@navi @puppygirlhornypost2 @aeva “porting to linux” is not a nightmare at all. it’s actually very easy. what is not so easy is targeting linux systems with proprietary software.

there’s no longer just x86 to worry about either. sure, there’s FEX to emulate it on aarch64, but come on… you’re installing a compatibility OS root for a different arch, then run steam, which you realize doesn’t work reliably on modern file systems without hacks because valve forgot to compile half their stuff with the right glibc options, and which itself uses another distro’s packaged user space, and THEN you run proton which implements windows user space?

how many more layers are we going to stack just to avoid publishing the source code? all this is making preservation unreasonably difficult as well. even if we’re completely ignoring linux, none of this will keep working on future operating systems.

@mia @navi @puppygirlhornypost2 no, it is actually hard. I literally cannot build my main project (open source, built on a small set of open source dependencies, built for Liunx trying to avoid as many pitfalls as possible) on my laptop and run it on my desktop because one is running fedora and the other is an ubuntu LTS running an incompatible glibc. I literally cannot cross compile from Linux to Linux running on the same CPU architecture. This is an absolute clown show.

@mia @puppygirlhornypost2 @navi I think, if you actually read my reply, you would have understood that I do have the source code to everything I am working with.

@aeva @puppygirlhornypost2 @navi i understand you just fine. but you aren’t using the source code. you build it on one system, then treat the result like a closed-source binary on the other.

@mia @puppygirlhornypost2 @navi ah, ok - so I'm understanding your meaning correctly, your point of view is that one shouldn't provide prebuilt binaries for linux *ever* even when the full source code is available, and that distro package managers distributing prebuilt binaries is essentially an implementation detail?