this post was submitted on 10 Feb 2024
30 points (96.9% liked)
Open Source
30206 readers
267 users here now
All about open source! Feel free to ask questions, and share news, and interesting stuff!
Useful Links
- Open Source Initiative
- Free Software Foundation
- Electronic Frontier Foundation
- Software Freedom Conservancy
- It's FOSS
- Android FOSS Apps Megathread
Rules
- Posts must be relevant to the open source ideology
- No NSFW content
- No hate speech, bigotry, etc
Related Communities
- !libre_culture@lemmy.ml
- !libre_software@lemmy.ml
- !libre_hardware@lemmy.ml
- !linux@lemmy.ml
- !technology@lemmy.ml
Community icon from opensource.org, but we are not affiliated with them.
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I've read that page, but that reasoning went over my head. Because I'm not able to understand their justification, hence I'm asking about it. And besides, there's no other low-level Vulkan alternative. Dropping support for it would be detrimental to the future of their distro, given how there's improvement over OpenGL with respect to performance.
Their justification is batshit for the seven dropped packages I read. I haven’t seen all of those various talking points together in a single place before. It’s a “who’s who” of every crank idea from the last couple of decades. I’m genuinely surprised they don’t drop support for themselves given their social bloat.
Some of this reads like pure satire:
I'm especially loving the on hold section:
That said, they lay their logic out pretty nicely. It seems meant to be super opinionated, with extremely rigid rules they stick to in as binary of a fashion as possible to keep things managable for the small group maintaining the OS project.
It's their small project, they're allowed to be opinionated. At least they're open and straightforward.
"Hyperbola is not opposing a diverse and colorful software-landscape! [...] It sounds harsh when we need to mark a package being set on hold [...] This has nothing to with any kind more fanatic perspective as it is just following a simple and also direct logic."
We're still free to laugh at the unadulterated idealogical purity shit they've built as their logic though. ~~Deus~~ Freedom Vult
They don't seem to care that much about performance unless it means reduced powet consumption.
Looks like their main reasoning for dropping vulkan was: 1. it has too many dependencies, which violates their principal of minimalism, and 2. it's not backwards compatible enough for their arbitrary definition of backwards compatibility. I guess it should support hardware back to the very first gpu, but also have less dependencies