The entitlement in this thread is astounding. Don't like how the project is maintained? Fork it. If you don't have anything nice to say to the person who gave you the code _for free_, then just don't say anything at all.
If upstream vanishes, your fork is still around.
If upstream doesn't want to merge, people can use your fork instead. And, if your changes are that much better, eventually make it the de-facto standard version of the project.
They won't contribute or work on something unless it touches their commit calendar?
I'm kind of…
I guess that's not really a use case I'm concerned with, contribution-wise.
But who knows! Maybe most of open source work is done for personal vanity.
The beauty of open source code is you can take it, modify it, and even improve and rename it in a lot of cases.
So much of today's internet has to be a fight or a shitstorm. For no reason at all.
https://github.com/actix/actix-web
Edit: I was not aware he moved it under his personal github account and it’s still accessible. Nonetheless, I still think removing it is a bit extreme.
A proper way of handling this would have been to abandon the project and let someone else pick it up. My understanding is that he did move the source code under his own git user, so hopefully he’ll allow someone else to pick it and maintain.
Not a problem. Just fork it and put in the work to maintain it. The license grants anyonr that right. What stops anyone from doing it?
If that's too much to ask then perhaps it should put into perspective how project maintainers are abused.
It's true I think everyone should do what I do which is to fork anything I think I might need at some point , but that isn't what you actually suggested and it isn't what the parent comment was observing could be a problem for people.
> P.S. I moved actix-net and actix-web project to my personal github account.
So he's transferred it to:
https://github.com/fafhrd91/actix-web
Feel free to fork, take a copy, start a new repo. The project is dual Apache/MIT licensed so feel free to do whatever you want within its very liberal scope.
What you're not entitled to do is demand anything from the author or to take up any of his time. Take his code, but don't demand anything else from him.
> Nowadays supporting actix project is not fun, and be part of rust community is not fun as well.
> I am done with open source.
He's over the abuse and entitlement his received over the project and obviously doesn't want to spend any more of his time on it.
It's not hard to find: https://github.com/fafhrd91/actix-web
> so hopefully he’ll allow someone else to pick it and maintain.
It uses the both the Apache and MIT licenses, each of which clearly allows redistribution of derivative works. It will be interesting to see if anyone (much less the abusive people) are willing to put their money where their mouths are about it.
I think he's being very gracious, all things considered.
The difference here is that a code consumer can check a Rust project for unsafe code, whereas a food consumer cannot check for unsafe contaminants.
From what I can tell, actix was using unsafe code to improve benchmark performance, not because safe code was extra work. That's fine, but it was misleadingly marketed as more than a toy project, and it shouldn't have been.
Further, rewriting a project is very different from just making different coding decisions when maintaining an existing project.
I still think the actix critics are showing how irresponsible they are for blindly using a library without researching it well.
Its common knowledge that a certain amount of food contamination is considered safe. And, although specifics are not generally common knowledge, it's easy enough to find that, e.g., the FDA views < 100 ppb of lead in candy as safe.
I don't think hyperbole is helpful to this conversation.
>I'm sorry, but I think you're being disingenuous. Every little kid knows there's some small amount of nasty stuff that's allowed in things like bread (grasshoppers in the wheat fields caught in the combines) and peanut butter because it's such a small amount of contamination and doesn't pose a health risk.
>Please don't be disingenuous in your arguments. It only serves to exacerbate the polarization over contentious issues.
At least he tried to answer in a good faith. Your answer is a lot worse.
Not sure why you're upset at me for calling it out.
> THE SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED "AS IS", WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO THE WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY, FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE AND NONINFRINGEMENT. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE AUTHORS OR COPYRIGHT HOLDERS BE LIABLE FOR ANY CLAIM, DAMAGES OR OTHER LIABILITY, WHETHER IN AN ACTION OF CONTRACT, TORT OR OTHERWISE, ARISING FROM, OUT OF OR IN CONNECTION WITH THE SOFTWARE OR THE USE OR OTHER DEALINGS IN THE SOFTWARE.
So if some random person on the side of the street gave away browny, and had a sign like that, I'd do a bit of personal investigating first before eating it, like looking at the ingredients, asking for expiry, and all that. Which you can do for open source software, by just looking at the source code.