Oh 100% agreed - in this instance, it’s clear that OBS has a well maintained package that should be prioritized. But they could keep their repo first and remove OBS (and other known-to-be-well-maintained apps) from it to accomplish that.
They put their repo first on the list.
Right. And are we talking about the list for OBS or of repos in general? I doubt Fedora sets the priority on a package level. And if they don’t, and if there are some other packages in Flathub that are problematic, then it makes sense to prioritize their own repo over them.
That said, if those problematic packages come from other repositories, or if not but there’s another alternative to putting their repo first that would have prevented unofficial builds from showing up first, but wouldn’t have deprioritized official, verified ones like OBS, then it’s a different story. I haven’t maintained a package on Flathub like the original commenter you replied to but I don’t get the impression that that’s the case.
Why did Fedora make their packages take priority? Is it because the priority is otherwise random and if you don’t have a priority set, that leads to the issue they mentioned? Because if so, that sounds like a reasonable action by Fedora and like the real culprit is Flathub.
A paid skillful engineer, who doesn’t think it’s important to make that sort of a change and who knows how the system works, will know that, if success is judged solely by “does it work?” then the effort is doomed for failure. Such an engineer will push to have the requirements written clearly and explicitly - “how does it function?” rather than “what are the results?” - which means that unless the person writing the requirements actually understands the solution, said solution will end up having its requirements written such that even if it’s defeated instantly, it will count as a success. It met the specifications, after all.
Clearly they’re cosplaying as a Canonical engineer whose internal explanation and pleas for them to not take this approach fell upon deaf ears /j
If you’re a C developer who doesn’t know Rust, no.
If a communication norm is just about other people’s preferences, why should they change? Who’s to say that other people’s preferences are more important than their own, particularly given that this particular preference is shared by millions of other people.
If inconsistent use of capitalization actually hinders understanding for some subset of their audience, then that’s a different story. My experience is that people are more likely to be annoyed than to actually have issues understanding all lowercase text. All caps text, on the other hand, is a different matter - and plenty of government and corporate entities are fine putting important text in all caps. But all caps text is a known accessibility issue. When I search for “all lowercase accessibility,” though, all I get is a bunch of results saying to not use all caps text for accessibility reasons.
If you have sources showing that all lowercase text is an accessibility concern, then you should share them. Heck, you should have led with that. But as it is, your argument ultimately boils down to “someone else should change what they do, that works for them, because it annoys me.”
Both of the reasons you’ve provided are nonsensical:
You can use a controller. I got further in Dead Cells on my phone with the Backbone One than I did on my Steam Deck. Maybe the same would be true with Hades - it’s a shame the Netflix version doesn’t (or didn’t; I haven’t checked in months) support cross-save.
Women Who Code and Girls Who Code are different nonprofit organizations.
They’re run by different people and have distinct goals (WWCode: supporting and empowering women who are in the tech industry; GWC is focused on getting more women into tech by providing opportunities to learn programming to girls).
Having to deal with inventory management doesn’t always improve immersion. Inventory optimization doesn’t immerse me; rather, it gives me a puzzle to solve.