Open Source hot take: A software project is allowed to be *done*.

[vantablack2000@mastodon.gamedev.place]

@tante I mean makes sense. Some things just do one thing and do it well.

With the way tech is massively changing I would say you have to battle adding features and doing Maintenance anyway since if the project doesn't run well the features have no point. Calling it done and focusing solely on maintenance makes the decision easier.

[gwenverbsnouns@mastodon.social]

@tante it was actually pretty cool when software was primarily distributed on, well, hardware

plus it was fun to flip through my book of CDs. like oh I haven't used starry night pro in a while, let's spend a couple hours exploring the galaxy

[kayla@revpara.onl]

@tante i think this should become normalized.

[federico3@oldbytes.space]

@tante @oraculix That's quite nasty and one more reason to stay away from those rewrites.

[cford@toot.thoughtworks.com]

@tante Totally, though I think you need to take care about what you model with your software. If you model the world, it will change and you'll have to keep us.

[spacelifeform@infosec.exchange]

@tante

true. it still functions as expected. No patches needed.

[lucycelestia@transfem.social]

@tante@tldr.nettime.org Linux games seem to understand this very well. A few months ago I installed Extreme Tux Racer, a game I fondly remember playing in my childhood like 15 years ago. It is exactly the same still, either hasn't been updated or only just enough to keep it working. Either way it is lovely :3

[blogdiva@mastodon.social]

@strypey ooooh. thanks for the heads up.

[su_liam@mas.to]

@strypey @hbons @tante Setting boundaries can help avoid bloat.

[dancingtreefrog@mastodon.social]

@tante True of non-OSS applications, too. I think one reason MS is shoving AI into MS Office is their product is mature software and *there are no new features to add to it*.

[chris@losnoco.net]

@tante Yes, and when it comes to this, and there's something you got an idea for, but don't have the spoons to implement, you can just write a blog article about it and hope and pray someone else feels like implementing it, in exchange for a large sum of money. Or you can just hope you're not one of those people who hates unresolved issues.

[mirabilos@toot.mirbsd.org]

@tante yes! This!

I had people question a project because it had no release for six months (despite even commit activity)…

[mirabilos@toot.mirbsd.org]

@tante @hllizi @leonid nah, the distro patches the dependencies, done.

[hllizi@hespere.de]

@mirabilos
That works for dynamic dependencies but not for static ones, and only until the distro stops maintenance for the last compatible version, right?
@tante @leonid

[mirabilos@toot.mirbsd.org]

@hllizi @leonid @tante why would you as upstream care if the distro links statically or dynamically?

[mirabilos@toot.mirbsd.org]

@leonid @tante @hllizi and it does work if it also recompiles the program, static distros exist

[hllizi@hespere.de]

@mirabilos
Yeah, right, I take this part back, I got confused (because of course you can also compile again against the patched dependency...). But the second part still stands, it only works as long as the distro provides patches for a compatible version.
@leonid @tante

[mirabilos@toot.mirbsd.org]

@leonid @hllizi @tante sure, but if that also works…?

[hllizi@hespere.de]

@mirabilos
Providing patches, you mean?
@leonid @tante

[mirabilos@toot.mirbsd.org]

@leonid @tante @hllizi the dependency