish move. Yes it’s FOSS, but morally it sounds a bit wrong.
We ask too much of mainters when it comes to soft skills, not all of us got these, but also not all of us are FOSS maintainers. And I think we should stop asking everyone to possess all skills in the world and react on someone’s rudeness as we are 5 (not saying we shouldn’t improve).
It was described in open letter if I recall correctly, bottles is as special as any other project is to any other project, it depends on perspective.
But beyond technical details - It is their decision as maintainers, you do not agree with it, I can understand it.
I don’t know about morality, but my view is that it’s part of the deal with free software: users can do what they want with it. If you willingly make your software free, that’s what you signed up for. In return, the devs have no obligations to listen to users or do anything they don’t want. If they only want to fix bugs in the flatpak, fine, that’s their choice. It’s their software, we’re all free to work on or use it as we want.
TBH I don’t have strong opinion where the boundaries of FOSS are. But I can understand their will to minimize effort where you see it fits as an engineer. If they think they lack of manpower to do something, it’s their vision as they put work towards it. We can help if we like, agree, disagree or ignore. Does not make sense to blame them though, that was the point of my first comment.
drwankingstein@lemmy.dbzer0.com
on 19 Dec 2024 12:53
nextcollapse
based suse, I hate updating software and effectively bricking it, I don’t support that shit at all
To me it looks like the devs of Bottles said that they’d be patching Bottles to remove support links in non-flatpak versions.
So… isn’t what openSUSE did in the spirit of that? Obviously, them packaging it at all is against the devs’ wishes, but… I dunno, this whole thing is a mess.
Edit: I may have confused “support links” with the “donate button”. However, I am still confused, and this situation is a mess. I sympathize with the bottles devs, because it’s good software, and they are largely volunteer developers. Beyond that? *exaggerated shrug*
Focus on improving your software, not who is redistributing it.
If packaging it is “so difficult,” maybe you could be doing a better job to make it easier? Just an idea!
In all honesty, the bottles team doesn’t want people to repackage their software because their donation buttons might get removed. Greedy little fellas!
princessnorah@lemmy.blahaj.zone
on 20 Dec 2024 15:43
nextcollapse
threaded - newest
that’s embarrassing one thing is to patch it to make it work on your system but to remove the donation buttons entirely…
Not really. I’m glad they removed the button.
It’s clear for anyone who wasn’t born yesterday that the “issues” the bottles team seem to have all revolve around maintaining their control over what should be free software. The “we can’t keep up with bug reports” is a talking point for those who don’t know any better. It’s a distraction.
They don’t want people repackaging their software because their donation buttons might get removed, for example.
The creator and maintainer of openSUSE Aeon leans towards support of the decision, as he says “package maintaners can do whatever they want”.
<img alt="" src="https://lemmy.world/pictrs/image/02253eee-3a6b-4f8c-8597-13e1681d00d5.png">
Thanks for the additional context!
It’s kinda shitty, but after reading the other links in the post I can’t say it’s very surprising.
Bottles devs seem weirdly hostile to the idea of anyone repackaging their software, because apparently they’re the only ones that are able to do it properly.
edit: devs also refuse bug reports from any version that’s not Flatpak, so in this context removing the button doesn’t seem that unreasonable.
edit2: now that I’ve had a closer look at the PR mentioned in the post I’m not surprised at all.
Bottles devs are actively hostile. Apparently with this PR it’s impossible to run Bottles outside Flatpak without the package maintainers patching the code.
There is an entire post from the devs on why Bottles is packaged the way it is. [usebottles.com/posts/2022-06-07-an-open-letter/]. If you put yourself in the developers’ position, it’s actually understandable. Distributions ship Bottles package filled with issues or straight up borked, users turn their frustrations to the Bottles developers instead of package maintainers, devs get frustrated and bombarded with issues that they can’t fixed. A ton of time, effort and mental health is wasted. I think the wishes of devs should be respected, even though the software is open source and you CAN package it however you’d like.
Actively resisting packaging is not the way, tho. You can just require an issue to be reproducible with flatpak, and otherwise tell ppl to bother the maintainer.
That’s a lot it communication for someone that’s working for free.
That’s a disclaimer in the bug submission page.
Which everyone will ignore.
They take donations, that’s not free.
As a guy who worked in OS security, no fucking way will I be doing that.
So, basically, you make software that doesn’t work outside flatpak without patches, then start removed about how much those patches suck, then, instead of pretty much saying “we only support flapaks, stop bothering us with distro-related issues” on the issue page, you add even more stuff that needs to be patched out because “sesurity”? Makes perfect sense, ngl.
I don’t think it’s understandable in this case, no.
The entire project depends on Wine, imagine if Wine devs restricted Bottles in what way they are allowed to use it just because Wine project doesn’t want to deal with bugs potentially introduced by the Bottles dev.
But they won’t, because of the license.
And neither can the Bottles devs.
If they want to have total control over their source code, fine, but then they cannot claim to be open-source and release it under GPL.
If you have issue with Bottles, you don’t immediately go to the Wine bug tracker. If you have issue with packaged Bottles, you immediately go to the Bottles bug tracker. There is clearly a big difference.
Yes, and another big difference is that Bottles refuses to provide any kind of help to package maintainers.
According to maintainers’ comments on the Github project, they have to figure out how to build it by trial and error.
I was actually really surprised that there’s isn’t any kind of build documentation.
It’s pretty unusual.
actively hostile is putting it nicely, imagine being a paid supporter of bottles, you wake up, update, and find out the app you used to effectively use most of your important apps has no intentionally bricked itself and you need to either download install and setup flatpak, which breaks a good chunk of your apps by default do to the sandboxing, and now you need to spend hours trying to figure that out, or roll back.
I 100% support suse’s decisions.
I’ve been around the block enough times to notice greed and entitlement when I see it.
The bottles devs don’t have their heads in the right place. They should be focusing more on making their software better instead of worrying about who is redistributing it.
I read the drama in Twitter and PR.
While Bottles maintainer does not do a great job to politely prove the point of the patch to disable Bottles outside of sandboxed environments, he is not required to be a diplomat as mainter (though it would be better, of course) and Bottles decision makes total sense - they asked to not package their software long ago as they drown in bugs and supporting non predictable environment with unknown dependencies creates too many problems for them. I can understand that, development is hard as it is, unpredictability of environment multiplies this complexity.
They are maintainers and they do what they can to support the project, so removing donate button while packaging software done by others (who asked not to do it) is a childish move. Yes it’s FOSS, but morally it sounds a bit wrong.
We ask too much of mainters when it comes to soft skills, not all of us got these, but also not all of us are FOSS maintainers. And I think we should stop asking everyone to possess all skills in the world and react on someone’s rudeness as we are 5 (not saying we shouldn’t improve).
This is a legit non-issue for so many other projects. What makes bottles special?
It was described in open letter if I recall correctly, bottles is as special as any other project is to any other project, it depends on perspective. But beyond technical details - It is their decision as maintainers, you do not agree with it, I can understand it.
I don’t know about morality, but my view is that it’s part of the deal with free software: users can do what they want with it. If you willingly make your software free, that’s what you signed up for. In return, the devs have no obligations to listen to users or do anything they don’t want. If they only want to fix bugs in the flatpak, fine, that’s their choice. It’s their software, we’re all free to work on or use it as we want.
TBH I don’t have strong opinion where the boundaries of FOSS are. But I can understand their will to minimize effort where you see it fits as an engineer. If they think they lack of manpower to do something, it’s their vision as they put work towards it. We can help if we like, agree, disagree or ignore. Does not make sense to blame them though, that was the point of my first comment.
based suse, I hate updating software and effectively bricking it, I don’t support that shit at all
while gleefully shipping a miserably outdated and unstable package themselves
github.com/bottlesdevs/Bottles/issues/2345#issuec…
To me it looks like the devs of Bottles said that they’d be patching Bottles to remove support links in non-flatpak versions.
So… isn’t what openSUSE did in the spirit of that? Obviously, them packaging it at all is against the devs’ wishes, but… I dunno, this whole thing is a mess.
Edit: I may have confused “support links” with the “donate button”. However, I am still confused, and this situation is a mess. I sympathize with the bottles devs, because it’s good software, and they are largely volunteer developers. Beyond that? *exaggerated shrug*
I support suse in this regard.
2 things to the bottles devs:
Focus on improving your software, not who is redistributing it.
If packaging it is “so difficult,” maybe you could be doing a better job to make it easier? Just an idea!
In all honesty, the bottles team doesn’t want people to repackage their software because their donation buttons might get removed. Greedy little fellas!
Someone seems to have gone and fixed the mess: build.opensuse.org/package/show/…/Bottles
Go OpenSUSE, based AF.