People who rely on rsync want some kind of clear path forward, the option to use something similar in quality to the older versions.
That’s literally what forking it is for.
The guy built the bridge 20 years ago. It became a mainline thoroughfare for the entire city, and he maintained it for free. Now he’s automating it and people don’t like that. They can build their own bridges, or use the one he maintains and either contribute to the project or stop complaining about it not being up to their standards. It’s a free bridge.
Oh you’re right, you were just piggybacking on another commenter who said this:
An analogy, which is not 100% accurate, which I used to explain it to other people is, "it is not very different from a carpenter telling you, ‘the wood is here, the tools also, you can do it yourself it you didn’t like what I did’.
By saying this:
People are concerned. “My cousin fell through a trap door on the bridge yesterday!” But the carpenter is clear: “Go build your own bridge, then.”
On a post about someone comparing open-source devs making controversial decisions to pissing in free soup
That totally doesn’t add up to complaining about the quality of the open source software! Nope, you definitely have plausible deniability there, because subtext isn’t real! Duh, what was I thinking? /s
That’s literally what forking it is for.
The guy built the bridge 20 years ago. It became a mainline thoroughfare for the entire city, and he maintained it for free. Now he’s automating it and people don’t like that. They can build their own bridges, or use the one he maintains and either contribute to the project or stop complaining about it not being up to their standards. It’s a free bridge.
You’re looking in the mouth of a gift horse.
Show me.
What? Do you not know what the expression means?
The guy maintains it for free. It’s a gift horse. You’re complaining about the quality. That’s looking the horse in the mouth.
If you don’t want this horse, find a different one or breed your own.
Show me.
Oh you’re right, you were just piggybacking on another commenter who said this:
By saying this:
On a post about someone comparing open-source devs making controversial decisions to pissing in free soup
That totally doesn’t add up to complaining about the quality of the open source software! Nope, you definitely have plausible deniability there, because subtext isn’t real! Duh, what was I thinking? /s
I can’t afford a horse! I was supposed to ride for free! Where am I gonna get a stable?!
That sucks, but open-source devs don’t have to pay for your hardware. A free horse doesn’t come with a free barn.
And if you don’t like the horse they’re offering you for free, you can either find a different horse or walk on your own two feet.