On the right to rant.
-
@loopback0 said in On the right to rant.:
@topspin said in On the right to rant.:
Nowadays you constantly get new "minor" updates, like every other week. It's just annoying and unnecessary. If I click on "update all" for this:
it'll be back to a number like that in maybe 2 weeks. And 95% of those updates are useless.I'm not sure I even have that many apps installed.
I'm not sure I have any more than that installed.
-
@topspin you made me count my apps. Going by launcher icons, I have 26 system and 32 custom apps installed, so 58 total. And I get at least 10 updates every week.
-
Have we ever seen JWZ and blakeyrat in the same room? Just asking questions.
RE: all the things about updates; I've basically got two options at present: don't update my Windows box and possibly get some kind of malware, or allow my Windows box to automatically reboot itself whenever I want to use it while installing a bunch of new ads, resetting a bunch of important settings, generally being a nuisance of myself. If I wanted to be inflammatory (which I do), I would say that my options are "possibly malware" or "definitely malware".
Forced updates are going to make things worse just by virtue of shitting off people into doing extra work to avoid updates.
-
@jmp Why not just turn off automatic updates while still enabling manual updates?
-
@blakeyrat said in On the right to rant.:
Except this software is used to lock the screen, so it's security-critical.
"Except that this software is one possible choice out of several to lock the screen, so it's security-critical."
FTFY. YW.
-
@blakeyrat said in On the right to rant.:
Except this software is used to lock the screen, so it's security-critical. And despite Debian's policies that they update for security issues, they haven't updated it since 2014.
And that is NOT TRUE. The version 5.30 in Jessie¹ was updated, on Sun, 25 Oct 2015, to patch a security issue. Yes, that was after the release 5.33 was released and after it was uploaded to Sid.
So yes, they do update for security issues. That explicitly does not, and is not expected to, mean updating to latest release. It means patching that security issue.
¹ Jessie is oldstable now, but that is the version we are talking about.
-
@Bulb Bah! You can use facts to prove anything.
-
@gordonjcp said in On the right to rant.:
@blakeyrat said in On the right to rant.:
Except this software is used to lock the screen, so it's security-critical.
"Except that this software is one possible choice out of several to lock the screen, so it's security-critical."
FTFY. YW.
Well, it doesn't invalidate anything he said. It's security-critical software and it should be kept up to date all the time.
-
@Gąska Ideally yes, but you don't have to use it.
You couldn't pay me to give a shit how secure xscreensaver is. It doesn't factor into my security model.
-
@gordonjcp that's not a wrong stance. Just like my insistence on using the same password everywhere at work and not using passphrases on RSA keys.
-
@Gąska said in On the right to rant.:
It's security-critical software and it should be kept up to date all the time.
It should be kept “up to date”, where “up to date” means at a version that does not have any known security vulnerabilities. That is very different thing from latest version released by upstream author. Backporting patches is a thing.
-
@gordonjcp said in On the right to rant.:
"Except that this software is one possible choice out of several to lock the screen, so it's security-critical."
So if there's alternatives, why don't Debian just remove it like the author wants?
-
@blakeyrat Because the users don't want them to. Interest/desires of the users take priority over the interest/desire of the upstream author. Because, you know, if you can choose between being a dick to one person and being a dick to many people, it is kinda rational to choose being a dick to only one.
-
-
-
@TimeBandit So the popularity contest asks people "do you want to keep Xscreensaver in Debian even against the author's wishes?"
Or are you just posting useless shit and pretending it's a reply to my question.
-
@blakeyrat Useless shit, just like your ranting
-
@blakeyrat the thing is, Debian users care very much whether the lock screen is XScreensaver or something else. Some because they're stubborn idiots, some because their intricate shell scripts depend on the command line interface working a very particular way and replacing lock screen with something else would break them.
-
@blakeyrat said in On the right to rant.:
@TimeBandit So the popularity contest asks people "do you want to keep Xscreensaver in Debian even against the author's wishes?"
Or are you just posting useless shit and pretending it's a reply to my question.
Your question is garbage but even so it was an answer to the question.
-
@boomzilla said in On the right to rant.:
Your question is garbage but even so it was an answer to the question.
Nope.
-
@boomzilla
So, since the default package for screensaver gets installed by a bunch of users, the users want the package? Seems like a politician's way of justifying his job.
-
@Gąska That's not a great analogy. It's more like your insistence on not using those shitty C1234X locks, because they're shit and insecure. While they're absolutely fine for keeping randoms out of the staff toilet, they're not good enough for securing the server room.
-
@blakeyrat Do you understand what "Debian Stable" means?
-
@gordonjcp Obviously I don't understand what anything means ever, according to this forum. I'm a stupid idiot moron dumbshit who is worse than Hitler and Stalin combined. I mean duh.
-
@blakeyrat said in On the right to rant.:
@gordonjcp Obviously I don't understand what anything means ever, according to this forum. I'm a stupid idiot moron dumbshit who is worse than Hitler and Stalin combined. I mean duh.
Yep.
-
@izzion said in On the right to rant.:
So, since the default package for screensaver gets installed by a bunch of users, the users want the package?
XScreensaver is NOT the default screensaver
-
@blakeyrat said in On the right to rant.:
@gordonjcp Obviously I don't understand what anything means ever, according to this forum. I'm a stupid idiot moron dumbshit who is worse than Hitler and Stalin combined. I mean duh.
We only say you're wrong when you're actually wrong. It's not our fault you're wrong most of the time!
-
@Gąska said in On the right to rant.:
@blakeyrat said in On the right to rant.:
@gordonjcp Obviously I don't understand what anything means ever, according to this forum. I'm a stupid idiot moron dumbshit who is worse than Hitler and Stalin combined. I mean duh.
We only say you're wrong when you're actually wrong. It's not our fault you're wrong most of the time!
But sometimes we call him a stupid idiot moron just because he asked us to, not when he's actually being a stupid idiot moron. I don't recall comparing him to Hitler or Stalin, but he's called me a Nazi a few times (those were times when he was being a stupid idiot moron).
-
@boomzilla don't worry, you're a good German.
-
@Gribnit Who would be with the ressor's weat undispriz'd coil, and be, or in the of the name whose to troubles us the pative spurn nobler a consummative us for with whethe naturns, puzzlesh is quieturn nobles, when he law's we himself mind the undispriz'd contumely, and those bodkin?
-
@boomzilla Hitler. The answer is Hitler.
-
@Gribnit I think you're supposed to say the name three times to summon.
-
@boomzilla no that's @candyman.
OMG what happened to @candyman?You bastards!
-
@blakeyrat said in On the right to rant.:
@remi said in On the right to rant.:
More to the point, IMO, is the fact that JWZ chose to release his software under some open-source license that allows other to duplicate/edit it as they wish.
That's rich considering how many open source-y conversations I've had where people have called Apple, Oracle, Microsoft or whoever "evil" because they "took the open source code and didn't give back".
<blakeymode>Have I ever said so? Are you putting words in my mouth?</blakeymode>
Less trollish answer: there are morons everywhere and you can't please everyone. It still doesn't mean that you can pick a license and then complain that people do what you allowed them to do.
@remi said in On the right to rant.:
He cannot do that and then later on say that someone took his software and, well, edited it as they wanted.
Nobody's arguing that.
Well yes, he is exactly arguing that. He says "you are allowed to do this, but I don't want you to". He is exactly arguing that people shouldn't do what the license that he picked allows them to do, because he doesn't want them to.
But if you ignore the author's wishes, you're a dick.
Not if the author said "you can do whatever you want with my code" beforehand, which he did by picking an entirely open license. It's not the most friendly thing you can do, granted, but it's not really what I'd call a dick move.
Except this software is used to lock the screen, so it's security-critical. And despite Debian's policies that they update for security issues, they haven't updated it since 2014. And JWZ himself pointed that out in the blog post.
I don't like antagonizing you on petty things because of how quick you're to fly off the handle whenever someone contradicts you, but you've been screaming about 2014 for posts and posts. Please be at least somewhat factually accurate and go check the actual release date of the version that is currently in Debian. It is not 2014.
-
@Zerosquare said in On the right to rant.:
Back when ROMs were in wide use, you had to do serious QA before releasing a software version. Because fixing a mistake was costly and painful, especially if it happened after the product had shipped. Nowadays it's "nobody has the time to makes things perfect, release as-is, we'll fix it later." (for values of "later" that are dangerously close to "never").
A related point about this is also the fact that software is about the only thing that is sold with infamous "as-is" EULA clauses. Is there any other thing you can buy where you have to agree that ok, you're buying a thing but actually there is no guarantee that this thing will do anything at all, and you can't complain to the seller if that thing turns out to not do what the seller told you it would, or does something else entirely unexpected and potentially dommageable (like wiping out your disk)?
It's probably never going to happen, and I am not sure that the world would actually be a better place for it (what with patents trolls and predatory lawyers and the like), but for sure the world of software would be very much different if you could sue a software company for a software not doing what it should, in the same way as you can sue a car maker, or washing machine maker or anyone else, for a thing that doesn't do what it's advertised for or causes collateral damages ("oh a fault in our fridge caused a fire that burned down your house? Too bad for you, you bought it as-is and without warranty, so, you know, your loss mate...").
-
@remi said in On the right to rant.:
@blakeyrat said in On the right to rant.:
@remi said in On the right to rant.:
He cannot do that and then later on say that someone took his software and, well, edited it as they wanted.
Nobody's arguing that.
Well yes, he is exactly arguing that. He says "you are allowed to do this, but I don't want you to". He is exactly arguing that people shouldn't do what the license that he picked allows them to do, because he doesn't want them to.
The law doesn't disallow being a dick, but it doesn't mean you should be a dick.
But if you ignore the author's wishes, you're a dick.
Not if the author said "you can do whatever you want with my code" beforehand, which he did by picking an entirely open license.
No, you can still be a dick even if the license allows for your dickish behavior. It's very similar to non-standard testament clauses - yes, there are no legal consequences of ignoring your late grandma's wish to be buried in her mother's grave, but you're still a dick if you don't do that.
It's not the most friendly thing you can do, granted, but it's not really what I'd call a dick move.
Maybe it's just me and Blakey having lower tolerance for shitty behavior. But regardless of whether it's a dick move or not, license text has nothing to do with it.
-
@remi said in On the right to rant.:
software is about the only thing that is sold with infamous "as-is" EULA clauses. Is there any other thing you can buy where you have to agree that ok, you're buying a thing but actually there is no guarantee that this thing will do anything at all, and you can't complain to the seller if that thing turns out to not do what the seller told you it would, or does something else entirely unexpected and potentially dommageable (like wiping out your disk)?
The entertainment industry has been trying hard to imitate that for years. Remember the audio-CDs-with-free-rootkit Sony used to sell?
Or all the people who got shafted when they bought DRM-locked music/movies, and then the DRM scheme was discontinued?But otherwise I agree with you.
-
@Gąska said in On the right to rant.:
Maybe it's just me and Blakey having lower tolerance for shitty behavior.
Or maybe I have a lower tolerance for JWZ shitty behaviour. He's always jumping on his horses at the slightest provocation, acting like he has the moral high ground on matters of opinions, so that makes me less sympathetic of him even when I happen to agree with him.
(read his "reasons" for refusing ports of his code to Windows for a nice example of all that)
But regardless of whether it's a dick move or not, license text has nothing to do with it.
I still disagree. He displays some very strong opinions of how his code should be used (again, see his principles objection of any port of his code to Windows). Whether I agree or not with this stance (I don't) is not the point, but the point is that, despite having those strong opinions, he still decides to release his code under a license that means he can't enforce those opinions. That's also fine, he does say "I think you're jerks for doing it but I still decided that your freedom to do so is more important".
But then he goes on to saying that even if you disagree with him and do what he explicitly allows you to do despite not liking it, then you're morally wrong. That part I can't accept. He knows some people have different opinions than he does. He knows if he releases his code under a free license some people will not follow his wishes. He has all the cards in hand, he still decides that giving people freedom is more important than people following his wishes. He can then state his wishes clearly, for sure, and make sure people know that they're not following them, but in the end he's the only one to blame for getting upset by people not doing so.
A license is a contract between two parties, that each are (morally and legally) bound by it. If you say "do as you wish", you cannot claim the other party is a dick for doing as they wish.
-
@remi said in On the right to rant.:
@Gąska said in On the right to rant.:
Maybe it's just me and Blakey having lower tolerance for shitty behavior.
Or maybe I have a lower tolerance for JWZ shitty behaviour.
Someone being a dick doesn't justify your own shitty behavior any less shitty. I'm all for "an eye for an eye" - just be honest about it still being a dick move.
(read his "reasons" for refusing ports of his code to Windows for a nice example of all that)
Well, his reasons are totally valid and I'd 100% support him in it - but only if he restricted himself to "ain't gonna do it myself and please nobody brands their port as "XScreenSaver" - make up your own name if you must". I agree that "don't you dare port my code to Windows at all" is going too far and such attitude is very harmful to the community. But you must admit that replying with bad porn was a whole new level of being a dick, and was totally uncalled for.
But regardless of whether it's a dick move or not, license text has nothing to do with it.
I still disagree. He displays some very strong opinions of how his code should be used (again, see his principles objection of any port of his code to Windows). Whether I agree or not with this stance (I don't) is not the point, but the point is that, despite having those strong opinions, he still decides to release his code under a license that means he can't enforce those opinions. That's also fine, he does say "I think you're jerks for doing it but I still decided that your freedom to do so is more important".
But then he goes on to saying that even if you disagree with him and do what he explicitly allows you to do despite not liking it, then you're morally wrong. That part I can't accept.
All it means is he sucks at law and lawyering, and he didn't bother/couldn't figure out how to legally enforce his wishes on how the code should be used. It is absolutely clear what he intended the terms and conditions to be, even though some are unenforceable and others are enforceable but unenforced for legal reasons - and going against those terms and conditions is from moral standpoint no different than going against terms and conditions encoded in the license.
He knows some people have different opinions than he does. He knows if he releases his code under a free license some people will not follow his wishes. He has all the cards in hand, he still decides that giving people freedom is more important than people following his wishes. He can then state his wishes clearly, for sure, and make sure people know that they're not following them, but in the end he's the only one to blame for getting upset by people not doing so.
A license is a contract between two parties
A legal contract. Legal contract isn't the only form of contract. There's also "gentleman's agreement" and all other forms of non-legally binding agreements that you still ought to follow through even though there's nothing in the law that says you must respect them, and it's morally wrong to not fulfill them even though there are no legal consequences of not fulfilling them.
If you say "do as you wish", you cannot claim the other party is a dick for doing as they wish.
There's a difference between saying "do as you wish" and saying "I have no legal power to stop you from doing this, but please please please please don't do this". JWZ did the latter.
-
@Gąska said in On the right to rant.:
Maybe it's just me and Blakey having lower tolerance for shitty behavior.
The thing is that this is a can't please everyone situation. The other route would be much, much shittier.
-
@Bulb the other route is keeping the annoying dialog. Eventually everyone would join one of two camps - the "fuck Debian and its ancient repositories" camp, or the "fuck XScreenSaver I don't want it anywhere near my machine" camp.
Edit: and who the hell uses screen savers in 2016 anyway? Not to mention current year.
-
@Gąska said in On the right to rant.:
No, you can still be a dick even if the license allows for your dickish behavior. It's very similar to non-standard testament clauses - yes, there are no legal consequences of ignoring your late grandma's wish to be buried in her mother's grave, but you're still a dick if you don't do that.
The author is being a dick for putting an user-hostile option after the system was using his code that he promised would be available on the <whatever license he used> rules. He can't just change his mind on a whim here.
IMO it would be perfectly OK for Debian to just fork it. Maybe they should change it's name and document it everywhere the author is identified to avoid him getting wrong bug reports.
-
@Gąska said in On the right to rant.:
Well, his reasons are totally valid and I'd 100% support him in it - but only if he restricted himself to "ain't gonna do it myself and please nobody brands their port as "XScreenSaver"
@Gąska said in On the right to rant.:
All it means is he sucks at law and lawyering, and he didn't bother/couldn't figure out how to legally enforce his wishes on how the code should be used. It is absolutely clear what he intended the terms and conditions to be, even though some are unenforceable and others are enforceable but unenforced for legal reasons - and going against those terms and conditions is from moral standpoint no different than going against terms and conditions encoded in the license.
Maybe he should have trademarked the name "Xscreensaver". Firefox did that, and forks needed different names like iceweasel, palemoon, waterfox, etc
-
@sockpuppet7 what does it say about our society when it takes spending big bucks on legal protection for other people to stop being dicks?
-
@sockpuppet7 said in On the right to rant.:
@Gąska said in On the right to rant.:
No, you can still be a dick even if the license allows for your dickish behavior. It's very similar to non-standard testament clauses - yes, there are no legal consequences of ignoring your late grandma's wish to be buried in her mother's grave, but you're still a dick if you don't do that.
The author is being a dick for putting an user-hostile option after the system was using his code that he promised would be available on the <whatever license he used> rules. He can't just change his mind on a whim here.
Well, the license doesn't say future versions of software that works as intended, have to work as intended as well. Nothing immoral about pissing all over users yada yada.
IMO it would be perfectly OK for Debian to just fork it. Maybe they should change it's name and document it everywhere the author is identified to avoid him getting wrong bug reports.
Agreed - but without "maybe": that's ABSOLUTELY what they should've done.
-
@Gąska said in On the right to rant.:
when it takes spending big bucks on legal protection for other people to stop being dicks?
That is both a general issue and not applicable here, as he could have easily prevented this self-made problem, for free.
-
@remi said in On the right to rant.:
He displays some very strong opinions of how his code should be used (again, see his principles objection of any port of his code to Windows).
Nice. Maybe if I find some time I'll look into porting it to Windows, just to piss him off.
-
@topspin said in On the right to rant.:
@Gąska said in On the right to rant.:
when it takes spending big bucks on legal protection for other people to stop being dicks?
That is both a general issue and not applicable here, as he could have easily prevented this self-made problem, for free.
By not releasing any open-source software at all. Would that lead to a better world?
-
@Gąska By 1) using a different license, or 2) not putting in stupid shit that needs to be removed to be usable and then say "don't remove this".
-
@topspin said in On the right to rant.:
@Gąska By 1) using a different license
What stock open-source licenses require end users to be informed they're using an old version? How do you even imagine enforcing that? Do you realize how hard it would be to make such requirement without disallowing forks? Do you think it's fair to expect developers to spend time and money figuring out all these details if they want their wishes regarding their own creation to be respected?
or 2) not putting in stupid shit that needs to be removed to be usable and then say "don't remove this".
Except he never put anything like that in his software.
