Except this isn’t true at all.
https://security-tracker.debian.org/tracker/CVE-2024-6387
Regresshion impacted bookworm and trixie both. Buster was too old.
With the downside of me doing an apt update and seeing that openssh-server was on 1:9.2p1-2+deb12u3 and I had no idea at a glance if this included the fix or not (qualys’s page states version 8.5p1-9.8p1 were vulnerable).
If you are running debian bookworm or trixie, you absolutely should update your openssh-server package.
Because the dev gets a huge number of bug reports for bugs that were resolved 5 versions ago.
They actually asked debian to stop shipping the screensaver, because they were getting tired of saying “this is already fixed, debian is just not going to ship the fix for another year”. Debian didn’t want to stop, so the dev added the nag screen, because it was the only way to stop the flood of bug reports for things that were already fixed.
That didn’t take long.
I don’t fully disagree with you. I personally don’t pirate things (I can afford to just pay up front, and if I don’t want to support a dev, I just fully don’t play the game, I don’t want to accidentally be lumped into any metrics that might show support), but the game dev themselves said “No skin off our back”.
If I steal your car, you no longer have a car. If I steal your game, you’ve lost absolutely nothing. Code is infinitely reproducible. You’re only out the sale.
This dev made art, and they care more about sharing the art they created with more people, than they do about getting every last transaction paid for.
It’s usually the publisher that has strong opinions about this, because they didn’t make the art nor do they care about people seeing it. they only care about getting the money, but again, if you can’t afford it, they were never going to get your money anyway. It’s technically a victimless crime. No skin off anyone’s back.
The issue is when enough people who CAN afford to pay use the “no skin off their back” logic to not pay, and a good game winds up not being profitable (or profitable enough to the publisher) and a studio suffers as a result.
Also if the alternative was “no money, still can’t buy the game” then they are losing no money in the process anyway.
my rant was not about your meme. But people actually use this argument seriously, and that frustrates me.
And I will admit that learning a new system has a time cost, but once you reach experience parity, the time cost per problem is less, and the number of problems is less. In that way, the “time spent” is an investment rather than wasted.
So A+ meme, it triggered me in all the ways it was supposed to.
Don’t have to spend time troubleshooting if you just never fix the BSOD and just kinda live with it. Point for windows
The thing I hate about the “value your time” argument is that windows is shit.
Let’s be generous for a minute and assume that windows and linux have the same amount of problems. Someone who is on windows for the past 30 years has 30 years of acquired knowledge and will probably know quickly how to solve it on windows, but not linux. Someone who is on linux for the past 30 years has 30 years of acquired knowledge and will probably know quickly how to solve it on linux, but not windows.
So the entire argument is just “but I have muscle memory tied to windows, and I already know how to solve those problems, but I dont know how to solve the linux ones, so they take me a lot of research and time to solve, therefore all linux problems always take a lot more time to solve”
On windows, I have to spend time fighting BSODs and finding out where to download software from that isn’t just bloated up with viruses, and how to run registry hacks to get rid of start menu ads and to stop microsoft from phoning home. None of those things i have to do on linux.
On linux, today my biggest issue was figuring out how to change the keybinding for taking a screenshot… And that was an easy issue, but it’s also not even possible on windows.
So I guess different types of problems. My “wasted” time is customizing my OS/environment so it works the way I want it to, not trying to fight back any ounce of control.
Sure. but there are plenty of reasons to not read other than “uneducated”. And associating ability to focus with intelligence and education isn’t fair either.
If an American couldn’t tell me how many states there are, I would question their intelligence or education.
If an American told me that they don’t read books, I would just assume they find books boring.
I also hate “reading a book” as a proxy metric for intelligence. I know plenty of cultured smart people who watch documentaries but don’t read. And I know some dense, not that bright people who read a lot of Twilight style books.
https://www.theverge.com/2024/5/8/24152137/xbox-hi-fi-rush-tango-gameworks-matt-booty
Oh i know. microsoft should buy tango gameworks! Brilliant. solved their problems for them.
All Microsoft needs is a few award winning small dev studios…
I have a few cheap TLDs because as an individual I didn’t want to pay a lot of money for the dot com versions. But I’m not a company.
You’re right. There are multiple definitions of the word stable, and “unchanging” is a valid one of them.
It’s just that every where else I’ve seen it in computing, it refers to a build of something being not-crashy enough to actually ship. “Can’t be knocked over” sort of stability. And everyone I’ve ever talked to outside of Lemmy has assumed that was what “stable” meant to Debian. but it doesn’t. It just means “versions won’t change so you won’t have version compatibility issues, but you’ll also be left with several month to year old software that wasn’t even up to date when this version released, but at least you don’t have to think about the compatibility issues!”
Debian aims for rock solid stability
To be clear, Debian “stability” refers to “unchanging packages”, not “doesn’t crash.” Debian would rather ship a known bug for a year than update the package if it’s not explicitly a security bug (and then only certain packages).
So if you have a crash in Debian, you will always have that crash until the next version of debian a year or so from now. That’s not what I’d consider “stable” but rather “consistent”
You’re right, it’s very likely he wasn’t intending to use a slur. But it seems to me like a lot of the reporting is “he didn’t mean to disrespect people!” when that’s not the case. The pope’s intentions were absolutely to disrespect people, just by his actions, and not by that specific word. the specific phrasing he used to do so doesn’t really matter.
the pope had made the remark while reiterating his position against gay people becoming priests.
It doesn’t matter what word he used, he was using it in an anti LGBT sentiment.
The 87-year-old pontiff was reported as saying that the Catholic seminaries were already too full of … gay men.
Here, I removed the slur. This isn’t any better. Italian fluency wasn’t the problem and didn’t change his argument.
IMO it doesn’t matter. People don’t read news on updates. Should they? Yes. Do they? No. Should they have to? Also no.
Linus’s point is to never blame the end user for something the kernel changed. If you want software to have widespread adoption, adding homework to simple updates isn’t how you do it. People don’t want a hobby or something to babysit, they want an operating system. Debian will go out of their way to make in-release updates go as smooth as possible, but are willing to through out entire parts of functioning packages between releases.
But this isn’t even about breaking things for the end user. This will create excessive amounts of noise on the upstream repo. People will say “Hey! My keepassxc broke!” and they report it to keepassxc, and not to Debian. To which keepassxc just has to constantly reply “no, debian changed this on you, this is not a bug.” If Debian had to deal with the fall out of their own decisions, I would say “yeah, im not sure if i agree with the decision, but oh well”… But they are increasing the workload for other teams.
It is already happening. The debian dev’s stance is “This will be painful for a year.” But it will be painful for keepassxc, NOT debian. The keepassxc devs asked them to not do this. Debian’s response might as well be “Im inflicting this pain on you, even though you’ve asked me not to. But on the plus side, it won’t hurt me at all and it will only last a year for you.” If they really have that much disdain for the project, they should just stop packaging it altogether.
So yeah, debian has the legal right to do whatever they want because keepassxc is open source. but “just because I can, and you cant legally stop me, and its extra work for you, not me” is kind of a jerk move. This is what drives FOSS contributors to get burnt out and abandon otherwise good projects.
It’ll also break all your keepassxc plugins soon. Because debian version to version compatibility is not a priority. They also don’t care if them breaking something triggers a ton of upstream bug reports, because it will only “be painful for a year”
Linus for the kernel has a strict “don’t break userspace” policy, and Debian has a “break things whenever you want, and just blame the user for not reading the news file” policy.
Should they? Yes. They should also be searching for previous bug reports. I’m sure a lot of people do. But if you have enough users, even if 1% of people don’t use good reporting behaviors, you wind up with a lot of duplicate or bad reports.
There are plenty of blog posts out there that basically can be summarized as talking about how grueling open source work can be because users are often aggressive in their demands.
But this is a prime example of debian “stable” doesn’t mean “no crashes” but instead it means “unchanging, which means any bugs and crashes will remain for the whole release”