[tw04]

Nobody is preventing you from running Home Assistant core and deploying everything else yourself manually.

Demanding the authors who gave you the software for free also provide support for an installation method they've offered up with no support is a bit ridiculous, don't you think?

That attitude is what causes open source projects to die though...

[mindslight]

What do you mean "demanding support" ? I remember Home Assistant authors being actively hostile to people packaging their software outside of the official Docker or RPi images. Which is why it wasn't in the Debian repository, pushing me down that Docker path in the first place. Here's the same dynamic on an associated project in 2021: https://github.com/NixOS/nixpkgs/pull/126326

If anyone chimes in and says they've been running Home Assistant from nixpkgs (where I am now) for several years with no hiccups, then I will certainly reconsider my opinion. But based on my experience and what I've continued to read since, it feels like trying to do that is an uphill battle. One I'm not looking to take on, especially for automation I'm relying on.

[tw04]

So... your example is a developer of HA stating that he sees major flaws with how they're distributing his package, and that he has absolutely no interest in supporting users that pull his code in a way that is unmaintainable by him.

YOU believe he should support this anyway, because of various "we promise end-users won't reach out to you" which is comically incorrect because history has shown repeatedly that a user's first step when something is broken is to google package_name broken - which will absolutely turn up the author's name.

BECAUSE he doesn't want to support his software being repackaged in a way he believes isn't supportable, you're upset. You want him to support your unicorn config because that's what you want to do, and his refusal to comply makes him a bad person.

Thank you for reinforcing EXACTLY why open source devs burn out. He has a workflow that he is willing and able to support and doesn't want to support anything outside of that. Your response is: but you need to do it for me because it's what I want.

[mindslight]

Did we read the same thread? Nobody asked the HA developer to support anything, rather that developer started the conversation by making demands and then kept at it.

[tw04]

“Making demands” which were: please don’t package my code in your distro that has dozens of out of date packages my code depends on that will break. Because I don’t want to deal with end users bugging me about it being broken.

I think the most surprising thing is that you can’t see how unreasonable your complaints are.

[mindslight]

If you attempted explaining how you think my stated position is unreasonable, perhaps I could see it. So far you've only attacked strawmen, such as claiming that I am demanding support from HA or claiming upstream was being asked to support nixpkgs.

What I do see is a project calling itself FOSS, while its maintainers really don't like it being used as Free Software. If one wants to control downstream uses of one's software, the answer is quite simple - release it under a proprietary license. Don't grant freedom while going on and on about how you support freedom, but then be upset when someone actually uses that freedom to do something.

> deal with end users bugging me about it being broken.

The nixpkgs maintainers asked how much this was actually happening, and even preemptively proposed solutions. OP didn't engage and just repeated his demands. And in general how is this any different from the common DRM-authoritarian refrain that companies are justified locking down devices they make, lest end users modify them and then clueless people might attribute the outcome to the original manufacturer?