The Official Funny Stuff Thread™
-
@RaceProUK Yes, Rowboat Girlyman. Because that's his nickname.
-
@anotherusername said in The Official Funny Stuff Thread™:
compile from source
IIRC that's BSD's answer to literally everything. If you're not building your worlds and compiling from source, you're not installing anything....
-
Who even uses screensavers anymore?
-
@mott555 It's a screen locker.
-
@aliceif said in The Official Funny Stuff Thread™:
@mott555 It's a screen locker.
... which is another question, what kind of shitty OS design makes it so you have to use a screensaver program to lock the screen?
-
@anotherusername said in The Official Funny Stuff Thread™:
There is another issue here, though. People on a "stable" release should not be whining about bugs, period. Stable releases appear to be primarily intended for people who don't want their software to change, ever... including for bugfixes.
Okay, just for a moment, let's say I buy that. Why the hell would a person like that report a bug? What's the point? By the definition, they will never install the bug fix.
Remember that one of his frustrations was people on "stable" releases who reported bugs on his screensaver.
(But, "Duh!" I suppose they never thought of that.)
-
@blakeyrat There are multiple screen lockers on linux. Xscreensaver happens to be made by someone famous. And it actually not widely used anymore, because nowadays, desktop environments include screen locking functionality.
-
@anotherusername said in The Official Funny Stuff Thread™:
Seriously, "well then, just compile it from source" is never something you should have to tell an average user.
Context matters. We're talking about Debian users here. If we're talking about average users
xscreensaver
obviously isn't a good fit, but neither isDebianLinux (plus what @aliceif said).
-
@CoyneTheDup said in The Official Funny Stuff Thread™:
Why the hell would a person like that report a bug? What's the point? By the definition, they will never install the bug fix.
I don't know; obviously they do, but why the hell would they? Because they're a delightful ball of marvelous contradictions.
@antiquarian said in The Official Funny Stuff Thread™:
Context matters. We're talking about Debian users here.
That doesn't really address my question, though. Is there some technical reason why compiling from source is those people's only option?
-
@anotherusername said in The Official Funny Stuff Thread™:
That doesn't really address my question, though. Is there some technical reason why compiling from source is those people's only option?
I just read the article. JWZ does have a valid point: who wants to spend their time supporting a years-old version of their software and having to reply to reports of bugs they've already fixed? On the other hand, Debian stable users are there because they want to be, and using old versions of software is part of the trade-off. So there's no technical reason, but it's a complicated issue and I'm glad I don't have to come up with a solution.
-
@antiquarian no, I'm asking why he can't tell them to just download and install the latest version, without compiling it from the source themselves.
-
@anotherusername Linux software is generally distributed two ways: (often outdated) packages in a repo, or a source tarball you build yourself; precompiled binaries are pretty rare.
-
@RaceProUK and your distro controls which repo you get access to?
-
@anotherusername How many users are really going to fiddle with the repo settings? Few I'd wager
-
@anotherusername said in The Official Funny Stuff Thread™:
@RaceProUK and your distro controls which repo you get access to?
You can configure whatever repos you want. The distro will give you a default list.
-
@RaceProUK said in The Official Funny Stuff Thread™:
@anotherusername How many users are really going to fiddle with the repo settings? Few I'd wager
This. Also, the ones that would are generally also OK with compiling from source.
-
@antiquarian Is it significantly more difficult?
I mean, if someone knew absolutely nothing about compiling from source, and absolutely nothing about changing their repo settings, which of these would be simpler:
- idiot's guide to changing your repo settings and downloading the package
- idiot's guide to downloading the source and compiling it yourself
-
@anotherusername I've done both. Either way contains pitfalls for the unwary. That said, if all of the dependencies are present, compiling from source involves downloading, expanding the tarball (
tar -xjf
ortar -xzf
), going to the directory containing the source code, and entering./configure && make
, thensudo make install
. So I would say the idiot's guide to changing repo settings is simpler. Ubuntu has a GUI tool for it (ask @flabdablet about Debian as I haven't used it in years).
-
@blakeyrat said in The Official Funny Stuff Thread™:
Was Netscape open source when he worked there?
Maybe not, but XScreensaver is and he's been the maintainer for like 20 years. Plus he's released a ton of small utilities as open source.
-
@mods can this Linux stuff be Jeffed please?
-
@anotherusername said in The Official Funny Stuff Thread™:
so your options if you want xscreensaver are 1) compile from source or 2) use whatever shitty, ancient version your shitty distro gives you?
Well, yes. That's historically been your options for most OSS software.
-
@anotherusername said in The Official Funny Stuff Thread™:
People on a "stable" release should not be whining about bugs, period.
Apparently a bunch of crybabies didn't realize that.
-
@FrostCat really, because on Windows I've pretty much always been able to just downloaded the latest version's installer and run it. Now, occasionally I'll go to the website and it says "we don't offer pre-compiled Windows binaries, but click here to visit another site where someone has helpfully provided some (unsupported, of course)" and the other site always has a Windows binary for the very latest version of the software which installs and works perfectly.
-
@CoyneTheDup said in The Official Funny Stuff Thread™:
Remember that one of his frustrations was people on "stable" releases who reported bugs on his screensaver.
Stable releases of what? He considers every release of xscreensaver to be stable unless he explicitly says one isn't.
-
@aliceif said in The Official Funny Stuff Thread™:
There are multiple screen lockers on linux. Xscreensaver happens to be made by someone famous. And it actually not widely used anymore, because nowadays, desktop environments include screen locking functionality.
Not a one of them is as secure as xscreensaver, however. Also, since JWZ considers it security software, he makes a point of reducing the attack surface by avoiding 3rd-party libraries, which the others don't do.
-
@antiquarian said in The Official Funny Stuff Thread™:
On the other hand, Debian stable users are there because they want to be, and using old versions of software is part of the trade-off.
Except for the part that the version of xscreensaver on that Debian release has a known security vulnerability.
-
@anotherusername said in The Official Funny Stuff Thread™:
no, I'm asking why he can't tell them to just download and install the latest version, without compiling it from the source themselves.
Because then he would have to compile and host a bunch of binaries himself, maybe?
-
@anotherusername said in The Official Funny Stuff Thread™:
on Windows
FWIW JWZ hates Microsoft and deliberately refuses to port xscreensaver to Windows.
-
@FrostCat said in The Official Funny Stuff Thread™:
then he would have to compile and host a bunch of binaries himself
Either him or someone else. It'd greatly simplify his interactions with annoyed users who are reporting bugs in years-old versions.
@FrostCat said in The Official Funny Stuff Thread™:
FWIW JWZ hates Microsoft and deliberately refuses to port xscreensaver to Windows.
It's okay, we don't want him here either.
-
@anotherusername said in The Official Funny Stuff Thread™:
Either him or someone else.
It would have to be someone else; he's not in the software biz, as he says: this is a sideline for him.
-
-
@antiquarian said in The Official Funny Stuff Thread™:
JWZ does have a valid point: who wants to spend their time supporting a years-old version of their software and having to reply to reports of bugs they've already fixed? On the other hand, Debian stable users are there because they want to be, and using old versions of software is part of the trade-off.
Except that jwz, though very bright and highly skilled, is also well-known for being an abrasive dick online and that appears to be pretty much what he's doing here.
I believe him when he says he gets an annoying volume of reports about long-since-fixed bugs. On the other hand, I've seen that xscreensaver warning and it's annoying too. I would be surprised to learn that jwz has not already had more of his time wasted on responding to complaints about that warning than he's had to devote to deflecting outdated bug reports.
The xscreensaver that Debian makes available as part of Stable is, to the best of my knowledge, fully up to date with patches that address all the security vulnerabilities that jwz has also fixed in his latest version. Most of it is indeed old, but those patches mean that it is by no means shitty.
To the best of my knowledge the warning is also purely time-based: xscreensaver makes no attempt to determine whether a newer release actually exists. If jwz were to be hit by a bus tomorrow and nobody were ever to touch xscreensaver again, then in 18 months all extant copies would start displaying warnings about upgrading to new releases that would never become available. The warning is a quick hack added in frustration, and it shows.
On balance, it seems to me that the right thing for the Debian maintainers to do would be to leave the warning in place for the versions included in Testing and Unstable, which do track upstream releases closely enough that users who keep their systems properly updated will never see it, and include a warning removal patch in the Stable version along with all the security patches they already apply to that.
jwz says
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 would waste far less of his time simply to reply with a boilerplate letter stating that this bug has already been fixed in the latest version he makes available, that this may well not be the version included in the user's preferred distro, and that the user should direct further correspondence on this issue to the distro maintainers. There is no need at all for him to get into a back-and-forth on the quality of distros or on workarounds for their deficiencies. If he wants to do that, fine and dandy but he can't really expect to be taken seriously when complaining about how much time it takes.
-
Guy takes fake book covers on the subway
-
-
-
-
@flabdablet said in The Official Funny Stuff Thread™:
jwz says
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 would waste far less of his time simply to reply with a boilerplate letter stating that this bug has already been fixed in the latest version he makes available, that this may well not be the version included in the user's preferred distro, and that the user should direct further correspondence on this issue to the distro maintainers. There is no need at all for him to get into a back-and-forth on the quality of distros or on workarounds for their deficiencies. If he wants to do that, fine and dandy but he can't really expect to be taken seriously when complaining about how much time it takes.
I'd say there's no point even analysing bugs on extremely-old versions. Stock response "That's an old version, I don't support that. Try the latest version <whatever> or contact your distributor."
-
-
@DoctorJones I wish there was a raw button, because your post appears blank.
-
-
Just see this:
-
@dkf The issue isn't the width it's the retardomatic image loading delay for jelly potato.
-
@blakeyrat For once this isn't a Linux fault, it's a user fault. My Ubuntu systems just use Light-Locker which locks the screen and has nothing to do with screensavers. I don't know why anyone would even bother using xscreensaver instead.
-
-
-
@DoctorJones said in The Official Funny Stuff Thread™:
By that logic, JPEG has to be pronounced "joy-feg". Also...
- SCUBA should be pronounced "scuh-baah"
- LASER should be pronounced "lah-seer"
That's not how acronyms work, in general. And the rules of grammar don't really apply to them, either.
@CHUDbert said in The Official Funny Stuff Thread™:
@DoctorJones I wish there was a raw button, because your post appears blank.
b-b-b-b-b-b-ut-but-but there IS...
-
-
@PJH said in The Official Funny Stuff Thread™:
#London Zoo meerkat handler cries in court as she is spared jail for glassing her monkey expert love rival in a row over a llama keeper
- Caroline Westlake glassed her colleague Kate Sanders at London Zoo party
Funny, usually when you glass something, it ends up a lot more radioactive. Not to mention dead.
-
@ScholRLEA said in The Official Funny Stuff Thread™:
Funny, usually when you glass something,
i think you are thinking of vitrification. glassing is smashing a bottle and then using the bits to cut a bastard a structurally superfluous new behind.
it's surprisingly tricky because you want to smash the bottom of the bottle for a cutting surface but not break the neck that you have gripped in your hand.
-
Well, vitrification, yes, but in a rather specific context:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tyyoaBa7DaE
'Glassing' a planet usually means that you've nuked every square inch of the surface until it is covered in a crust of trinitite. I'm pretty sure it was first used this way in Starship Troopers (the book, I mean, not the parody film), but it spread quickly and was a core bit if SF slang by 1965 or so.