People use LLMs to code now, this is not news. Why is claude taking credit in the first place?
The Lutris team is small, not corporate, not speed obsessed, etc. I’m inclined to trust them to be among those developers who can use generated code without slopping nonsense all over a code base they know they will probably be stuck maintaining.
It’s not my decision wether lutris has ai code in it or not. The maintainers and contributors can decide what works for them, that’s how open source works. I never found a use for lutris and maybe that’s why I don’t care.
I would never use the product, just for that very line…
Oh great the campaign of harassment is continuing. Keep going guys, hopefully you can get another dev to quit a project, and I know none of the people commenting here have what it takes to fork and maintain it.
You wouldn’t be doing anything different if you were getting paid by corporate interests to hurt the open source movement. Great job you can be proud of yourselves.
Well either does the maintainer it seems. And I don’t believe we look at all code. It is hard to understand someone else’s code hell its hard to understand your own after awhike.
Edit: To preface this, I concede that targeted harassment against individuals isn’t a good solution to the problems I have with the way the technology is being used.
Others mention that some recent versions appear to have been unusable. If this is due to LLM-generated code and the dev doubles down on using it, I’m not sure there’s too much value in them carrying on development and burying more artificially generated foot guns in there than human coding tends to have already.
That aside, the climate, economic and social problems of the GenAI boom are hardly unknown. For the dev to ignore that is… distasteful. If they won’t quit using LLMs without also quitting the project, Lutris might end up another regrettable victim of the AI-Slopalypse.
Opposing GenAI isn’t trying to hurt the Open Source movement, it’s trying to call out the false messiah that has deluded some people into believing it’s the future of software development.
Never had an issue with Lutris. Using AI doesn’t necessarily mean vibecoding
Opposing GenAI is free. Do it. It just consists of not using the software you don’t agree with. It’s great I do it all the time.
Coordinating attacks on social media to harass a developer is not great. It’s 4chan-like but at least the 4chan goblins know that they are the bad guys. This is just as slimy but with none of the self awareness.
Opposing GenAI is free. Do it. It just consists of not using the software you don’t agree with.
That doesn’t mitigate the environmental damage caused by others using it. I’m not opposed to the technology, nor strictly to its application, but to the irresponsible wau it’s being handled currently.
Coordinating attacks on social media to harass a developer is not great
You’re right, I agree on that. Efforts should target the companies that offer it, rather than individuals.
It’s 4chan-like but at least the 4chan goblins know that they are the bad guys. This is just as slimy but with none of the self awareness.
I’m not sure the 4chan goblins actually believe they are bad guys so much as ironically embrace that image
That doesn’t mitigate the environmental damage caused by others using it. I’m not opposed to the technology, nor strictly to its application, but to the irresponsible wau it’s being handled currently.
Well i guess that’s a great reason to harass individuals who never wished harm on anybody then 🤷
Read the rest of the comment. It’s not.
Yeah i get it. It’s just that the whole situation pisses me off to no end. There are exponentially more people destructively contributing to this campaign, than people constructively contributing code to projects. Cause it’s easy and lazy and takes literally zero effort.
The only effect is to punish developers for having successful projects. They’d be fine if they were just dicking around on toy projects, but they chose to do something that matters, and to do it for free, and now they have haters. A lot more haters than helpers too !
We are collectively sending the message that it’s better not to stick your head out and publish open source code, and this will wreak havoc on the already overtaxed FOSS ecosystem. Corporate tech must be rubbing its hand in glee now that we’re doing what they never achieved in 30 years.
that it’s better not to stick your head out and publish open source code
I like the implication that open source code must include AI, and so the only recourse is to reject… all open source projects?
You know, we had a FOSS without AI like ten years ago. I’d prefer to keep that one.
Y’all are just prejudice. Making up what ifs and whatanoutism. If you think you can do better then fork it. But you can’t, and won’t.
whatanoutism
I don’t think pointing out problematic aspects of LLM use is whataboutism, given that the maintainer’s LLM use is the topic of conversation. A whataboutism would be “But what about Microsoft? They use GenAI too!” because that has nothing to do with this specific developer using it.
This is simply about the reasons I disapprove of using GenAI in general and relying on LLMs for coding in particular.
If you think you can do better then fork it. But you can’t, and won’t.
There are a lot of things I can’t do myself. I don’t see how that should mean I can’t criticise the way they are done.
It also doesn’t mean people have to stop using it entirely. Approval is not a binary. This isn’t a company we’re paying money to, it’s not an atrocity, and it’s not particularly large in scale (which is why making a witch-hunt out of it is dumb too).
If it’s good I don’t care. Those people know what they’re doing
Someone please fork Lutris so we can make a sanitary version without this filth !
Been chewing this since yesterday. Okay, here is my two cents:
- yes, what LLM companies are doing is a problem. So dropping anything that has anything to do with their products is a sane way to make a statement
- yes, LLMs can be used effectively in development. Whether Lutris author has been using them well - I don’t know. Guess won’t bother to check either, have other things to do
- yes, doing the stunt with “good luck guessing what is what” is bullshit
Net total, given I’ve already dropped GNOME because of their culture: guess now I am dropping Lutris. Not because of AI per se, but because of “fuck you” move
but because of “fuck you” move
The guy removed the attribution because he is being harassed.
The ‘fuck you’ move is the people harassing an open source dev. Those people are the source of the bad behavior, not the guy who volunteers his time maintaining an open source project for everyone to use.
The anti-AI crowd is toxic and need to fuck off. It’s one thing to have an opinion, it’s another thing to harass volunteers because they’re using tools that the crowd has a hateboner for.
The guy removed the attribution because he is being harassed
That may be, and he never mentions this in the now famous comment. Or was the message about Lutris being slop a harrasment? (question is genuine, I am somewhere in autistic spectrum)
The ‘fuck you’ move is the people harassing an open source dev
That is not a decent behaviour, no questions. His doing something preemptively in regards to something that he says he doesn’t see as an issue - that’s some bullshit. I am not against him using llm tools, but I am not ok with someone who can’t just say “this is how I am doing things, these are my reasons and they are enough for me, so fuck off (and/or be banned, if GitHub has such a thing)” and instead goes on with some ill-reasoned tyrade. Before anyone brings this up: yes, he also mentions depression, which is no small thing, so demanding crystal-cut reasoning is also bullshit, but that is not my point, the latter being that the guy needs some care, and doesn’t look like he understands that. Which means things are heading towards a disaster, sadly
That may be, and he never mentions this in the now famous comment. Or was the message about Lutris being slop a harrasment? (question is genuine, I am somewhere in autistic spectrum)
There was a lot of toxic conversations in Discord and on the forums for a while prior to his blowing up.
The dev hasn’t made a secret of his mental health struggles and he probably could have handled the situation a bit better. But, in the end, he’s a guy making a tool that helps the entire community and even if you think AI tools run on the blood of sacrificed puppies, it isn’t okay to harass someone personally.
Argue about water usage or power usage, copyright issues, etc… but as soon as they start attacking the person directly it has gone way too far. His response could have been better, but the blame should be completely on the anti-ai harassment squad and not the lack of PR skills of a volunteer developer.
Blame for different things:
Running around and cursing anyone using llm - that’s an idiotic thing to do, and he is not the one doing it, of course
not the lack of PR skills of a volunteer developer
That’s not what bothers me
But, in the end, he’s a guy making a tool that helps the entire community
While sacrificing his own life (time, energy, emotions, all it takes to keep doing it). That’s not worth it, damn it. Doing something just to say “good luck figuring this out on your own, if it bothers you that much, you stupid fucks” is a priority shift from “what is good for me/project/community” to “what to do with project to stop this toxic shit”. My answer is “Do nothing with the project. Get them to fuck off or get yourself out of their reach”. And my requirement of anyone in charge of anything is clarity
Edit: word “sacrificing” is important. Not sharing out of abundance, not serving out of devotion, but cutting from what he has and needs for the benefit of others
Oh I agree he’s handled it badly, I just don’t fault him much.
He’s just one guy who’s suddenly the target of tens or hundreds of people who’re directly harassing him everywhere that it is possible. He shouldn’t be put in that position and, as bad as his response is, he’s doing it in the context of a pressure and harassment campaign… not because he’s suddenly developed animosity for the community.
His response is bad, but the people creating the situation are the ones that shoulder the blame… imo.
On that we agree completely. Screaming “N is bad because llm was used to build it” is utter idiocy
Last point is enough for me to drop them for good
What’s the replacement for lutris?
I’ve already replaced lutris with Heroic launcher + proton and wine-ge a year ago.
Lutris install script already didn’t work >50% of the time for me and battle.net always completely corrupts and messes up after a time on lutris and I have to reinstall it every few months, but has been going a year strong on heroic.
You can also always look at the lutris install scripts and install those components in heroic via winetricks. They were made by the community anyway.
For games. I have replaced it with steam as you can load none steam games and run them under proton. I have had great success. Outside of games I’m not sure.
I’m pretty sure neither is pure? I mean, you don’t have to necessarily limit steam to games. May as well try non games and see what happens.
Build one yourself
Didn’t look for one yet. As I understand, there is a thing called bottles that is worth a try
Net total, given I’ve already dropped GNOME because of their culture
what was wrong with gnome’s culture?
I use KDE BTW, I don’t want a fischer price/mac lookalike ui
- You want customisation? Use extensions
- We broke extensions, because
- Also, no API for extensions. Patch our code manually
No integrity in that see I, so drop them I do (Yoda voice)
Gnome: Pissing off its userbase since 2011
Also refusing to make literally any compromise on cross-desktop protocols that everyone else wants, stalling progress for years
It’s completely a coincidence that all games are no longer working in Lutris here, on multiple machines, after upgrading from 0.5.19 to 0.5.20. Weird.
I downgraded and everything works again. I did not try 0.5.22 or the quickly removed 0.5.21.
After reading your comment, I tried it for myself, running “Age Of Wonders 4” through Lutris 0.5.22. Nothing happened. As in, literally nothing, game didn’t launch, and no error. Then downgraded Lutris to 0.5.19, and first I got a message saying that wine needed to install something, and then I got an error message saying “A java script error occurred in the main process”.
So the results of my experiment are inconclusive. I consider an error message a better than result than nothing visibly happening, because an error message at least tells me nothing its not working, instead of letting me wait and wait.
So, yes, it appears that the quality of Lutris has declined after the developer started using Claude Code. However, my experiment was just a quick and dirty experiment, and ultimately further research is necessary.
I propose the following experiment, keep in mind that this is basically a rough sketch of the procedure:
- Set up two virtual machines running linux, a and b. (TODO: Decide on distro)
- Install Lutris 0.5.22 on a, and 0.5.19 on b.
- Try out several games on both a and b, both installed and launched through lutris, and record how well they run.
lutris -dwill run it and print debug messages to the terminal.I think the root of the problem is that updating changes what WINE and Proton versions are being used, even for games that are already installed. That pretty much negates what most people are using Lutris for. (WINE prefix management)
I just wanted to try and figure out whether the quality of Lutris had indeed declined as you said in your earlier comment. I’m not trying to get the game running, “Age of Wonders 4” is just the first title in my library.
Edit: But thanks anyway.
I guess we know where to fork from.
I guess we know where to fork from.
Honestly: Why? Lutris Gnome headerbar UI sucks anyway. Looks and behaves like crap especially under Gamescope but in non-Gnome desktops it’s not too great as well. GloriousEggroll and team created umu launcher to make creation of that sort of graphical front ends much easier and a bunch of those popped up already. Might just as well migrate to one of those than to maintain yet another software fork.
Oh man, you are right. I went fron 5.18 to 5.20 and nothing worked anymore. I spent hours troubleshooting before I reinstalled the current game I was playing. It worked but it runs noticeably slower. For a newbie, how does one downgrade? Assuming there is a command or do I have to uninstall first?
Someone suggested the program Warehouse to me, but I haven’t tried it. On Arch, I still had the version I wanted in my package manager’s cache so it was a single command.
sudo pacman -U file:///var/cache/pacman/pkg/lutris-0.5.19-9-any.pkg.tar.zstIf you are using the flatpak (Bazzite, Steam Deck, etc.) unfortunately, it’s more complicated.
- Exit to desktop mode.
- Open Konsole (it’s in System in the main menu).
- If you haven’t set a root password yet, run
passwd, make it reasonably secure and don’t forget it. I believe setting a root password enables the Deck to be controlled remotely over ssh with said password. Be safe. - Run
flatpak remote-info --log flathub net.lutris.Lutris. Lutris was installed as system for me. I think that is the default, so probably choose 1 for system if it asks. - You will see a commit with the subject “Update Lutris to 0.5.20”. The previous version is in the list right after that. Note that hash of 64 hexadecimals.
- Run
sudo flatpak update --commit=19ee79d455b8e50f057911a2bba279efcb960ee6d565f794e9c9d41c290dcd14 net.lutris.Lutris, supply the root password, and accept the changes. (Use the hash from step 5.) - Run
sudo flatpak mask net.lutris.Lutrisand supply root password to prevent Lutris from being updated. We will probably have problems in the future when the flatpak environment gets deprecated,sudo flatpak mask --remove net.lutris.Lutriswould allow it to update again.
Wow, thank you for this! I really appreciate the detailed instructions!
Tell me to not use your software without telling me to not use your software.
How to drive off users and contributors in one easy step!
Is Step 1 - Be the target of a harassment campaign?
He removed the attribution because people are harassing him, it’s one thing to not want to use the tool but harassing an open source dev is way over the line. I don’t care about your opinion on AI, it doesn’t justify harassment.
The anti-AI crowd have, once again, gone way over the line. Nobody should be supporting this harassment.
is lutris slop now
i can’t help but notice quite a lot of LLM generated commits, is lutris slop now or will
@strycoresee the error of their waysRegardless of your opinion on AI, it is not productive or helpful to open this as an issue.
shame is a powerful weapon
i for one intend to keep making people feel bad for using slop generators
But as you can see, the maintainer didn’t stop using them and will also now not disclose which commits have them. Humans are emotional creatures and part of being rational is acknowledging that. Folks can be critical of AI usage while phrasing the issue more tactfully and would likely see more success when doing so.
This specific developer is not the only audience to this behavior.
What do you think is more likely from devs who use AI who see this?
- They will stop using AI.
- They will stop saying when they use AI, like this one did.
They will obviously stop saying they use AI, much like republicans pretend they’re not racist. So?
I call the both of them cowards who refuse to stand up for what they supposedly believe in.
I don’t really think there’s a problem with saying this sort of thing about devs who use AI if you believe all AI code usage is bad. I’m only saying that if you actually want them to stop using AI instead of just expressing your disdain then there are better approaches. Opening an issue to insult a volunteer developer on their personal project will not get the change you want to see.
I am a strong believer in the power of shame. Republican racists must be taught that their options are either to bend to my will or shut up permanently. I don’t really care if they agree with me or not.
Now, that’s pretty provocative. I am not presently mounting rifles at LLM users. But, I do think it shows that I have more determination than you do.
It may be that he could be sued for license infringement for violating the GPL 3 license by feeding code and using improperly licensed code.
Idk how all the lawsuits will fall, but imo, by not disclosing AI use it jeopardizes the license requirements for everyone who ever contributed to the project. Best case the project is essentially public domain for any components edited after this change.
Yeah, I’m interested to see how it turns out. Realistically I don’t think we’ll see models training on GPL code making the model or it’s output “GPL’ed” because (I think, but I could be mistaken) there’s already been a court case about training models on copyrighted content and the court ruled that it was okay. The GPL, while extremely restrictive, is still more permissive than the default “all rights reserved” approach of copyright. That is to say, if courts ruled that copyrighted content in models is fine they’d also rule that copyleft content in models is fine. (Which sucks, and not really something I’m sure I agree with, but I’m also not a lawyer or a judge.)
My understanding is that, regardless of it was AI or not, machine output cannot be copyrighted. I’m not sure where the line is and how much tweaking you’d need to do to for it to suddenly become something you’re protected under copyright. With things like code, as opposed to images, I think we’ll likely see that devs get copyright over it. Because I think most of the time they’re tweaking it some. Generally with image generation I don’t think folks are tweaking the output, unless they themselves are an artist, and for the most part most artists I’ve seen are more opposed to AI than devs. But who knows? It’ll probably take someone copying code that was created by AI and the creator/prompter having to backup that what they did was enough to grant them protection under copyright law. But by that point, I’m really talking out of my depth, this is just a guess.
My most realistic outlook on it is fairly pessimistic. I think model creators will still be able to use copyrighted and copyleft works however they see fit and I think for all practical purposes most folks using generators will likely be tweaking or prompting creatively enough in some way to successfully argue that the result is something they made using the AI as a tool rather than something the computer just generated on its own.
Imo, I’d prefer a “contamination” approach where the strictest licenses in the training data applies to all outputs. I doubt such a rule would get through big business filters but it would maximize the public good and any country that does manage something like that would probably gain the most benefits from these companies.
The strictest license in the training set is definitely just the normal copyright protections, which is more strict than copyleft.
Edit: explanation, this is because everything is inherently copyrighted. You have rights to protections. So you’re forgoing some of those protective rights by licensing it out.
Naw dog
Well, it used to be at least
I had a donation to Lutris, and was already skeptical of the dev’s ability to maintain their huge (and very buggy) python/gtk3 codebase. Now I know that giving money to the dev would likely makes things bigger and buggier. This is useful information, and it’s better to talk about it somewhere where the dev will respond and relatively few bystanders will hear the discussion.
I’m not saying you shouldn’t ever raise this sort of thing as an issue (in general I think issues should only be for bugs, but the annoying reality is there’s rarely a better place for discussions that get visibility), I’m saying the specific content of the message is the problem. There are ways to critique the usage of AI and discuss alternatives that wouldn’t be an issue.
For example,
I see a lot of AI code is used in this repository. AI code is bad because (reasons the user believes it is bad here). Could you please share why/what AI is being used for specifically so we can try to remove the necessity?
Aside
I’m not saying AI code isn’t bad, I’m just saying different people think it’s bad for different reasons. The specific problem the reporter has with AI code may warrant a specific response.
Perhaps more maintainers are needed, maybe someone more familiar with third party libs being used could mentor, etc. From there it really depends on what the response from the maintainer is.
What’s not helpful and never going to get anyone to change their opinion is just saying things like “when will
@mentionsee the error of their ways”. As humans we respond to this by digging our heels in, which as seen in the issue the maintainer did by becoming less transparent about where AI is and is not used. Had the reporter taken a more diplomatic approach they would have been more likely to get the changes they wanted.It’s also such self entitlement, they were being open about it before but had to deal with childish people like this throwing a tantrum.
If its such an issue then thank them for being honest, don’t use it and move on, no ones entitled to free software though some act like it.
Not all llm use in code gen is bad, as long as its properly reviewed and disclosed. That’s not the same as vibe coding and having no idea about the output.
Yeah, that’s sort of my gripe with it. If you genuinely believe all AI code is bad (which is fine, not saying that’s a “wrong” opinion) maybe try to help the volunteers instead of just insulting them on an issue tracker.
Regardless of your opinion on AI, it is not productive or helpful to open this as an issue.
Disagree. It drew attention to the fact that the maintainers of lutris are of questionable character and helped people like me understand that lutris should be avoided completely.
As the maintainer said, the commits with AI code were already specified. See one here. It was never a secret.
He now removed the code authorship from Claude lmao
Hence the past tense. I think it was pretty petty to do this.
It was my impression that the AI stuff only started with a relatively recent update
Maybe, I don’t know much about this tool or their practices. I only meant that it was factual that they were mentioning which commits had AI generated code in them.
Whether or not I use Claude is not going to change society
This gives me shopping cart theory vibes. I don’t usually base my moral compass based on whether my action will have some kind of measurable impact, but whether I believe it’s the right thing to do. After the intense doubling down in that discussion thread I’m definitely steering clear of lutris. It costs me very little effort to avoid projects that do icky things I don’t want to encourage (even though it may not have a measurable impact~)
I can’t fix the problem, therefore I’ll be part of the problem.
At my job we have been told how we have to start using AI more. I can’t really see any point. The only tasks AI can help me for are pointless tasks from HR that shouldn’t exist in the first place. Monthly forms with questions like “how are you feeling emotionally”, used to take me ages to come up with corpo bullshit friendly answers but locally hosted deepseek does it in seconds.
The HR department will see that it’s not quality human HR-slop and the thought police will be with you shortly
Oh LLMs are great at writing HR slop
But then there’s no suffering
When my work enabled Gemini, I asked it how to disable it. It said it couldn’t help me and asked if I had another question. I didn’t.
That’s the only interaction I’ve willingly had with it.
In my experience, AI models are fairly good at contextual search. That’s the only thing I use them for.
Yes, if we had documentation then I suspect AI tools could be good for finding information in that.
Lutris has always been a bit hit-or-miss for me, I avoided it unless it was the only option, as it only worked half the time. I don’t want it to come off like it shouldn’t exist, as stuff making Linux easier to use is great, but I don’t use it at all in my current workflows.
I guess I’ve just been behind the times, but I’ve never had an incentive to switch. I just installed faugus and transferred everything over and it seems very slick. It seems to be missing 1 or 2 things, like environment variables per-game, but all the other important stuff seems to be here. I know what I’m doing with prefixes so having all the knobs to turn is great, but honestly linux gaming does not need most of those knobs nowadays.
How does transferring work?
I only have 2 or 3 things in lutris.
I just did it manually, pointing faugus at the old prefixes and setting the launch options the same
Sick. Thanks. I’ll do the same.
Also, it is one thing to decide that something is not an ethical issue of concern, it is another thing to act with disrespect to everyone with a different opinion.
it is another thing to act with disrespect to everyone with a different opinion.
Unless that opinion is ‘I like using AI’, then they deserved the disrespect.
virtue ethics > utilitarianism
Utilitarianism really falls at the first hurdle of any kind of evaluation of a moral system.
It has no real prescriptive power because it demands you be able to correctly foresee the outcome of your actions, something literally addressed by “The road to hell is paved with good intentions”, an adage of at least 400 years ago, and yet people will still gravitate towards it as if society did not explicitly caution us about that mindset forever now.
At this point I can’t help but look down on those who genuinely identify as utilitarian as either too young, too stupid, or actively malevolent and trying to find a way to justify their bad behaviours as errors rather than malice or negligence.
I’d offer you a counterpoint (ignoring the issue with Lutris and AI for a minute):
If you choose not to judge your own actions by the expected consequences of those actions for everyone involved, then how exactly are you supposed to judge them? If you’re following some rule that disagrees with the utilitarian view, then by definition it’s a rule that in your own opinion leads to a worse outcome for everyone.
It’s of course completely fine to not be utilitarian, but trying to claim that all utilitarians are either stupid or evil is just incorrect.
- their repo (checked the commit graphs and basically they did most of the work, 2nd dev agree with them, covers 90%+) their choice of governance
- their repo, their choice of tooling
- I genuinely believe they think are doing “good enough” code and they are probably right about it in their context
- they do have fair points on the economical power dynamics, namely that yes Anthropic is slightly less worst than Meta, Google, OpenAI, Microsoft, etc (… but IMHO honestly that’s a damn low bar)
but also
- obfuscation rather than discussion (closed the issue and limited to maintainers only) so clearly the signal is precisely “my repo, my choice”
- no mention of the copyright or license washing
- no mention of ecological impact
so I would personally consider instead Bottles, GOG (have different problems), Steam (obviously not open source and basically monopolistic position), etc.
Overall I think preventing discussion is unhealthy (even though sadly sometimes needed, here I lack context, maybe the issue poster did this numerous time on other platforms, title definitely was provocative) but removing provenance is NEVER a good choice. They want to use Claude on their repo? Absolutely fine (even though not to me) but hiding it makes it instantly untrustworthy to me. In fact I even argued in the past that even though I personally do not use GenAI/LLMs (for coding or otherwise) except for testing it should always be disclosed precisely so that others can make THEIR choice in consequence, including using or contributing, cf https://fabien.benetou.fr/Analysis/AgainstPoorArtificialIntelligencePractices
Tbh, I think it’s a bit of pick your battles. GOG and Steam are mostly good companies, but it’s all closed source and I would bet money they are using AI to develop too. And they don’t even provide any way that you could check that, because their code isn’t open at all.
Is that really better than some open source dev developing with AI in broad daylight?
I totally understand why the Lutris dev shut down the discussion. The dev posted about struggling with mental health, and developing open source software is sadly really bad for your mental health. There’s just too many people who think that the code is public and thus they get a say in it, even if they didn’t contribute anything at all.
As an open source dev, you contribute without getting anything in return, and then you have to justify your actions in front of random strangers who often get quite aggressive. It’s a really big problem in the FOSS sector. Look up e.g. the controversy around Marcel Bokhorst (M66B). He almost shut down all his great FOSS projects because of all the hassle he got from randos on the internet.
I agree. I still don’t think it’s right. I’m not sure how to do better. Overall, developing (in open source or not) or creating art or whatever one is into my once advice is to cherry pick whatever strangers are telling you. You only listen to the healthy advice and everything else must be like water off a duck’s back.
In commercial development that’s easy. I don’t really care about the product I am working on. I am doing a good job working on it, but it’s not my baby. Also, I am a developer, so I develop. There’s customer support people who get paid to have customers scream at them.
If this is your personal pet project, that you love and that you poured your soul in, that’s more difficult. Especially if you are already struggling with mental health.
And I don’t like it when we say “only mentally stable people who don’t mind engaging with a toxic community deserve to be FOSS developers”. That’s just not right.
I don’t like it when we say “only mentally stable people who don’t mind engaging with a toxic community deserve to be FOSS developers”. That’s just not right.
No idea where that came from, I surely didn’t mean nor suggest so.
Overall, developing (in open source or not) or creating art or whatever one is into my once advice is to cherry pick whatever strangers are telling you. You only listen to the healthy advice and everything else must be like water off a duck’s back.
This part here.
Only taking healthy advice and ignoring everything else is something you can do if you are super mentally stable. If you aren’t this is often not possible.
That’s precisely not engaging though.
obfuscation rather than discussion (closed the issue and limited to maintainers only) so clearly the signal is precisely “my repo, my choice”
There is discussion but it is limited to the people who contribute to the project, it is closed to the public because of the harassment campaign. Nobody wants to listen to a bunch of toxic children copy and paste the same opinions and insults.
no mention of the copyright or license washing no mention of ecological impact
The developers who use AI tools are not repeating the anti-AI memes, this isn’t surprising.
It’s one thing if you want to not use the software, but contributing to or whitewashing this harassment campaign is toxic and needs to stop.
GOG (have different problems)
but GOG is not open source too (if you use GOG Galaxy)
Yes, that’s part of the problems, thanks for clarifying
Yw
“This works perfectly, which is why I’m removing all ways to audit what it has contributed.”
“because that’s the only way to use it without being harassed online”
I disagree with his reasons for removing it, but they are pretty clear.
The downvotes are only making your argument for you, lol
Downvotes are pretty much death threats, amirite?
My Lemmy karma :(
Larma.
You’re either new to social media or being deliberately dense if you don’t understand the correlation between unpopular opinions, downvotes and harassment.
You can harass someone in many ways, not simply by threatening to kill them.
