I think what they’re trying to imply is that Canonical is setting this all up so they can create a (possibly paid) fork of coreutils that spys on its users.

Fuck you

When there’s just two “teams”, yeah. What’s more fair than majority rule in that situation?

deaths nuths

What do you think it means?

How is it whataboutism? It’s literally happening. It’s reality.

Yeah see, based on your other comments on this post, I don’t feel obliged to take anything you say about Linux seriously

lol ya

Lmao tells me to scroll up and blocks me because they can’t read the username on replies, how embarrassing

The fuck are you talking about? My first interaction with you was a reply to your several-sentence-long, multi-paragraph comment, not a “three word observation”. Are you ok?

I agree that we have a responsibility to improve things, I’ve said that multiple times now. Are you even reading my replies? If you were, you wouldn’t be putting all those words in my mouth. You’re literally making shit up to create an adversary to argue against at this point.

My dude you can’t just gloss over the “we only meant white people” bit in an effort to support your claim that the system was set up to accept everyone’s input from the beginning lmao.

Feel how you wanna feel, but you won’t make me feel guilty for the outcomes of a system I had no hand in setting up.

our country was founded on the principle that we would get a say in what it does no matter what.

Eh, there are some pretty good arguments against that being the case, but even if it were, that principle hasn’t really been in effect since before most of the people on Lemmy were even born.

I think it’s fair to say we’re responsible for improving the system if we don’t like the way it currently works. But I don’t think it’s fair to say we’re responsible for the actions of the system, if the system was stood up before we had any way to influence it.

I’m sure you’ll find something

Carrying a grudge? “This long and vocally”? Who? How?

And I’ll say it again - it isn’t toxic entitlement for users to expect to receive support on the platform they’ve been told to use to receive support. I’m not sure how you can argue differently, unless you twist words to the point of meaninglessness.

I meant it’s not “toxic entitlement” like the other commenter I replied to claimed. Edited my original comment to hopefully be clearer.

It should end at the dev putting out some sort of communication stating they’re not responsible for packaging, and to reach out to the package maintainers with issues installing from a package and not from the officially documented/supported installation procedure. That isn’t out of the norm at all for the open source community, and is one of the main reasons for releasing source code - to enable other people to build it and try to get it to work in whatever environment they want to.

That shouldn’t require a change to a much more restrictive license, and it certainly shouldn’t require implementing changes to your code that force it to fail on specific OSes (like what was recently added for Arch).

Except the Duckstation developer changed the license to where they don’t accept contributions from others, so we couldn’t help even if we wanted to.

It isn’t toxic* entitlement to seek tech support on the platform the developer offers tech support on.

Edit: added “toxic” for clarification

Lol so predictable. In a comment or two you’ll devolve into name calling