Discussion deleted

[lopiuh]

Hi,

I couldn’t reach you via email, sorry. Could you tell me why my discussion about alien packages from other distros was deleted?

Link: https://github.com/orgs/gobolinux/discussions/62

Thanks,
lopiuh (email deleted)

edit: 22.12.25: I am very sad how this thread developped and I hope I am not banned forever. I apologize for throwing AI-text to you and in thinking that would be a good idea. I wish you and all gobousers a happy christmas and hopefully one day I will contribute to gobolinux as an "actual user". I will find some time and install the distro. So long thank you for your patience and on my side no angry feelings - yes I learned something from this thread. lopiuh

[nuc1eon]

Cannot access your discussion now, but I suppose you've posted something to the wrong place.

Maybe @mwh could give more insight into the reasons, so that you do not repeat the same mistake.

Best regards.

[lopiuh]

@mwh Would you mind to comment, if I should repost the deleted topic or if you know a reason why it got removed?

Thanks

lopiuh

[mwh]

It's hard to imagine that pasting in nonsense slop would be more valuable the second time around.

[lopiuh]

Hi @mwh,

I really don’t want to annoy anyone here — quite the opposite. I’ve found GoboLinux genuinely interesting for years, and I keep coming back regularly because the ideas resonate with me. I can even imagine contributing at some point.

I’d also like to actually use GoboLinux as a daily system, but for that I realistically need better access to packages without having to compile for days. That’s why I brought the topic up again: not to stir drama, but because I think it’s a practical blocker for broader adoption and for potential contributors/users like me.

To clarify: I wrote the post myself; I only used AI assistance for English phrasing/structure (and I disclosed that) because I’m not a native speaker. I tried to keep it technical and grounded, not low-effort.

If this “use binaries from other distros via an isolated /Programs + wrapper/sandbox/sysroot approach” direction is considered out of scope, that’s totally fine — I’m just asking for the reasoning and, if possible, a pointer to any earlier discussion or documentation. Since the thread was on a different place (forum, which does not exist anymore (?)), I can’t find the context anymore.

Also, your wording came across quite harsh to me (though thanks for replying), and it honestly discouraged me a bit from engaging further. I’m not saying this to argue — just to share the impact it had on my side. I’m here in good faith, and I’d like to keep the conversation constructive. I genuinely like GoboLinux and hope it remains a welcoming place for constructive discussion going forward — even when new users bring unconventional ideas. :-/

Thanks,
lopiuh

[nuc1eon]

To clarify: I wrote the post myself; I only used AI assistance for English phrasing/structure (and I disclosed that) because I’m not a native speaker. I tried to keep it technical and grounded, not low-effort.

I have now looked at the original post as it landed in my email notifications.

You've literally dumped an 'AI' response. You didn't write any of it yourself (apart of the prompt). How can you even claim now, that you have only used it for translation?

Please stick to the truth and refrain from posting stuff that wasn't derived from your own actual thinking.

EDIT: Also first warning from my side, if you continue spreading information contrary to what actually happened I might restrict you.

[lopiuh]

Hi @nuc1eon,

can we come to the technical part? Is this direction out of scope, and is there a previous thread/FAQ/decision you can link so I can read the rationale? Are you even interested in discussions with "new users". You really scare me away from the project I liked until two days before.

Thanks,
lopiuh

edit: to the "I wrote the post myself;", you are right, that was unprecise. But that does not change the fact that I did spent nearly an hour discussing and "researching" with two LLMs (gemini and gpt) about the topic. So no quick task on my side and no bad intention.

[mwh]

I think we've wasted enough of everybody's time here. There was no technical value in the original post and there is no integrity in this one.

You don't get to demand technical analyses from other people of any old thing you wrote, much less that you didn't, but here's a free one: it was rubbish. There is a Flatpak recipe in the store, though, which I'd presume you've tried and found wanting in a way that a competent engagement with the idea of containerised packages would deal with, but this didn't even attempt. It was, start to finish, devoid of intellect and substance, which is unsurprising but I'm sure is disheartening for you to hear. That there was more technical labour than this particular piece of slop merited, but perhaps you can take something useful from it for yourself.

In this very thread you've again tried to pass off text you didn't write, but had geared to manipulate, and again you've pretended you didn't when it was queried over its obvious issues. You can have all the sycophantic conversations you want with your bots, but nobody else owes you engagement and you've never once been engaging in good faith yourself.

You ask if we're even interested in discussions with "new users", but it portrays a very negative view of new users to think they're all like this. Most of them are honest curiosity-seekers who are intrigued by the novel directory and packaging structure and decided to give it a try. Sometimes they run into bumps and come up with new pathways, and sometimes those are viable and sometimes they're not, but that's something that can be engaged with in good faith with new (or old!) users. Other times they just submit a few recipes for programs they want to use and carry on with it as it is, or it turns out not to be a good fit for them and they move on, and those both are fine too.