Basically the assumption that by sharing your work, you become inherently beholden to the wishes of those that use your work.
Some time over the last ten years or so, much of the open source community acquired the belief that they deserve to be treated as a customers despite the fact they don't pay for squat.
What were people doing based on that assumption? The article says contacting the author to ask for a fix over bug trackers, Twitter, etc is still ok in their mind. What else were people doing?
"Ask for a fix" is euphemism what often happens. It's commonplace to receive reports to the tune of:
* "Can we get an ETA on this? Some of us need to get real work done"
* "How you can justify leaving out such a basic feature?"
* "This project is unusable without this feature"
* "Why waste people's time by releasing software with bugs like this"
* "This kind of mistake is totally unprofessional"
* "The developers must not have the skill to fix this"
These sorts of interactions can be more exhausting than outright abuse, because they're designed to bait/provoke the developer rather than just insult them. And to be clear, this isn't particular to this developer. There was a whole study done on this that made the rounds awhile back[1].
> there is no ...reliable way to verify the identity of a creator's SSH key
GitHub exposes your public key via it's API. (Why? I have no idea. I call it a privacy violation)
So, you need to create new github identity for every SSH identity that you wish to remain anonymous for, otherwise they just get tied together & one aspect of anonymity is lost.
All that does is associate an arbitrary SSH key with a GitHub account. There is still no reliable way to verify the identity of the GitHub account owner, or the SSH key that account holder generated.
How does that expose any more information than you do by pushing a commit with a GitHub account?
The problem is you're still failing to demonstrate a causal link between threats of legal action and GNOME3 or Unity.
I was around during this time and early adopter of GNOME Shell (i.e. 2.31.x); there was and is zero evidence indicating that legal issues were even a consideration.
There is, on the other hand, mountain ranges of evidence indicating this was driven by everything but legal issues[1][2][3].
It's a shame that none of these "critical" reviews actually contain any well-researched criticism.
Confusing the wider shadow radius on windows with the bounds of the screenshot utility? Referring to Mobian as a for-profit company or implying PINE64 is driving libadwaita? Suggesting a library written in cross-platform C "carries code for other platforms"? Claiming GNOME is replacing Terminal with Console, when it has been explicitly communicated that is not the case? Stating a feature has been removed from Tweaks, when it has actually been moved into GNOME Settings?
It's difficult to find anything accurate in this article, other than the screenshots. The author's time would have been better spent researching the subject matter, especially if they are sincere about wanting to provide constructive criticism.
> Confusing the wider shadow radius on windows with the bounds of the screenshot utility
If you zoom in you'll see that the gap between the last shade of grey and the end of the screenshot is still big. Also, the inconsistency: depending on the window, the shadow/margin is different. Still, why the screenshot tool do not remove the shadows? It's useless for screenshots.
> Referring to Mobian as a for-profit company
My mistake. Thanks for pointing this out. It's fixed now.
> implying PINE64 is driving libadwaita
I didn't say that. I said these companies are pushing this PC/mobile coexistence crap, which is simply true.
> Suggesting a library written in cross-platform C "carries code for other platforms"
I'm not 'suggesting'. It's just a fact: GNOME has 'mobile ready' code all over the place, regardless if you compile it for PC or not.
> Claiming GNOME is replacing Terminal with Console, when it has been explicitly communicated that is not the case
I didn't say it replaced Terminal, but that it's the new recommended default and that Terminal misses important updates to be consistent with the rest of GNOME 42.
> Stating a feature has been removed from Tweaks, when it has actually been moved into GNOME Settings
You're right here. It's already fixed.
> It's difficult to find anything accurate in this article, other than the screenshots
Actually, I said A LOT and most of the things are very accurate and you decided to point out just a few (some right, some wrong ;), ignoring everything else that simply can't be refuted. This a classic falacy.
