Sensitive content
WHY are "modern" messengers always something that requires some container shit like flatpack or snap? why is everyone fine with this? or is it just the same crowd as with wayland?
completely shit way to develop software. this isn't "fine", there's a word for it, "shit". it's shitware. it's not even fine for a prototype.
last protocol that was remotely sane in this regard is XMPP. it had clients you could build on a normal system.
can't be video playback. that's a handful of libraries. not 300 very specific verisons only compiling with an old gcc version. except for the one exotic library that requires clang or something and 4 different scripting languages on top of the NEW and MODERN build system that is the same shit as the myriad of build systems before.
why not just TRANSFER the BYTES and then EMBED a mplayer window? DOESN'T THAT WORK WITH WAYLAND?
literally throwing away decades of good ideas about how software should be developed for ideas made of pure shit.
Nanook likes this.
Q.U.I.N.N.
in reply to +bonifartius πΌπ • • •electron has been a real problem wrt. wayland, or something.
though moving to flatpak just makes sense for most people. as a solo dev i am not at all percent interested in whatever bullshit bikeshedding 20+ linux distros have to get my package accepted.
to paraphrase deming, a slightly different building code in every state does more to damage mass production than a universal tariff
verita84
in reply to Q.U.I.N.N. • • •@icedquinn
You have a good point but I don't want to use it. We have native package managers
Q.U.I.N.N.
in reply to verita84 • • •Q.U.I.N.N.
in reply to Q.U.I.N.N. • • •@verita84 i have personally dealt with trying to do such a thing with some music software on void / alpine.
such issues i've run in to are things like
- we don't like how that project wrote their build scripts, please rewrite upstreams build scripts to appease us
- someone else is already working on that package (hasn't updated in months, no updates on approvals or rejection)
- we don't like the way you marked that CPU as a non-supported target, please change it to a case statement. update: unrelated maintainer doesn't like that you approved the case statement, please rewrite the script to use an if/else*
- no sorry that requires .NET which we will never approve because we don't approve of the bootstrap requirements of the C# compiler
* this is the issue where i started referring to all upstreams as bikeshedders because their change requirements were literally pointless
verita84
in reply to Q.U.I.N.N. • • •@icedquinn
Linux does need some standards. I complained about fragmentation for many years. I don't even care what package manager they choose, just make some standard s at this point
Nanook
in reply to +bonifartius πΌπ • •