https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=819703
Epic xscreensaver drama.
Oh wow WOW wow.
It's like there's literally nothing to debian other than the architecture availability.
I hope jwz dies from rectal cancer.
>>53876720
Ah, fuck. I was rooting for JWZ up until he pulled that bullshit "It's Free Software™, but don't do things to it that I don't approve of" point of view.
>be me
>write some useful software
>regularly make incremental updates and fixes
>people keep complaining about bugs that have been fixed many years ago
>i ask them what version are they using
>"durrr i dunno, i just use what comes with my distro"
>debian is purposefully distributing a 3 year old version of my software and making my life miserable
i'd be pretty pissed off too
why are debian maintainers so autistic?
Christ, that bug is a trainwreck.
1) Putting in awful update screens in a screen blanker
2) Actually writing a screenblanker so terrible it needs regular updates
3) shit developer from ye olde times who's main claim to fame is writing the browser that inspired internet explorer and javascript
4) thankfully said developer is now mainly out of the business and runs an edgey and barely afloat nightclub but still lingers like a bad smell when people try to use his software on a server distribution that only updates stable when they see security issues.
JWZ is mainly just a less controversial version of RMS, with less autism and an understanding of generally when it's time to get the fuck out of an industry you no longer understand.
jwz has a history of difficulty. he went on a anti-rms parade once. forked emacs.
>>53877128
>forked emacs.
To add a nag screen?
Is it even possible to be "excommunicated" from the free software scene?
Would the community ever band together to purposefully ignore a certain developer's new software projects because of stupid shit he did in the past?
once again upstream is delusional and doesn't understand what actually makes debian superior
> I find your request to be obnoxious and I wish to not have read it,
> but sadly we don't always get what we want.
what a dickhole
how is this 'epic'
>>53877181
Yes, FTDI are basically excommunicated after their fiasco where they tried to push drivers that bricked competing hardware implementations into the kernel. While their work isn't outright banned, their devs are treated with extreme suspicion and a huge chunk of the OSHW community has started to move away from FTDI.
Another example was ReiserFS, which was quite promising until Hans was convicted for his wife's murder, at which time it's rather slipped from view despite a small but dedicated team continuing to work on it.
I don't think we'll ever see an outright shunning of all work by a developer or company though, it's not in anyone's interest to turn down good work just because you don't like the people, and thanks to CLAs and licensing drama, we're pretty good at making sure if we like the work we can keep it even if people try to be raging dickwads about it all.
>>53877254
op is a fag
>>53877007
> upstrem adds a nag screen on startap to his shitty program
> thinking out of 1000s of packages his shit is somehow special and requires a preferential tratment
> throwing insults left and right
who is autistic again?
>>53876720
And that's why there won't be the year of GNU/Linux.
>>53877289
It isn't special and he even suggested an alternative. He makes the point that you don't have to keep using it if you don't like it, but the licensing let's people do anything they want with it.
xscreensaver is a piece of shit anyway
> turn on laptop
> my desktop with porn shows up
> five seconds later, xscreensaver finally blanks the screen and shows its login prompt
Why are all these linux people so mad online about this? Why don't they just update it?
Why intentionally run old software?
I honestly am confused
>>53877334
>he doesn't update his software
Just kidding, next thing I know is you'll say you're running arch or some shit
>>53877345
>Why are all these linux people so mad online about this? Why don't they just update it?
Because they're insane.
>Why intentionally run old software?
Because it does not need an update (until it does).
>>53877345
Because software gets worse with every version.
I am still using WinXP.
>>53877345
because if you update one thing to the newest upstream version, it is very likely that you will break something else. things don't work in a vacuum. debian is not "stable" because it doesn't crash, it is stable because it doesn't change, which is the tradeoff for having things actually work without worry. it's called "policy" in debian.
>>53877098
How the fuck does this policy of his ever make sense? What if you manage to go 18 months where your only commits are so minor you couldn't even justify a point release?
I get that wouldn't happen in a major product, but it's a fucking screen blanker that's been mature for years.
>>53877387
It doesn't sound stable if a screensaver could kill it at any time.
Windows doesn't have this issue ;-)
>>53877599
It doesn't, he's just a primadonna who think's he's above his users and distributors.
Literal programming "rock star", with all the shit that comes with.
>>53877623
That's correct, you don't get a choice at all.
>April 1st
Huerr
Either fork it or don't use it, right? What's the big deal?
>>53877630
>you don't get a choice at all
wut
>>53877623
>Windows doesn't have nag screens or adverts
fucking lol
>>53877657
There's no big deal, it's just one guy making a fool of himself.
So we all sent in bug reports right?
>>53877657
Very practical.
>>53877007
This. Fuck Debian
typical open sores drama
>>53877630git commit -m "Fixed typo in comment"
git tag v9.42
vi shit.c
git commit -m "Removed whitespace at end of shit.c"
git tag v10.0
>JWZ
He's a cunt.
>>53877334
Happens with me too. But it's still better than light-locker which gives me only a black screen after the second time I lock the screen, only way out of it is hard reboot
>>53877822
I've had that happen to me as well. I don't even bother with screen lockers anymore.
Debian, all the SJWs and none of the packages!
>>53877657
>Either fork it or don't use it, right? What's the big deal?
Forking and maintaining requires effort and they're also trying to be nice to upstream
>>53877869
>debian
>SJWs
Sorry? Debian is relatively straight when it comes to this. If you want to see SJWs, go look at Ubuntu, the GNOME project, etc.
>>53876720
>jamie's response
BURN
>>53877869
Oh come on, SJWs have infiltrated fucking everything.
It is just more visible due to open discussions.
>>53876957
>"It's Free Software™, but don't do things to it that I don't approve of"
He even addresses that in the original comment that the debian crew didn't bother to read tho:
>Of course, my license allows you to ignore me and do whatever the
>fuck you want, but as the author, I hope you will have the common
>courtesy of complying with my request.
This might be the dumbest bug report I've ever read and jwz sounds like a huge faggot.
So let me get this straight: some guy made a screensaver and put a time-bomb in it telling that outdated software = bad and when his time-bomb worked and people started asking for an update he started bitching?
>bitch and moan whenever someone actually tries to make modifications to your FREE SOFTWARE
Why doesn't this guy just make proprietary software? He could have been less of a faggot and not put nag screens in his software to begin with.
>>53878191
He already updated it. Debian didn't want to package his newer versions.
>Wow, it's fucking nothing
>>53878130
Well I can tell you didn't read the whole comment tree
>>53878209
It's debian. If you want bleeding edge, use another distribution.
>>53878191
The nag message triggers if the version is >18 months older than the upstream version. Debian's release cycle is for 2 years and they backport security fixes to keep things secure during that time. Debian is independently maintaining their local version keeping feature parity with an old version which has caused this nag message to trigger. Debian devs just want to remove the nag message but the xscreensaver dev comes in and starts bitching and moaning.
It's not only Debian, Ubuntu has the same warning and outdated xscreensaver
>>53876720
I can understand the "I'm putting this under licence X but please don't Y" thing. It's not great, but it's still better than making a shitty new X+Y licence.
But timebombing your own software then acting like a dick when people get annoyed at you for it is just asshole behaviour. Particularly when all he needed to do was talk to the Debian folks about how to minimise the number of bug reports he was seeing from their users.
>>53878209
>Debian didn't want to package his newer versions.
That's hardly surprising - the whole point of Debian is to be as stable as possible.
>>53878264
>Debian devs just want to remove the nag message but the xscreensaver dev comes in and starts bitching and moaning.
Yeah. If he'd ignored the romval this wouldn't be a problem. If he'd talked to the maintainers this wouldn't be a problem.
This has only gone to shit because he's taken the very first opportunity available to be a dick, rather than bother to deal with other people.
>JWZ
>ZJW
>SJW
Holy shit guys i'm on something
>>53876720
>unironically using Debian stable
How the fuck so these people put up with 90 percent of the shit windows pulls and why not just remove it themselves if it bothers them so much so what the devs asked you not to big whoop or even better getbodf your high horse and complie it yourself from source like it suggests
>>53877387
Only if it breaks dependencies, e.g. by requiring a newer library than they're shipping, or ABI compatibility.
>>53877320
But, it's a contradictory standpoint.
He states in the code..
> If you are in here because you're planning on disabling this warning before redistributing my software, please don't. I sincerely request that you do one of the following:
> 1: leave this code intact and this warning in place, -OR-
> 2: Remove xscreensaver from your distribution.
Yet he released it under GPL, which makes no such reservations against modification. The argument is academic and moralistic, but technically, it's a no brainer. Add to that that the upstream could have engaged and help craft himself a solution and the course is clear. Pull the code per GPL, fix the fucking screensaver and move on.
> implying autism doesn't drive people from OSS
Good.
>>53878635
Christ, I don't want to use anything written by this guy.
>>53878458
It's not GPL code it's X11 (MIT).
The point is yes they can legally do whatever they want, but seeing that the guy literally built the software himself and gave them the code for free the least they can do is grant him his small request out of common decency.
Instead freefags hate him for asking. Why? Because freefags believe that they are entitled to the work of other people. Just another reason the Linux community is cancer.
>>53878720
>decency
Word that guy does not know.
>>53878458
>I SINCERELY ASK
>ASK
you guys are treating it like he added "if you remove my warnings from my code, 9/11v2" to the fucking license
this is old simple code, debian should update it so people don't have to deal with bugs at the gain of """stability"""
and fyi, ive had more video driver problems on debian than arch, and with old gpus too.
>>53878720
>grant him his small request out of common decenc
the day upstream starts dictating is the day debian dies
all you winfags think the solution is just install the newest version. you know absolutely nothing about OS engineering and release management. zero.
>>53878817
>you know absolutely nothing about OS engineering and release management. zero.
Here we go.
>>53878635
heh, he's no stranger to time bombs
https://www.jwz.org/blog/2012/02/pre-millennium-tension-the-dali-clock-y2k-easter-egg/
hahahahah fuckin nerds
>>53878720
>the least they can do is grant him his small request out of common decency.
But it's not a small request. It's either a BOLD ALL CAPS WARNING pissing off users, or making do without XScreensaver.
>Instead freefags hate him for asking. Why?
No, they hate him for acting like an asshole and insulting people in the Debian mailinglists. And despite that, they're still trying to give him the best possible outcome, by trying to minimise the misdirected reports he's complaining (rudely) about.
>freefags believe that they are entitled to the work of other people. Just another reason the Linux community is cancer.
Fuck off.
>>53878740
>you guys are treating it like he added "if you remove my warnings from my code, 9/11v2" to the fucking license
Debian can't really afford to go around pissing devs off too much.
>this is old simple code, debian should update it so people don't have to deal with bugs at the gain of """stability"""
That's missing the entire point of Debian Stable.
>>53878817
>the day the people writing the code start running an os is the day it dies
>the day the workers run the country is the day the country dies
debian maintainers should make a repo that supports code that is somewhat fucking modern with real support, all this open source code and nobody to make sure it doesn't accidentally delete /usr i guess.
and no, debian __UNSTABLE__ is NOT good enough, at the very least name it something that doesn't try to ward off users.
>>53877991
>they're also trying to be nice to upstream
An arsehole gets what an arsehole gives.
>>53878907/* If you are in here because you're planning on disabling this warning
before redistributing my software, please don't.
I sincerely request that you do one of the following:
1: leave this code intact and this warning in place, -OR-
2: Remove xscreensaver from your distribution.
I would seriously prefer that you not distribute my software at all
than that you distribute one version and then never update it for
years.
I am *constantly* getting email from users reporting bugs that have
been fixed for literally years who have no idea that the software
they are running is years out of date. Yes, it would be great if we
lived in the ideal world where people checked that they were running
the latest release before they report a bug, but we don't. To most
people, "running the latest release" is synonymous with "running the
latest release that my distro packages for me."
When they even bother to tell me what version they're running, I
say, "That version is three years old!", and they say "But this is
the latest version my distro ships". Then I say, "your distro
sucks", and they say "but I don't know how to compile from source,
herp derp I eat paste", and *everybody* goes away unhappy.
It wastes an enormous amount of my time, and kind of makes me regret
ever having released this software in the first place.
So seriously. I ask that if you're planning on disabling this
obsolescence warning, that you instead just remove xscreensaver from
your distro entirely. Everybody will be happier that way. Check
out gnome-screensaver instead, I understand it's really nice.
Of course, my license allows you to ignore me and do whatever the
fuck you want, but as the author, I hope you will have the common
courtesy of complying with my request.
Thank you!
jwz, 2014
*/
>muh debian maintainers are being mean :,(
Just remember: if this was happening to RHEL, they would've patched it out without any further discussion. They are at least humouring the fag with his retarded requests.
>>53878907
>the point of debian stable is to have bugs but old programs too
you're missing the point of what the developer is doing, debian is very well known to have stuff so old that it has crippling security flaws and bugs, and someone is finally saying that there is literally no reason to have a 3+ year old screen blanker.
there is 0 stability gain from having outrageously old code, and if you think so i would absolutely love to hear an example of when debian's old as the hills code has saved it from anything major.
>>53878956
proof?
There's something I don't get on this story.
jwz wants debian to ship the latest version of his software that fix bugs, therefore make the software more stable
debian maintainers wants to keep an old version because it's supposed to be stable, even if there's bugs.
jwz was an asshole, but debian maintainers seems pretty stupid
>>53878968
>debian is very well known to have stuff so old that it has crippling security flaws and bugs
No.
>>53876720
>her
what a retard
>>53878980
Of what?
I said *would*, not did.
It was a character judgement. It can't be proven or disproven, because it isn't objective.
>>53878968
>you're missing the point of what the developer is doing,
>someone is finally saying that there is literally no reason to have a 3+ year old screen blanker.
If you don't like Debian that's fine, but the solution to that is simply not to use Debian.
Writing timebombs into your programs to piss Debian users off is not okay, and then following that up with aggressive ranting and insults when the Debian maintainers remove your misfeatures is downright horseshit.
>>53879007
>debian maintainers wants to keep an old version because it's supposed to be stable, even if there's bugs.
Debian maintainers will still fix the bugs in the old stuff they run. They just don't like adding features or updating software versions.
>>53879036
seeing a whole lot of nothing and not a lot of
>an example of when debian's old as the hills code has saved it from anything major.
but okay, believe what you want to, capitalist.
>>53879063
saying they "would" implies an educated guess, which itself implies evidence of similar behaviour
>>53879007
They want the ABIs/APIs to remain stable. Xscreensaver may rely on a library which they don't have or require a newer version of that library to function which could introduce problems in other software.
this is another classic case of developers thinking they know everything, and distro maintainers know nothing
>>53879080
clearly they didn't fix the bugs.
also, could you cite where the developer "followed up with AGGRESSIVE RANTING AND INSULTS", because although I don't have any evidence he did not do that, everything i've seen by him so far is completely reasonable.
debian doesn't NEED to do anything, he is asking them politely to stop packaging his software if they don't want to run a newer version because it is bothering HIM.
>>53876720
>Date: Fri, 01 Apr 2016
PS. wtf is happening with the captcha?
>>53879106
weird how for the last 2 years i've never had a problem with that on arch, but I suppose that doesn't count.
the problem stems from the fact that they don't KNOW if newer versions of xscreensaver need newer libraries because they don't even have it in testing. I understand their idea of stability, but having a 3 year old screen blanker is absurd and you know it, especially when the author is being swamped by people who are having problems with this old version of his software.
>>53879116
>clearly they didn't fix the bugs.
What?
>he is asking them politely
Every single one of his posts in that thread is far more offensive than necessary. Especially given that this entire issue is his fault, and that many of the people there were trying to help him with his actual problem.
>>53879189
>What?
the entire point of the author doing this was because he was being annoyed by people reporting bugs on debian's old version of his software, and he stated that in the comments of his code VERY clearly.
>every single one of his posts
again, please cite
>>53879176
There are no old problems in his software except malicious timebomb he added.
>>53879219
>the entire point of the author doing this was because he was being annoyed by people reporting bugs on debian's old version of his software
It's a shame he didn't actually do anything about that then, isn't it? All he's done is piss people off and create work for the maintainers to remove his misfeatures. And once they've removed that message, the reports will keep coming.
He's not even tried to fix the actual fucking problem - he's just being a dick.
>again, please cite
Like I said, all of them.
>>53879219
He was the first person to even respond to that thread and the first thing he did was was insult the OP.
>In the time it took me to read your whine, you could have upgraded your incredibly-out-of-date computer and saved us all the grief.
>I find your request to be obnoxious and I wish to not have read it, but sadly we don't always get what we want.
why don't they just change the warning to point to the debian bug tracker so he doesn't get emails?
>>53879283
HE can't do anything because the DEBIAN packagers don't want to use new versions of HIS code.
>the reports will keep coming
are you trolling me or are you just ignorant
>he's being a dick
yes i agree having a fucking notification on your screenblank that says the program is old is such a fucking terrorist attack
>all of them
just everything?
ever?
and even with all that, you can't cite a single source to win half of a debate?
as the emperor of rom! says to his people, citing the lord, "ALL OF IT"
>>53879306
>read your whine
>obnoxious
lol, if you think that's being a dick you MUST be trolling me.
>>53879335
because the maintainers are being lazy fucks.
>>53879335
The nag message was his way of addressing questions about outdated versions. The issue is debian uses the name "xscreensaver" even though their version doesn't match the one upstream. I think the only way to resolve this fairly is to rename the whole package imo but I wonder if jwz will even approve of that.
>debian
always has been shit and will always be shit. literally no reason to use this piece of shit sjw distro
>>53876720
>they unironically added a timebomb to the fucking screensaver
what the frack.
why?
>>53876720
> A version, today, over about five months old is going to have at least
> one security hole: you can crash out of the password prompt (at least in
> some cases) by hot swapping monitors at a critical time.
https://security-tracker.debian.org/tracker/CVE-2015-8025
Retarded developer, nothing to see here.
>>53879376
>HE can't do anything because the DEBIAN packagers don't want to use new versions of HIS code.
He can do a lot of things. He could talk to the Debian bugs people to try and reduce the amount of miss-directed reports. He could change his website to make it more clear what should and shouldn't be reported. He could even just ignore the users reporting old versions.
Instead, he chose to insult people.
>are you trolling me or are you just ignorant
No. Once the Debian people remove the message he wrote, he'll go back to getting bug reoprts for old version again. A "fix" that you know will get removed isn't actually a fix.
>yes i agree having a fucking notification on your screenblank that says the program is old is such a fucking terrorist attack
Writing intentional bugs and then insulting people in the bug report thread is being a dick. Causing problems and then refusing to "allow" people to resolve them is being a dick. Pretending that users making a mistake is the fault of the software maintainer is being a dick.
>as the emperor of rom! says to his people, citing the lord, "ALL OF IT"
Uh, reading isn't hard.
I pretty clearly wrote "every single one of his posts in that thread".
>>53879376
>lol, if you think that's being a dick you MUST be trolling me.
Barging into a conversation that not only isn't about you, but you've publicly announced you don't want to be involved in, and immediately posting "I find your request to be obnoxious and I wish to not have read it, but sadly we don't always get what we want." is absolutely, unambiguously "being a dick".
How is this not obvious to you?
>>53879483
>fixed
>fixed
>fixed
>>53879509
>Status
>fixed
>>53879483
What am I supposed to be looking at exactly?
just add a screensaver to systemd and remove xscreensaver, problem solved.
let that faggot whine.
>>53879560
that the bug was in there in the first place.
hotswapping monitors can bypass a pw-prompt? gimme a break.
>>53879607
What does this have to do with Debian?
>>53879536
>he could talk to the debian people
which he is indirectly doing and, from assumption alone, I can take away that he knows won't make anything happen.
>change his website
he clearly stated
>>53878949
that he made it clear to people that the old versions had problems
>instead, he chose to insult people
okay, so making a deal about it WHILE NOT THROWING ANY ACTUAL INSULTS AS SO FAR SHOWN, is somehow worse than ignoring people with problems?
nice
>a fix that you know will get removed isn't actually a fix
the entire point of it was he doesn't want his software on debian any more if they can't fucking update it, and it's ironic you say that because the debian people are the ones who don't want to fix the bugs.
>writing intentional bugs
not a bug, it's a notification on your screensaver.
>refusing to allow people to resolve them
HE IS ASKING THEM NOT TO USE HIS SOFTWARE OR NOT UPDATE IT
THE DEBIAN PEOPLE DO NOT WANT TO FIX THE PROBLEMS WITH ___HIS___ SOFTWARE
HOW DO YOU NOT UNDERSTAND THIS
>users making a mistake isn't the fault of the software maintainer
the users are making no mistake, they are being forced by the software maintainers to use a buggy old version and are coping with it.
">as the emperor of rom! says to his people, citing the lord, "ALL OF IT"
Uh, reading isn't hard.
I pretty clearly wrote "every single one of his posts in that thread"."
i don't even need to respond to this.
>INTO A CONVERSATION THAT ISN'T ABOUT YOU
YES YES A CONVERSATION ABOUT SOFTWARE HE WROTE ISN'T ABOUT HIM AT ALL
>SAYING THAT PEOPLE WHO DON'T WANT TO TAKE HIS COMMENTS SERIOUSLY ARE BEING OBNOXIOUS IS BEING A DICK
HOLY FUCKING SHIT I AM ACTUALLY ANGRY
>>53879632
Exactly, a bug in Debian has nothing to do with Debian.
>>53879655
>xscreensaver is Debian
Ok.
>>53879655
It's a bug in xscreensaver. If you used xscreensaver in Arch would it be a bug in Arch?
>>53879663
by that logic nothing is Debian.
>>53879663
What you're referring to as "Debian" is in fact Xscreensaver/Linux.
>>53879663
>>53879679
debian maintains other people's packages for stability purposes, so yes, their packaging that software IS debian.
the fact that it has bugs it debian's fault, not the maintainers, because debian doesn't even want to use the maintainer's updated code.
>>53879642
>Please remove XScreenSaver from Debian.
>Peter Nowee, please take your sanctimony and go fuck yourself with it.
He is being a little bitch, He made something free software and now doesn't like that people are free to use the software.
>>53879688
>developer writes shit code
>somehow it is Debian's fault
>>53879688
The software had a bug (developer's fault) and then it was promptly fixed. How did Debian do anything wrong?
>>53879691
he doesn't like that people are bitching about his software being shit because debian doesn't even want to use his software, they just want to use a 50 year old version of it and never backport fixes.
he was entirely justified in that comment but I thank you for finally giving me a citating where he actually fucking insults someone.
and I hope the "please remove xscreensaver from debian" part wasn't supposed to be an insult, because that's a completely reasonable request when people are talking shit about YOUR work when THEY don't want to comply with you.
free software != free to slander the author of the software when it isn't his fault software
>>53879719
It's Debian's responsibility to be omniscient.
>>53879688
Upstream code may have the same issues though. Debian usually just pulls from upstream to begin with, they just don't pull features on stable releases
>>53879722
>they just want to use a 50 year old version of it and never backport fixes
They do backport fixes.
>>53879719
in that case, debian didn't do anything wrong other than using an age old version of a simple screensaver software just because they don't want to update it, but that's a problem with debian's philosophy, not debian's maintainers.
>>53879716
the developer wrote "shit code" > 3 years ago, the debian maintainers refuse to use his new code because THEY are now the developers of THEIR package.
it is the debian developer's fault.
>>53879733
although that is possible, the entire reason the developer did this is because the debian maintainers wouldn't pull his fixes.
>>53879740
they didn't, that's the problem and that's the entire reason why the developer did this.
Is it really that important that screensavers be 100% up to date? Who the fuck even uses them anymore?
>>53879722
If it is free software I can use a 50 year old version and it is not slander asshat. It is what the software was at the time, and if the user cares about it enough they will recognize the difference. If the developer doesn't like it then do not free his software or read bug reports, but certainly placing a shitty window EVERYTIME the screen is unlocked is not a solution.
>>53879742
>the debian maintainers refuse to use his new code
So? Does not mean that new code has bugs fixed. Merely using it does not fix anything.
>>53879722
>never backport fixes.
False.
Developer put a timebomb in his own shitty software, that's not a bug, there's nothing to fix.
>>53879742
People who use Debian Stable don't mind using old software, if people want to use old software they should be able to use old software. Again: Developer put a timebomb in his own shitty software, that's not a bug, there's nothing to fix.
>>53879753
>they didn't
Yet they fixed bypassing lockscreen.
>>53879753
>they didn't, that's the problem and that's the entire reason why the developer did this.
What bug hasn't been fixed?
I don't think either side is wrong here I think it's a difference of opinions. But one side is clearly handling this very poorly.
>>53879797
Security patches are backported when possible. It has nothing to do with the dev thinking he has power over all because some users e-mail him occasionally.
xscreensaver should be dropped as simple as that, the developer obviously isn't interested in contributing.
>>53879760
I didn't say using the code was slander, letting users file bugs for old versions of his code certainly is.
also, you contradicted yourself in the second half.
if the users care enough, they will fix it themselves.
>>53879766
I didn't say that it necessarily does have the fixes, but even if he fixed it, the debian maintainers would have to too.
once again, debian isn't necessarily at fault in that case, but they are at fault with the whole issue most certainly.
>>53879787
they didn't fix the issue that caused this thread to be made, is what i was referring to.
>>53879774
not a bug, not a terrorist attack, and they are free to use the old software without the "time bomb", he's politely ASKING them not to disable the "time bomb"
>>53879797
the ones that the people emailed him about, go ask the developer
if he's lying about it then he's just trying to start drama, but I don't see why he would, although that is a perfectly reasonable explanation.
>>53879826
>I didn't say using the code was slander, letting users file bugs for old versions of his code certainly is.
what?! you're insane
wew.
So some whiny faggot adds time-bomb just because his software is old yet all bugs are fixed ASAP (so it's like LTS which is a common practice) and Debian complies with his humble request not to remove time-bomb. Debian clearly did nothing wrong.
>>53879846
he's getting emailed because users are using old versions of his software and blaming him for it, debian is allowing this.
>>53879855
Yes, some people are not very tech literate. How is that a big problem? It's not a reason to add time bombs to free software and then name dropping when people call you on your bullshit.
>>53879855
If he did not add timebomb no one would know that software is outdated and if you're using Debian you should expect that software would be outdated (yet functional) anyway.
>>53879826
I think you didn't understand what actually happened, people are emailing him because the software he wrote nags them about using an old version of his software, again, this is not a bug, this is a developer "forcing" people to use only recent versions of his software.
>>53879877
Exactly, if he does not want his software to be used in outdated systems just remove it from Debian, it's obviously in the wrong place.
But he wants to have the right to annoy users to update the software (and dependencies) or compile from source; because somehow a screensaver is more important than actually usable software.
>>53879877
clearly they did because the reason he did this is because there were bugs in old versions of the software
i have said this in this thread 10 fucking times
>>53879892
no, you don't understand, the reason he made the nagging bit is BECAUSE people were emailing him, which he clearly laid out in the commented part of the code someone posted in this thread.
>>53879874
yes it's debians fault because they are allowing tech illiterates to annoy him when they could have fixed the bugs that made this happen.
and it's really not that big of a fucking time bomb, jfc.
>have buggy software shipped
>refuse to use a newer version with less bugs
>somehow they accept a timebombed version
>yet they don't include the newest one
>they don't want to patch the bugs
>but they patch the screen nagging to upgrade because bugs
The dev is an ass, but the Debian people are just pants on head retarded.
>>53879913
dude you are so far away from understanding the problem i don't know where to start
HE
WANTS
DEBIAN
TO
REMOVE
IT
holy FUCK
>>53879937
Only now that he knows his bullshit has been caught. If he were that bothered by e-mails he could have had it removed already without adding time bombs.
>>53879934
>they don't want to patch the bugs
no
>>53878720
>freefags believe that they are entitled to the work of other people
I legitimately don't want to be associated with these people, they make me feel bad for releasing my source code.
>>53879961
you're retarded i'm not repeating myself again in this thread
>>53879954
HE CAN'T FUCKING REMOVE FREE SOFTWARE FROM DEBIAN
HOW ARE YOU THIS STUPID
>>53879961
Bugs are already patched, they just don't want to ship patched software.
>epic
New to debian drama?
>>53879978
Can you provide list of bugs users complained about and ensure that they were not in upstream version at the time of complaint?
>>53879978
Then he didn't license his software properly. Either way just reply to all e-mails on bug reports saying you don't support older versions or Debian. How's that?
>>53879995
the only reason he would LIE about users emailing him would be to start shit, and i don't believe that is the reason.
if you want to, you can believe that and i have no evidence against it, but the rest of the arguments in this thread are fucking trash
>>53880005
he said he did and it annoyed him too much
what you're referring to is called proprietary software fyi
Who even uses a screensaver in this day and age?
>>53880025
If it annoys him change his e-mail, disappear, go innawoods. But you can't now take go back on the old free software you released. Next time don't include your contact information in it. Being a little bitch asking to update is seriously wrong. Consider all kinds of uses for Debian where installations don't even have access to the internet and must be completely isolated for security.
>>53879920
The version Debian is using is stable (doesn't have critical bugs) that's why it's in the stable repos. The developer is pretty much saying: "Only use the most recent versions of my software even if the old versions work perfectly well". Also developers get emails from retarded users even if their software is bug-free, it's not a justification for putting a time-bomb in your software.
>>53880065
how the fuck would you get the update for the """ TIME BOMB """ if you don't even have an internet connection
also, trying to support people and being the better man when distro maintainers won't let you help and won't help themselves is NOT "wrong"
>>53880066
the old versions didn't work well, that's why he was getting emails.
i'm done repeating myself, you're all capitalist scum
>>53880110
>the old versions didn't work well, that's why he was getting emails.
It works well enough that it doesn't justify putting a time-bomb in your software.
>i'm done repeating myself
I guess we agree on that.
>>53880110
The time bomb is there regardless of internet connection. Also if I have a piece of software and it works well on my machine then I shouldn't be forced to update, because it may bring new bugs or make old bugs apparent.
That's free software 101, which the dev doesn't care for at expense of the inconvenience of being e-mailed at.
He's right though. Maybe Debian would have a point if any of the shit they released was actually stable or any less bug free than bleeding edge shit. Only advantage of Debian is pages of search results dedicated to complaining about and on rare occasions working around said bugs. Then again, its 2016 and everything is on Github, and Github's bug tracker is even more accessible than a shitty forum or ancient mailing list, so you can argue there's really no advantage at all
>>53877387
good post
>>53878720
Don't put on freetards something that is characteristic of modern western people in general
windows/OSX users wouldn't settle for just losing xscreensaver either
>>53879934
The "bug" was his time bomb message, retard
>>53880612
The bugs in the older version that are fixed in the new one, which debian doesn't want to include, which is why people bother the author to fix something he fixed years ago, which is why this shitfest exists in the first place. Shit, don't you have any reading comprehension?
>>53878968
>so old that it has crippling security flaws and bugs
idiot
>>53879007
>wants to keep an old version because it's supposed to be stable
clueless
>>53879007
>debian maintainers seems pretty stupid
>>53878908
Debian Sid
>>53878720
>Because freefags believe that they are entitled to the work of other people.
and proprietaryfags believe they are entitled to reign over me with unending power because they typed something in a computer and I didn't
>>53880422
macfag webdev confirmed
>>53881000
There was nothing wrong with the old version. Being old is not a bug. It's in stable, because it werks. Severe bugs and security gets updated only.
>>53880422
I am amazed at the number of posts in this thread that are just LOLZ FUCK DEBAIN IT SUX ANYWAYZ
Jesus Fucking Christ, has it not occurred to any of you that a large number of people actually use Debian by choice? Stable versions of software is pretty obviously something a lot of people want or need, and the fact that you personally aren't interested on that isn't actually interesting or helpful here.
>Wake up
>Freetards and loonix crying and moaning again
Feels gucci to be /propietaryadult/.
>>53880738
He was getting mail because of his time bomb message. Not because of any issues. The bug is the message. Pretty sure you didn't read it.
Is this thread satire? It seems like half the posters are intentionally misunderstanding whats going on so they can be dicks.
>as a user I find these warnings rude and obnoxious
HELP, MY SCREENSAVER IS OPPRESSING ME!
>>53881366
debian gets shit on because everyone cares about stable only. ubuntu is pretty much a snapshot mix of testing and unstable with a gnome3 theme, and it gets all the attention.
>>53881542
absolutely clueless and has no idea
>>53877007
>Debian stable for anything than server
they are retarded
>>53881529
Oh i see, all the debian fags are buttblassted that their software is old and outdated, and they are all trying to convince themselves that its a good thing.
>>53878298
>rather than bother to deal with other people.
Other people are awful, though.
>>53877869
>Debian, all the SJWs and none of the packages!
We've literally reached the point where 'SJW' means 'something I don't like.'
>>53881529
>It seems like half the posters are intentionally misunderstanding whats going on so they can be dicks.
As opposed to all the other threads on /g/?
This whole board is fucked right now.
>>53881598
>debian gets shit on because everyone cares about stable only.
But that's the whole point of Debian. I don't shit on Gentoo for needing to compile everything, I just don't use it.
>>53881673
>all the debian fags are buttblassted that their software is old and outdated
Yes, I am absolute sure 100% of Debian users are using it as secret self-flagellation. That's clearly the most reasonable explanation.
>>53881855
>We've literally reached the point where 'SJW' means 'something I don't like.'
Yup.
>>53881366
Pretty sure I said a lot more than that.
this whole thread has been very illuminating on why it is so shit
people can't even handle software updates on linux without the fear it'll 'break' everything
why not just do it the windows way, when a program needs a new dll it comes with the installer and doesn't replace the dll other programs use
>>53883458
There's nothing stopping you from doing that on Linux, cockgoggles. If you want to depend on version x.y.z of some library, you can link to it statically.
The reason why you're supposed to try really hard to not do that is that if that library has a security bug, it's better to update only that library instead of the (maybe dozens) of applications that use that library. Some of which might be slow to patch or unmaintained.
>>53881673
Newer isn't automatically better. You might not care about the new features. You might prefer the bugs you know to the possibility of bugs you don't. You don't use Debian stable if you want to be the most up-to-date. You use it if you want a system that changes as little as possible. If you don't want that, then you should go use some other distro.
>every time a user tries to configure her
screensaver
>her
What a pathetic cuck.
>debian
>screensavers
It's 2016. Deprecated.
>>53876720
So which one of you dragged the "go back to r3ddit" internet meme into the bug report?
"Go back to riddit or fecesbook"
Please keep the conversation related to the bug. Do not attack people who use news websites or social media :)
-A concerned Debian GNU/Linux mailing list user
debian = sjw
>>53884925
How is this bug even _remotely_ related to the social justice movement? This bug involves a timebomb message. This bug deals with the maintainer and not debian itself.
If you have no idea what your talking about why comment on the debian projects political stance on social justice?
>>53881659
I use it for desktop and laptop since I don't want breaking updates when I really need my computer.
Might switch to RHEL 7 on my laptop since it's now gratis for developers.
>>53881448
Fuck you, If you have nagware on proprietary software, your only option is to edit the binary by hand.
Although that doesn't matter because in five years all software will run under something like VMProtect
>>53884966
someone else said it earlier in the thread. "SJW" is a word like "meme", all it really means anymore is "something I don't like"
>>53884966
nah
debian is under constant attack by redhat and their jewish minions
>>53884966
see
>>53884640
Debian is cucked beyond repair
>>53884966
>How is this bug even _remotely_ related to the social justice movement?
link is to bugs.debian.org > debian > debian policies > sjw
>>53884989
except that debian outright recommends sites like geekfeminism.wikia.com for their code-of-conduct
>>53884640
>>53885046
you think that's bad? you'll love this https://wiki.debian.org/AntiHarassment
>>53885046
So what? It's irrelevant to the bug, which is the topic of this thread.
Unless you contribute to debian then you have no room to talk about contribution policy's. Even if it is "cucked" as you say, it is still a usable operating system. If you drop a OS because of who contributes i hears stormfront has a Linux OS for racists.
>>53885172
>Unless you contribute to debian then you have no room to talk about contribution policy's.
You must, by law, be a chef to obtain a career in reviewing food.
Now that we've had a food analogy, we can all go home.
