Hacker News Reader

Comment by 0x38B | Hacker News Reader

koderski on the details (1):

> There are not so much low-level details, really. I got a bunch of reports ("game is crashing when I have geologists, here are logs/versions/cores"), I send out huge binaries with debug symbols with them, got a core back that pointed exactly to the problem.

> Fixed that and added a debug log there to just make sure it worked well, and after reviewing unrelated reports from windows I found that it would hit these players too, they just didn't report that.

What stood out to me is that the Windows players often encountered the same bugs, but didn't report them, or were vague to the point of uselessness (e.g. "Game crashes after a couple hours"), in contrast to players on Linux.

1: https://old.reddit.com/r/gamedev/comments/qeqn3b/despite_hav...

---

Perhaps a more descriptive title would be that "Linux players are 6x more likely to report bugs than Windows players" or something of that nature.

View on HN

Or "Linux users are mostly developers and thus are more capable of filing good bug reports."

or “more vocal” / more inclined to “burn/invest/spend/waste” time tinkering

I would also add that that the FOSS bug report experience is in some ways better.

And in FOSS, reporting a bug is more worth it since without a QA department it probably won't be fixed unless it's reported.

Definitely! Case in point, I reported a bug in the iOS ePub reader I was using (crashing on the iOS beta I was running), and the developer responded to say they were working on it.

Contrast that with the little bugs I’ve reported to Apple; they’ve not been fixed, and I don’t know if they ever will be. It’s disheartening and has undermined my trust in my phone’s OS and the company behind it.

What I know from years of dealing with customers is that listening to their problems and acknowledging them, even if you can’t fix anything, works wonders (1).

I once talked with a man who’d been utterly let down by our phone system as he waited outside to get his groceries: we’d told him he could come in early as we had his order done, but the system didn’t know that. When I went outside he was super frustrated, and rightly so. I heard him out and acknowledged that we’d dropped the ball, then asked him if he still wanted his groceries. It’s amazing how just being willing to listen can turn a situation from one where no one is happy to one that you can laugh about together (at how stupid software can be!).

1: part of listening and acknowledging is becoming the customer’s advocate and elevating as needed; this was something I did. Sometimes the answer was still “we can’t help”, but seeing that you did your best might be all they need.

It's sad that bug reports are considered a developer thing instead of a user/power user thing. I think the big issue is that most people have no idea how anything actually works. They aren't really users. At least not like users of old. They are just consumers that don't use the OS, just consume it.

It’s not sad at all. Modern life is complex and we all know some stuff more than others.

Should doctors think it’s sad when you don’t know enough about your body to self diagnose?

What about legal disputes? You are a power user of society and you still need to hire a lawyer to navigate its laws?

100% this. Also, I have been making software for over 30 years. There was never a time in my life when end users were more competent and understood the systems better. In fact, for baseline technical literacy, you really can't beat Gen Z. They are by far the most technical generation of users I have seen.

Can you expand on the last point from experience? My gut reaction is to disagree, thinking about the level of familiarity required to adopt and deeply leverage an early 80s PC vs a modern smartphone. Do you mean higher average level of google-fu? Do you mean lower likelihood of collecting an egregious number of viruses?

Complete opposite of my experience. What field are you working in today? They know their way around apps, might know how to side load, but other than that have no deeper understanding of how things work under the hood, nor the desire to find out, because the phone itself usually works well enough and doesn't completely roll over every couple months like Win9x did back in the day. There is absolutely no incentive nowadays to dig into this for people other than tech enthusiasts. Their knowledge about computers is often close to non-existent, to the point where they get visibly confused by more involved user interfaces of professional software.

> for baseline technical literacy, you really can't beat Gen Z

I disagree pretty strongly with this. I think Millennials were kind of the sweet spot in technical literacy. They grew up in a time when they still needed to understand computers, and tinkered around with them a lot out of necessity (computer viruses all the time, Napster/Limewire, etc..). They also saw the start of the internet and cell phones becoming ubiquitous, which provided a lot of forced-learning opportunities.

Gen Z'ers, in my experience, have had almost no computer experience. They are great at using the apps on their phones, but phones have become so polished and easy from an end user perspective that they haven't done any tinkering. They've often never downloaded an mp3 file, torrent, fixed internet issues, etc.. because things just work now. Obviously there are exceptions to this, and really technical Gen Z'ers (like with every generation). But in my experience, that isn't the norm.

Exactly my experience as well. Gen Z are super good at "finding an app for that" or showing you how to do something on your phone, but give them a mouse and keyboard and many start to resemble Boomers. (Of course there are tons of exceptions, this is generational lumping after all).

The hacker mindset just doesn't seem to be present in Gen Z like it was for Millenials and some Gen Xers. We took crap apart as kids to see how it worked, and we could still. Now things are so integrated and miniaturized, it's much harder to do that.

Add on top of that how Gen Z is almost all iPhone users and actually looks down on Android (the platform where you can dig in if you want to), it's no wonder the default is only an inch deep. Their tech providers and advisors have been telling them their whole lives how scary the world outside of the walled garden is and putting technical controls in their way to prevent them should they decide they want to.

We absolutely could have had the Gen Z that is more technical than Millenials, but we ruined it. It's not their fault, any generation raised like them would have been the same way.

Side note: If you're a Gen Z hacker (of which I've known a few and they are super impressive), I consider you a gentleperson and a scholar.

> phones have become so polished and easy from an end user perspective that they haven't done any tinkering

I don’t get the complaint, as a dev myself. Everything being easy and just working is what we intended for. The future! It’s here.

> Everything being easy and just working is what we intended

The problem being that if it doesn't just work, people just shut down.

To me it's almost a double edged sword. If I have to make something work, I learn about how it works, and I can solve problems if they happen.

If it just works, it's magic, and I have no idea why the magic stopped.

I wasn't raising a complaint. Just an observation and a side effect. I love that my phone just works! But that doesn't mean a phone that just works is the best way to learn about how phone's work.

Well, yes, but that wasn't the point. It's not a complaint, just disagreeing with the premise of Gen Z being the most technologically competent.

The difference between a tool and a mere appliance is whether you can make it do unplanned things. Whether it offers a payoff for being smart.

Yes, it's nice that everything is easy and just works. But now we can't even look under the hood on phones to tweak things.

I have a grandma and I absolutely think Apple has done the right thing with the so-called “walled-garden” aka App Store and the lack of tweaking ability/a terminal/root access. Tech-literate people like us drastically underestimate the harm scams have (and would have if tweaking was allowed) on people. I am in college, and Gen Z is scared to install anything on their Windows laptops. Except they do anyway when a scammer tricks them. They are in a hurry and they need to do this specific thing. install_more_ram.exe, bam. Pay $X to unlock your hard disk.

Don’t get me wrong, it also hurts me that I need to install an app to ssh to my server on my iPhone. Or when I can’t have a long-running process in the background. Or when I can’t automate things with shell scripts. It really does hurt. But this appliance form is really how things should be, at least until the day each and every user understands their devices, a day which will never come. Because why? They are tools. They are a means to a real life end. It’s a waste of human time to make everyone “tech-literate”. Users should not have control over their devices, because social engineering and scams will always be a thing. No matter how many “DON’T ENABLE THIS UNLESS YOU ARE A SOFTWARE ENGINEER” warnings you put grandmas will continue to be scammed.

Then what can let me have a native shell with root access on my iPhone, without jailbreaking? I don’t know, maybe a small on-device software knowledge exam to prove you are a software developer and understand what you are doing by Apple? Separately sold root access enabled devices for devs? Putting a big red warning in front of the root access “IF YOU ARE NOT A SOFTWARE ENG. YOU ARE %100 BEING SCAMMED RIGHT NOW” which is read by TTS ten times until one can dismiss it?

Or just get the Linux on mobile to feature parity with iOS and we won’t be beholden to corporations. Not saying it’s easy obviously. Still I’d like to see one organized FOSS mobile Linux project instead of a hundred desktop and a dozen mobile distros going on at the moment. OS lacks organization. Enormous amounts of available skilled human time wasted. Sad.

Thanks for coming to my TED Talk.

Interesting. I used to think along the lines of most of the other responders, but seeing the ritualized nature of the response I'm starting to think this is our generation's "you don't know how to use a band saw".

If someone said "Millenials are the best generation of band saw users this world has ever seen" I would completely expect the resounding response to be something along the lines of "..uh.. what?". There isn't anything ritualistic about that.

In other words, there is a big difference between disagreeing with a statement that doesn't match what you've observed in reality at all, and being entrenched in your ways and insisting that the rising generation isn't "up to snuff". I don't see anyone dunking on Gen Z or insisting that they get their act together because they didn't have as many opportunities to dig into computers growing up.

I think there is a real argument to be made that nobody will ever need to be technically savvy again if AGI ever becomes a reality.

Edit: Gonna plug the book Scythe if anyone wants a fun read about an AGI run future that isn't the typical "evil AI" trope.

The difference in examples here is scope; you'd probably raise an eyebrow if the band saw thing was followed by 'millennials are bad at building things'. They might be more likely to use a 3d printer than a lathe but that wouldnt lead to being bad at the category.

And thats what I think I'm seeing here, inexperience with what we consider to be technology basics being extrapolated to 'bad at technology'.

I think the argument you hint at could be interesting and have merit but to tie it back to this comment chain; I don't see any evidence of it here.

in both of your examples it's still undoubtedly better to be educated on the topic. A person with medical or legal knowledge can advocate on their own behalf.

So, swinging this metaphor back to where it came from -- yes, it's not unsurprising that ignorance is the norm, but we must advocate for great enough personal education so as to empower the non-professionals. Bug-reporting is ultimately a user-empowering experience, designed to facilitate the user and make their tools better. This improvement feedback loop isn't developer-only, nor can it ever be; thus all of the reporting tools that are now common-place for the users.

Actually I think yes, to a certain degree a mature person should be able to self diagnose and navigate basic laws. And of course, know enough to know your limits, when it is the point to go see an expert.

> Should doctors think it’s sad when you don’t know enough about your body to self diagnose?

Well one of the takeaways was that Windows users often didn't even report crashes in the first place, or have completely generic descriptions that didn't help at all. So a better analogy would be:

Should doctors think it's sad when you ignore some part of your body acting up, or you suddenly passing out during the day out of nowhere? Or, if you do go to the doctor, all you say is "doctor I'm sick"?

I think they should.

Pattern recognition is a critical skill for good bug reports, and for software developers. Not surprising that there's a lot of overlap, and that people who aren't developers may not have honed that skill when it comes to computers.

> doctor I'm sick

Misinformation is more costly than no information. Disinformation is actually more informative!

Windows suddenly passing out in middle of the day is normal windows behavior though.

Windows is so broken that Windows users just assume that that's how all software is. No amount of complaining or bug reporting will ever get Microsoft to fix a problem, so why bother at all?

I'm not even kidding, this is what software has become for the common layperson.

2000 called and it wants its meme back.

Modern Windows is pretty resilient. I've had a Windows 10 install going for three years that hasn't BSODed, force-rebooted, or otherwise hung.

Also call me when Linux gets proper HDR and HIDPI support. The first 'Retina'-class Windows laptops were released in 2013, ten years ago.

Call me when Windows gets proper HIDPI support lmao.

As for HDR, that's here or coming in the next couple months.

> Call me when Windows gets proper HIDPI support lmao.

Has been here for nearly a decade now. It's pretty straightforward, and even Win32 programs can be made DPI-aware[1].

[1]: https://building.enlyze.com/posts/writing-win32-apps-like-it...

Try setting the DPI on one screen to 125%. This is the default setting my computer came with out of the box.

Windows can't handle this, and will render blurry text in system dialogs.

Call me when Windows figures out how to render text /eyeroll

I already have 125% on my 1080p 15.6-inch laptop display.

> Windows can't handle this, and will render blurry text in system dialogs.

Fix:

    reg add "HKCU\Software\Microsoft\Windows NT\CurrentVersion\AppCompatFlags\Layers" /v "C:\Windows\System32\mmc.exe" /f /t REG_SZ /d "~ HIGHDPIAWARE"

Nearly all system dialogues use mmc.exe, so this should fix your issue.

Add Ubuntu to it

No, but people are expected to know when they need to go to a doctor - i.e. they spot the bug, then the doctor debugs.

But in software, it’s more like “they spot the bug, the doctor says ‘ok, we’ve forwarded your feedback to our product team,’ and they never hear another thing.”

Maybe that a reason why Linux users are more likely to report bugs? At last with issue trackers for most open source projects (and Linux users use a lot more open source) you know whether developers have any response, there is often discussion, and you know when a fix happens in response to your bug because it gets closed as fixed, often with a link to the commit that fixes it.

A lot more motivating than not really getting any response.

> aren't really users

Gatekeeping being a real developer wasn’t bad enough, we’re gatekeeping being a user now?

I’ve worked with plenty of developers who would have no idea how to generate a core dump, never mind users. Let’s calm down a bit.

Its not gate keeping its an observation on the usage patterns of users.

In the early days of computing most users had strong technical skills (shocker), over time the commercialisation of technology and its entrance into everyday life has shifted the amount of users who can even start to understand how their software/hardware works. In contrast Linux is still a very technical OS to use, even installing ubuntu requires a certain __type__ of user, so the amount of Linux users who are capable of understanding their computer is much higher.

Of course it’s gatekeeping. The point about how technical users used to be may or may not have any truth to it, but that’s orthogonal to whether saying people who can’t take core dumps are not users.

If you’re saying that not meeting some bar makes you not a member of a group, that’s gatekeeping.

> They are just consumers that don't use the OS, just consume it.

Not really a developer thing but some cursory understanding of software and it’s lifecycle thing

Bug reports are a developer thing because they are also the ones at the receiving end. It means that they know from experience what is useful and what is not.

Or maybe if you are QA, in this case, filing proper bug reports is literally your job.

But "regular" power users who have no experience in development work (I actually mean work, not just knowing how to code) simply may not have the skills, because yes, writing bug reports is a skill, the kind of skill that takes actual learning and practice, that not that many people have, and that can get you a job if you are good enough at it.

> Bug reports are a developer thing because they are also the ones at the receiving end

From my time working in shared platform technologies and open source I beg to differ. The fact that someone is a developer does not mean they'll make a quality bug report. There's probably something else about Linux that makes the self-selection clearer or increases the ease of generating quality bug reports.

Having a deep technical understanding (which is likely due to using Linux) is a prerequisite for good bug reports.

I think a part is also motivation - there aren't many devs that care to support Linux so when someone does provide a Linux version I am more inclined to help out in making it work.

The other part is culture. Linux users are used to having access to bug trackers where they can get responses from actual developers of the software in question. Not that this means you will always get your issue fixed or are even guaranteed a response but IMO the experience is much better than having to dig through a help desk that only answers trivial things that any competent user can figure out on their own before being allowed to interact with a corporate support drone who can't do anything except repeat scripted answers. The latter is just so demotivating that if you have go through it enough end up not bothering in the future even if some developers might have better systems in place.

Being used to having access to developers also encourages you to make good bug reports because those will often get you a fix quickly. E.g. I have had cases where it took only a few hours from a bug report with a game trace reproducing the issue to a working graphics driver patch.

Lastly, actual bug trackers - as opposed to bug black holes like support systems where you don't see other people's reports or bug report forums that quikcly become a mess of already resolved issues and duplicates - provide an opportunity for the users (especially powerusers) to help each other out by sharing details to narrow down the bug as well as workarounds. All of that also makes the bug reports more useful for any dev looking at fixing the issue.

Do you think you could file a bug report about the mistimed light signals at an intersection between a highway frontage road and a commuter rail crossing?

Would you include the time and date? The names of the roads? The sequence that the lights follow? The length of time of each signal? The max length of cars at each signal during the sequence? Generally attempting to provide what the person who might receive such a bug report would need?

Tell me, what qualities are actually required to communicate the details of a system deemed to be operating incorrectly? Perhaps empathy, gumption and intelligence, that is, qualities that are not limited to those experienced with moving Jira tickets to the right?

All those qualities are indicative of a detail oriented mind that have the ability to imagine more than just their immediate desire and actions.

These qualities are what you would consider to be "technical understanding". Most people don't have these qualities, unfortunately. Not because they aren't _capable_ of obtaining them, but because they don't care to want to.

I’m a developer and I’m happy if I have a vague idea of how the software I work on functions. I admit that for almost everything I have no idea hier it works.

Users should just use the software. I wouldn't expect the typical user to know about or interact with the internals, much less understand them.

Good bug reports requires at least some understanding of how software works. I'd consider those to be power users.

To over-generalize, Linux users are by necessity power users. When you interact with the internals of your operating system regularly, you get a better sense of how software in general works. Particularly when things go wrong. You have to know how to find and read log files to use Linux. IMO, it's inevitable that Linux users give better bug reports because that's a large part of what it's like to use Linux.

For what it's worth, I've found (mostly non-dev) customers of one of my e-commerce businesses to be pretty good at filing "bug reports" when they receive faulty (or "faulty") hardware.

About 50% of the time a complaint will be accompanied by the steps they performed, what they saw and what they expected to see. Often there'll be photos too, and enough information to diagnose remotely.

I think the difference with bug reports for commercial software is that it's invariably unacknowledged and unactioned by the developers. Why would you take the time to write out a clean report when the reasonable expectation is that it's ignored?

I'm a customer. If you want detailed bug reports, speak to your qa staff.

Thank you! Try telling Slack that. Report a bug, and they get back to you asking you to change this and that, try again, take a screen recording, blah blah blah - No! I've pointed out to you where there's an issue, described it, have your QA team attempt a reproduction, maybe get back to me if they can't and I'll be more willing, but why do they think I would have time for or care to do their QA, especially when in all likelihood I am a user via my own work.

Unfortunately I know a lot of devs who file garbage bug reports as well. It’s a smaller ratio than the general public, but it’s far from zero.

And/or "Linux users are less likely to have a bug fixed, unless they submit a bug report"

It seems obvious when you think of the numbers. When you have 100 users, 1% of them has to report a bug for it to get fixed. When you have 100k users, .0001% have to report a bug for it to get fixed.

Except many bugs are cross-platform so the probability that it will be fixed is the same for both groups.

Windows will do that "Generating a report to send..." thing which gives the impression it's already taken care of.

The author considers the bug reporting to be a benefit, it's a contrast from this post last month "One game, by one man, on six platforms: The good, the bad and the ugly" [0].

> The Ugly

> Linux accounts for less than 1% of the total players, so from a business perspective, it is not worth it. And the platform has the highest percentage of players who run into platform-specific issues - the time used for customer support only makes the economy worse. Also, I don’t own a Steam Deck, so adding support is not always easy: Valve does not provide a SteamOS image to test. So Steam Deck-specific code (like controller support, starting the game in full-screen, making the UI bigger, etc) is not tested end-to-end. I’ve used HoloISO with limited success.

> TL;DR: Even worse economy than Mac but less annoyance perhaps

[0]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37862606

I believe Valve is working on a SteamOS 3 image for general purpose PCs and confirmed it publicly, but we don’t know the release date.

This is great news, have to say i love they keep taking whacks at it.

Just remember its not out of altruism. It's very beneficial to Valve to be able to eliminate their Windows dependency. I will say, it is good when incentives align for the benefit of the consumer.

That’s the point of markets.

Three ways to get someone to do something:

* make them love you

* pay them

* make them fear you

Markets incentivize behavior that would otherwise require altruism or fear.

I don't think many people expect companies to do things out of altruism, but, as you say, we are happy when our interests and theirs align.

> Just remember its not out of altruism.

I’ve always been curious what point is being made when people say this. Care to expand on it?

At least in my case, the point being made when I say "Just remember it's not out of altruism" is to remember that it's not out of altruism.

Why is it important to be reminded of that?

If it's based on Arch (insane rolling release crap idea) then I won't be using it.

Of course it will be, that's what the Decks run now. They don't update in the same way or pace as regular Arch, though. pacman is basically disabled. You're encouraged to do everything through flatpak and appimage, and then the occasional blessed system update comes through for the other parts.

I've been using Gentoo Linux (which is also a rolling-release distro) since the early 2000s (maybe 2002?).

Even taking into account the libpng upgrade disaster in the early-to-mid 2000s, it's the most sane, most stable, least-trouble-free distro I've used.

I've wanted to find some other good distro, but all the ones I've tried either

a) Only ship ancient packages in their official repositories, requiring me to go to unofficial sources to get oh so many up-to-date versions of things.

b) Inevitably do something pants-on-head retarded as part of normal operation (nearly always during upgrades) and require me to bust out my Linux sysadmin skills to unwedge the system

or (sometimes) both "a)" and "b)".

You don't like rolling-release distros? That's fine, more power to you. They've been working fine for me for (oh dear god, I'm so old) ~20 years.

Gentoo stable (aka not ~arch) might be rolling release but can also be surprisingly conservative, often getting new versions even after Debian stable.

Gentoo testing (aka ~arch) does come with occasional surprises (although most common is some package update failing to build) but still worth it compared to having to deal with big updates or even reinstalls.

Yeah, agreed on both counts.

I run testing on my desktop, and stable-with-some-exceptions on my servers and router.

For the past couple of decades, I've been periodically looking for other equally-no-surprises distros so that I can stop burning so much power on building from source, and, man, I don't think I'm ever going to find one.

Using a non rolling release distro as a desktop makes 0 sense. You're holding off on upgrades, forcing 1 gigantic upgrade at once that will never be tested. Do you have a dev or staging environment for your desktop upgrades? Why not do small incremental updates all the time?

It's almost self defeating. Seems like developing games for linux is harder.

less people play games on it, so it get's less dev attention.. so quality suffers.. so less people play games on it.

I'm not blaming game devs, linux devs or users for this nor am i blaming Microsoft etc.

It just is. Efforts like Wine and Steamdeck go above and beyond to maybe changing this.

> Seems like developing games for linux is harder.

This is not because of some property of Linux, but mostly because of game developers' unfamiliarity with it. Sure there's some issues with window servers but if you're building a game using any mainstream engine or even simpler frameworks like SDL that shouldn't be much of an actual issue.

> It's almost self defeating. Seems like developing games for linux is harder.

Except that the parent's point is refuted by the OP's article (that brought us all here to discuss):

"Do you know how many of these 400 bug reports were actually platform-specific? 3. Literally only 3 things were problems that came out just on Linux."

Developing ANY user-facing application for Linux is harder. Linus himself explained why.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pzl1B7nB9Kc

TLDW: Linus speaking in 2014, lamenting that there isn't binary compatibility between distros, or even between major releases of a given distro.

This was before the Snap project though. (Somewhat related: I hadn't realised until today that Snap isn't fully Free and Open Source.)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snap_(software)

Snap is yet another Canonical NIH copy of others' solutions. There's already Flatpak as well as AppImage or just-ship-your-damned-dependencies before that. Lack of binary compatibily of random libs shipped by the distros is not a real problem in practice - base libraries (libc, opengl/vulkan, libasound/pulse) etc all have backwards compatible interfaces and the rest you can and should just include with your binaries. This has been known as far back as Loki back at the start of the millenium but somehow there are still people spreading FUD.

From talking with some indie devs, the worst platform is Mac, the rest depends on one's preferences and experience - some people feel more comfortable on linux.

I don't think that they should release for a platform they can't test.

So no one should release on linux? Because no one can test every linux distribution.

There's a difference between

- marking it as officially supported and asking the full price when it has never been run on a special hardware device running a custom OS (the steam deck that the person you're responding to mentioned)

and

- saying "we've tried on Ubuntu 24.04 default install with AMD drivers as well as Fedora 82, but ymmv obviously we know you love to tweak your setups just like us <3"

They probably never said they explicitely support steam deck. It's probably steam deck users that are interested in it, and valve doesn't provide a testing platform.

Sounds like the difference is whether it's about platform-specific issues.

> Do you know how many of these 400 bug reports were actually platform-specific? 3. Literally only 3 things were problems that came out just on Linux. The rest of them were affecting everyone

> And the platform has the highest percentage of players who run into platform-specific issues - the time used for customer support only makes the economy worse.

Also:

Wouldn't surprise me if a lot of the unreported bugs were Windows-specific and they're just not seeing reports of them, or not managing to find the cause because the reports are so nonspecific.

> And the platform has the highest percentage of players who run into platform-specific issues

Except that in the case of the OP's posted article, their Linux bugs were few:

"Do you know how many of these 400 bug reports were actually platform-specific? 3. Literally only 3 things were problems that came out just on Linux."

One is built with webgl and typescript, the other with Godot.

It shouldn't surprise anyone that a tech built for a specific purpose (video games) with Linux as the first class platform, performs better and is more stable than arguably the second most complicated piece of software engineering the humanity has ever devised - the browser.

The more complicated your stack is, the more problems you will have. The Linux specific bugs also tend to increase (and become nigh unsolvable) with Unity. Godot is much leaner, and tends to wield this fact as its strength. As an unrelated example, there are multiple community plugins for implementing different physics engines in Godot, when such a thing is an exercise in frustration in Unity or Unreal, for varying reasons.

> The author considers the bug reporting to be a benefit, it's a contrast from this post last month

>> Linux accounts for less than 1% of the total players, so from a business perspective, it is not worth it.

These actually don't need to contradict. The current post specifically suggests that at a cursory glance it looks like a bad decision to support linux users and instead triage those bugs but that in reality the bugs they report are more universal. We can call this a colloquial paradox because the simple reasonable assumption is in direct opposition to the nuanced one.

Let's call it Koderski's paradox since that's the Reddit user's name.

> Let's call it Koderski's paradox since that's the Reddit user's name.

I'm in favor of this name.

Now we just gotta make a wikipedia article lol

Windows users have been sending crash reports for decades and nothing happened.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com