Corporations only care about corporate clients and don't give a sht when I report bugs. They get put on the backburner, meanwhile with Blender I get an instant response everytime. I'm not used to reporting bugs and actually getting results. It makes me more confident and excited to use the software knowing any issues I face will prob be fixed if I report them.
14 Comments
TacticalToothbrush@discuss.tchncs.de · 20 pts · 13d
“There’s no point to report bugs”
My first report was in 2024 for 4.1 beta. I now have about 50 issues closed, a few of those are duplicate and known-issue. A few still open since 2024. And one tiny merged PR that puts undeserving "Contributor" label on all of my comments.
Back then I run daily build for the funsies and update every few days. I don't have to worry about getting things done and can spend time to reproduce bug, bisect from daily builds and narrow down to 24 hours period of commits that introduce the bug. I want to save time for devs/triage team so they can close/confirm the issue, look at it, fix it quickly and get back to do more important stuff.
Don't have that kind of luxury nowadays but I wish I can get back to my side project, dust it off and mess around with daily builds again. But no more of that PR shit, the repo is massive and setting up build environment is overwhelming.
I wish to donate in paper cash or other untraceable form, which is night impossible. So, putting in effort with bug reports is the best I can do for Blender.
thevoidzero@lemmy.world · 12 pts · 12d
Not only corporate not care, one time the bug was making it useless for my use case in linux, so I had to fix anyway. I sent an email with a patch, without even responding to the email to say anything, their next version had my patch. I sent it because it'd be useful to others, they could have at least acknowledged it.
Whostosay@sh.itjust.works · 10 pts · 13d
You've got plenty of support via upvotes but I guess I'll be the first to comment.
Hell yeah fuck yeah dude
rezad@lemmy.world · 8 pts · 13d
how dare you suggest human shared cooperation and prosperity is better than super rich getting even more super rich.
Slashme@lemmy.world · 5 pts · 12d
I have an automated donation every month because it's fucking amazing and I want them to thrive.
Internet Archive too.
JTode@lemmy.world · -7 pts · 12d
Blender is Free Software, not Open Source.
Blender will never enshittify. Free Software does not enshittify.
Open Source happens when the devs plan to enshittify sometime in the future, so they do not apply the GPL. You can trust Free Software, whereas trusting Open Source is highly likely to find you needing to pay a subscription, or else the software suddenly becoming garbage (ie. Google Search).
You do love something, but it's not Open Source.
edit: The responders all seem to think that Open Source is simply an observation about the source code. Yes, Free Software is open source, but it is not Open Source, which is the initiative started in the mid-90s, long after GNU/Linux had begun to completely take over all the server rooms.
So: There is open source code, which yes, is a feature, perhaps the most useful one, of Free Software. But Open Source (capitalized) is a thing invented by some corporate lickspittle, specifically to acquire the methodology, but NOT the Freedom ideology, of Free Software. When you mash them up, you are doing the work of capitalists for them.
zaubentrucker@sopuli.xyz · 12 pts · 12d
Open source is part of "Free Open Source Software" (FOSS).
You can't have free software without it being open source. Having access to the source code is one of the freedoms of free software
JTode@lemmy.world · 0 pts · 11d
You didn't have Open Source until 1996, Free Software was invented by RMS a number of years before that. Where do you get the authority to declare that "Free & Open Source" are somehow connected?
Open Source acquires the methodology of Free Software, while jettisoning the ethics. It came years after and was consciously invented as a way of maintaining control of the software, with the option to Close it anytime they like.
As I said elsewhere, those who control Open Source can Close the Source anytime they like. Free Software cannot. Do you see?
zaubentrucker@sopuli.xyz · 6 pts · 11d
I see your point and I too believe that making free software is the ethical way.
Yet, I also believe that having the source code available is valuable by itself. At least from a perspective of a developer that has to depend on corporate software. I see open source as a subset of the rights of free software.
dustyData@lemmy.world · 6 pts · 12d
Love the attitude, but the concepts are a bit wonky.There's Free as in freedom (usually referred to with the Latin word “libre”), and Free as in free beer. Open source is just the ability to read and contribute to the source code. Not all open source is free, but libre (freedom) software has to be open source.
That's why it is usually referred as FLOSS, Free and Libre Open Source Software.
There's a myriad of licenses, not just GPL, and GPL is not the only FLOSS license.
There are source available software projects, that do not adhere to liberty principles. There's also free software (as in free beer), that is not open source or even source available.
Blender is open source and also free software, and also libre software. Because Blender is FLOSS. This, however, does not prevent some specific forms of enshittyfication. It's just that forking the base source code is always a possibility.
Edit: Ok, forget the love attitude part. You just called two men who have a disability and are some of the corner stones of the free software movement “corporate lickspittle”. Wow, you have to be an ignorant piece of shit to call the man who conceived the ‘bazaar’ thesis that defines FLOSS a lickspittle, an utter idiot to call a man who hates proprietary software a corporate lickspittle. Bruce Perens and Eric Raymond may not be saints, no person is perfect. But you are just dismissing and insulting people who are the reason you can exist with a modicum of freedom on the internet space.
JTode@lemmy.world · 0 pts · 11d
You are doing the mashing up. Free Software came first. Free Software took over all the corporate server rooms, and so in 1996, they invented Open Source, as a means of acquiring the incredible energy of developer communities while maintaining control of the code. They are not the same, they do not come from the same place, and Open Source lacks all ethics.
Anyways, Blender is Free Software; Free Software is inherent Open Source, but it is Open Source that lacks ethics, and there is a long and concerted effort to mash up the two into a single thing. But Open Source is a corporate delusion, which will let you down sooner or later.
Open Source can become Closed Source. Free Software cannot. Do you see?
dustyData@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 11d
I see what you are saying, and I understand what you are referring to.
It was stallman himself who, after working in GNU for years, went on the invent the concept of free and open software. I'm not doing any mash up. I'm referring to the 4 fundamental freedoms of free software as associated together by stallman himself and protected by the free software foundation.
If you could provide sources it would be useful as the history of these concepts is pretty much a living history. Since the people who coined them are still alive and still write copiously about the philosophical implications of the movement.
I have to say honestly I can't find anything that supports your comment. Perhaps only tangentially, if one assumes that some so far unarticulated and shadowy movement of Open source promotes only source available software.
Are you referring to Bruce Perens definition of open source that is used by the open source initiative? Because they are not antagonists of the free software foundation. While it's true that it also extends to proprietary but source available software, this has been considered widely a positive rather than negative. Although different points of view exist in the analysis of how the four fundamental freedoms interact.
JTode@lemmy.world · -1 pts · 11d
GNU Manifesto published: 1985
(edit: he did that, by the way, because he had had access to the source code of their photocopier at MIT, and the company decided to stop providing that source, which was all the rage in 1985 as Microsoft bootstrapped capitalism, rather than the weird corporate hippiedom of the 70s, as the way of technology.)
Open Source Initiative formed: 1998. There was a manifesto of sorts around 1996 that I recall being the first time I heard people start to use Open Source instead of Free Software, and mash up the two into a single meme, when one them is completely about amputating the ethics of the other.
dustyData@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 11d
Ah, I see. It's just that to me that's a settled discussion and it seems to have been for a few decades now. Free software has to be open source to be free. But not all open source software is free software. That we agree on. It seems we just have different interpretations of the history. If you bother to read the free software manifesto, stallman actually uses the term open source and it also defines that free software must be open to allow three of the four fundamental freedoms to exist. Your objections seem to be political rather than philosophical. E.g. who gets to decide or control what projects are defined as what.