I hear more complaints about Windows from Windows users than from people who solely or primarily use other OSes. Unless you count “Okay… so why don’t you do something about it?” as a complaint, that is.

I think that makes you “the guy who really likes to talk about Linux.”

16 GB of RAM, though? Is it even optimized for the Ryzen 9950X3D?

And a 4 TB SSD - not even necessarily NVME?

Doesn’t seem high powered to me.

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.

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.