If world does not match your view it may be you who is outlier. I quite like current convention - hidden files in $HOME belong to applications. There is value in $XDG_CACHE_HOME - it can be safely removed (like /var/cache).
You force your view on open source community, that is rather bad.
> If world does not match your view it may be you who is outlier.
Looking at the amount of software that does follow the base directory specification, actually you're the outlier insisting on obsolete conventions.
You and a bunch of other developers insist on those things, in reality that is the actually harmful behaviour for open-source.
Interestingly but yet non-surprisingly, that insistence very often goes in hand with the stubborness to stay on obsolete mailing lists, ugly user interfaces, insecurity by-default, git-email, buggy issue trackers, 80-column commit messages, obsolete security standards and practices and so much more.
> I quite like current convention - hidden files in $HOME belong to applications.
The future is now, home folders aren't to be filled with trash. Move on or stay behind, seriously.
Lets check. I tolerate both versions, use workarounds in my .bash_profile and share them, actually tried to patch and have written article [0].
You shame software, half of it has workaround, see patching as impractical.
XDG Base Directory Specification [1] is not about your home folder. It is about default storage, separation of cache, user data and config, a way to provide another config, so one can:
* remove entire config when stuck with a problem
* remove cache, think /var/cache
* `ssh -F foo` would be `XDG_CONFIG_HOME=foo ssh`
Everyone has a pain point, everyone has a workflow, there is no One True Way. Please stop shaming authors, they quit, sometimes post it here about mob. Patching folder structure is the simplest thing. If you can't do that who is going to fix actual bugs?
> Please stop shaming authors, they quit, sometimes post it here about mob.
If one feels that talking about a bug in their software is "shaming" them, then maybe they should quit or alternatively, just quit pretending they want feedback or to write FOSS. Same applies to teams writing software.
Not to mention how harmful it is to think that everyone who picks up FOSS is actually good at it. Thinking people as infallible is actively harmful for the end users.
> Patching folder structure is the simplest thing. If you can't do that who is going to fix actual bugs?
Incorrect folder structure is an actual bug. It might be simple to patch for the end user, but you're ignoring the maintenance burden, annoyance and cumbersomeness.
> Everyone has a pain point, everyone has a workflow, there is no One True Way.
There are paths more correct than others, some workflows are obsolete and stupid, and should't be catered to. It's wilful ignorance to ignore that.
That's why I've called it harmful - choice between your complains and people writing code is obvious. Fork it, patch it, there is no burden - if people care maintainers would switch, if switched enough patch would get in upstream. Or provide own repository with patches, that's FOSS way. If not by yourself than sponsor.
How much do you actually care? How much would you pay? Is it free as speech or free as beer?
Without the rest of the context and no, criticism is not harmful. If it is a "sin" like you say, should we look at things you've said about FOSS projects?
> Fork it, patch it, there is no burden
Either you're delusional or you haven't done either of the things.
> if people care maintainers would switch, if switched enough patch would get in upstream or provide own repository with patches, that's FOSS way.
Yeah, and it'll take the next decade, being optimistic. GPU acceleration in Chromium and Firefox on Linux is a perfect example how absolute shit that "way" is.
> How much do you actually care? How much would you pay? Is it free as speech or free as beer?
Feel free (as in freedom) to just type out your arguments instead of asking rhetorical questions.
Question was not rhetorical - it is realization of freedom 1. You answer implies there is a fork with GPU acceleration and no one cares (or does not answer my post). Ah, "criticism is not harmful":
No, I won't pay to devs that ignore conventions. That's like having someone take a s* on my porch and me paying them for not doing so. Plus, demanding payment is the thing not really in the spirit for FOSS.
> Ah, "criticism is not harmful":
That's just naming, without listing the reason. In addition to that, I listed projects, not people. Shows that you've totally missed the point of the original list.
This is not yours software, you are just allowed to use it, that's you who are taking other peoples software on your porch (and naming it s*). No one demands, ever heard of bounty, sponsorship? Do not want to support original developers - fine, 3rd party.
Out of principle I can implement XDG Base for ssh client. Just like my work - implementing features I am not that interested in, providing support. I hardly believe any reasonable man expects complains to work in that case. So how much would you pay?
Your account may be group of people (and may be not). Project may be group of people (and may be not). Shows that you've totally missed the point.
> This is not yours software, you are just allowed to use it,
Oh but keep in mind in some cases I'm not given a choice. If I could not use snap for example, I would not. But it was forced upon me. So I have every right to be annoyed at someone figuratively taking a shit on my porch.
Anyways this discussion has depleted itself, you have no good arguments protecting that nonstandard behaviour.
If world does not match your view it may be you who is outlier. I quite like current convention - hidden files in $HOME belong to applications. There is value in $XDG_CACHE_HOME - it can be safely removed (like /var/cache).
You force your view on open source community, that is rather bad.