Tell you what that Rsync thread is just a goldmine.
While I’m generally not one to complain about something I’m getting for free, and I do understand the dev wanting to make more efficient use of their time…
I don’t think people are wrong here expressing their annoyance at what was previously feature complete and stable software being vibe-code updated into a buggy mess.
… And that’s without mentioning the ethical and security issues posed by vibe-coded software.
I think we need to support the dev so they don’t need to use vibe coding. From all I see he’s overwhelmed and he doesn’t even get paid for this.
But if the chef wants oranges in the pea soup, and you don’t like that, it’s fair to say go to another soup kitchen.
Except that his idea of oranges is piss.
If it’s about AI slop pull requests, it’s more akin to a microwaved orange tbf.
Mmm warm orange juice and toothpaste!
And when everyone starts to avoid that soup kitchen, it makes the chef a dick
“Pissing in the soup” doesn’t really work here unless you’re adulterating the software with something malicious.
This was in response to rsync having horrible new bugs from vibe coding that were so bad that people thought they had malware. Does the intent matter when the end result is the same?
Holy crap I thought rsync is a super serious and professional program. Didn’t thought they ruin it with vibecodeing.
A lot of important infra depends rsync.
I believe serious one is openrsync, the openbsd fork that does NOT have vibe-coding.
Apparently the project got overwhelmed with LLM vulnerability reports, so the last person in the world who actually cared enough to keep maintaining it gave up and gave in to the spop himself.
I read that the guy is a legend and genius (I believe that because rsync is fantastic. He invented that). I trust in him knowing what he’s doing. We should give him a hand if we want it to be better.
You mean like near every program?
Unfiltered river water might be a better comparison. It’s not intentionally poisoned, but you might not want to drink it if you don’t have to.
Vibe coded software is closer to “unfiltered water collected from public toilet bowls” than “unfiltered water”. We KNOW it’s almost guaranteed to be unsanitary!
Good comparison, too.
ITT entitled people, who would never pay a single cent for rsync nor ever contribute to it, having a big mouth about it.
Also the analogy is crap. It’s free soup on somebody’s compound that anybody can walk in and take at their own accord. People walk in, take it, build a business or dependency around it, and get pissy when the recipe changes. They don’t want to take the recipe and fix it themselves, instead they demand the cook change it for them. “My customers are unhappy with the soup you make in your backyard”. The cook is well in his right to tell them to fuck off.
Agree. It seems a lot of people love open source software only because it’s free…
Note I’m not including hard core open source zealots who support the developers.
Depends if you are upfront about it or not
If you don’t like it, fuck it or fork off
Except you’re not exactly homeless, are you?
Yes. If you’re giving soup to someone who isn’t homeless, you are allowed to pee in it. It’s in UN Charter.
Except you’re not really given the soup. It’s just there for your taking, with a sign “contains piss”.
I’m just permanently surprised by the entitlement of people smh
How much free stuff did you create in your life, piss or not?
And then the restaurant down the street that doesn’t give two shits takes the soup and uses it to make their own stock and serve it to you without the warning. And when the other three restaurants and the soup kitchen see THAT restaurant taking it, they ignore the sign that says “contains piss” because surely, if that first guy was using it it can’t be that bad, and even it it is, well, they can’t get us ALL if we ALL do it, right?
This is actually a post about artificial sweeteners.
Basic decency isn’t entitlement, it’s the very much ignored minimum standard.
The AI powered bugs that have been showing up in rsync were not disclosed in advance. There was no “contains piss” sign, nor is such a practice a realistic possibility.
He also didn’t delete the old version. So there’s two soups for free, one labeled with piss and one labeled piss free.
People could take the piss free version.
I made an album you can have for free 🤷♂️
Does this mean we should take the rest of the analogy literally then?
If you can point to any part of the analogy that’s valuable, I’m happy to go along. But this post is like breaking into someone’s home and shitting on their table. There, I can analogy too.
Sorry if that upset you, I was just trying to post something funny.
Unacceptable. Into the cage with you.
He is not giving anyone piss soup. He’s leaving it on the sidewalk, you take it on your own knowing what it is.
This. It’s literally someone putting food in a container and saying: it’s here in case someone needs it.
You don’t want/need it? Don’t take it. Open source. No force feeding, just
git push --forceThere is no situation where you can make free piss soup available (outside of exclusively offering it to piss fetishists) that is morally acceptable. It’s exploitative to adulterate something offered just because “you can choose not to take it”.
even with a sign that says "i PISSED in thisn soup!!!"???
Funny, that nearly tracks for the US, except it’d need to feed said homeless first. So far, it’s just pissing on us poors. No soup.
Obligatory “No soup for you!”
I’d give up soup if the piss’d stop raining, flooding, rotting everything we’re each trying to work on. ✊🏼
The gilded shower.
I remember reading an article where the author explained why telling this is free, you can fork, or send a pull request instead of complaining is a form of ableism.
An analogy, which is not 100% accurate, which I used to explain it to ither 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’.
The point is software development is a skill. Not everyone can have that skill. It takes training and practice to be good in the craft. A user of the product does not need the skill to operate it. Never think it is okay to tell people “just fork it” or “why don’t you send a pull request instead of complaining?”.
At the same time, I completely acknowledge that there are some entitled assholes who don’t understand or care about the open source philosophy and how it works. I just wanted to point out that asking to contribute or asking to fork is not the right way to address it.
That is ridiculous.
If I want to paint apples, and you want a painting of pears, it’s not ableist for me to tell you no. It’s not ablist to iterate out your possible options for getting a pear painting either. And that’s what he’s done.
Now, the entire painting profession might be ableist in that there are certainly barriers to entry. But it’s not a single artist’s responsibility to fix painting as a whole.
My point is, if you truly think the situation with raync is ableist, help develop tools so that more people can program. Enable people to program. Don’t just shout down the guy who said “go program”. That doesn’t help.
A paraplegic can’t build a house, but can learn to code.
Sure there are people with cognitive disabilities who might not be able to do it, but you can’t expect every open source project to be completely accessible even to the most severely cognitively impaired. That’s a great way to kill the open source community.
Commerical products should absolutely be required by law to provide reasonable accessibility, because they have the resources and manpower to do so and are driven by a profit motive. Grants should be available to help smaller companies meet these requirements so they’re not disadvantaged relative to the big ones.
But using ableism to justify making excessive demands on open-source project maintainers who in many cases are doing it solo and for free as a passion project, is kind of absurd. And where does it stop? Can I post a silly little flash game on a public git repo intended as nothing more than a personal project for learning Lua scripts, and then some internet rando tells me I have to add full interpretive ASL, real-time alternative text, and optional eye-tracking controls? If that’s above my level, does that mean I can’t post my silly little flash game?
Also, ability is not the same thing as aptitude. Not knowing how to code isn’t a disability any more than not knowing how to wire a house. I can’t tell an electrician (specifically a hobbyist who works for free) that he needs to rewire my house for me just because I don’t know how to do it. I can learn home wiring, or I can pay a professional. But expecting every hobbyist to serve my needs for free just because I don’t have their skill sets would be insane.
But expecting every hobbyist to serve my needs for free just because I don’t have their skill sets would be insane.
I think this mindset shows up often on the Internet because many posters are children. It is normal for them to be given an assignment and have to complete it without compensation. So they think that’s how the world works.
I think many adults are capable of having the mentalities of children, especially when it’s effectively taboo to gently correct behavior.
Abuse is wrong and shouldn’t be tolerated, obviously, but we’ve overcorrected as a society. Teachers, parents, mentors, etc. need to have effective ways of setting ground rules without demeaning and belittling like was so common when I was growing up, or physical violence like the generations before mine experienced.
It just takes some emotional intelligence. It’s possible. Families like that exist, they’re just the exceptions rather than the rule. And people from those healthier backgrounds are by far the more well-adjusted members of society as adults.
As a disabled open source developer, it’s almost as if the universe guided me toward this horrendous take specifically to annoy me. If you’re trolling, you did a good job of it.
I like this analogy. One virtue that it has is: Obviously, not everyone can realistically learn to do their own carpentry. It requires a certain amount of time, space, opportunity, capacity for spatial reasoning, and some minimum level of able-bodiedness. None of which are universally available to everyone.
Not his problem. You didn’t pay the carpenter.
So the fact that not everyone can be a carpenter would become the carpenter’s problem, if I had paid him?
Huh?
Yes. That’s how everything works. If you don’t know how to build a shelf by yourself or don’t have the time, you pay a carpenter to do what you want.
It’s now the carpenter’s problem to make the shelf with the specifications that you gave him.
You’re so self-righteous, you’re plowing through stuff without reading what you’re responding to. This isn’t what you said before, and even your clarification makes no sense in context.
It doesn’t work, anyway. If you can’t build the shelf yourself, what compels the carpenter to make it to your specifications? Even if you paid him? Nothing.
The trouble is, you insist on framing this in terms of the carpenter’s rights. It’s an impoverished view. No one else is looking at it that way, no one is disputing his rights.
You’re so self-righteous
No need for insults.
what compels the carpenter to make it to your specifications? Even if you paid him? Nothing.
Violating a contract has penalties. Yes he can ignore it and then give your money back with the potential of being required to give extra money back because of the contract violation.
The trouble is, you insist on framing this in terms of the carpenter’s rights.
It wasn’t my analogy. I’m working with what you gave me.
disputing his rights.
Demanding he work for free is disputing his rights.
Demanding he work for free
Where is this happening?
If you pay the carpenter to make something, he should make what you asked him to.
If the carpenter makes free stuff out of his own kindness, you don’t get to complain that it isn’t exactly what you asked for.
Ugh, chicken? Give me some free steak. Chop chop!
I suspect this might be from the jqwik thing going on right now. The maintainer of that library added some anti-AI “fuck you” code to delete vibe coders’ “work”
This is rsync. The “piss” refers to AI code contributions.
AI vibed bugs.
Could also be rsync, recent vibe coding changes there broke things and maintainer is also getting pretty annoyed with the comments.
They didn’t add any code to jqwik. It was just an instruction. A string.
Does that really make a difference?
yes. normal usage works as expected
Yes? If it had been in the readme it would have worked the exact same way. It’s not code, they aren’t pissing in anything. Literally no one but an AI would have a problem with it.
This is from rsync repo.
…Regardless of the code assistant, I’m not seeing any cause for alarm in my personal usage, yet. Feature requests and issues are getting closed, even urgent security ones that shouldn’t have been posted in that manner:
https://github.com/RsyncProject/rsync/issues/871
https://github.com/RsyncProject/rsync/issues/882
Seems like business as usual:
https://social.treehouse.systems/@thesamesam/116662824873341085
One thing I will say on rsync is that regressions aren’t new with it. It does something hard: it has to deal with symlinks. Releases have often had regressions for a long time, especially for security fixes, and it long predates LLMs, because symlinks are hard. Of course seeing a gazillion Claude commits still makes me uncomfortable, but it’s important to see what’s new as well.
So the devs are now split in two camps, one that “use whatever means for your goal” and one is “fuck AI and everyone who thinks its a great thing”
I am torn
Unsure if they’re talking about rsync introducing AI code and breaking. Or that dev that introduced code that broke systems using AI.
deleted by creator
