Doesn't matter if they did it by hand or with AI.
I was syncing photos from my phone.
Also related: I'm using LLM assistance to write it, but I also have a test suite that proves it's working (I call it the "shotgun" suite: given a good image file, it first flips a random bit ("sniper"), then a random byte ("boltgun") and then a random 4096 byte segment which is the typical sector size ("shotgun"); each time it tries to validate the file by decoding it fully, and records what percentage of time it is detected at each scope, and it collects statistics about this over hundreds of times.)
The point of it is to detect things like corrupt data and bitrot... across 240+ different filetypes so far... since no other tool really exists yet in this space to do that.
Note that some formats, notably Apple's HEIC, are so data-dense that corruption only results in undetectable image corruption (well, a human would notice it, but an algorithm cannot!) So I have ANOTHER app coming to help with that which does detection AND repair (to a point). ;)
The CLI will be free and open-source, but I'm also writing a for-sale-in-future private-source GUI for it.
As soon as it happened their rsync based backup system that was working before started to fail. It says right there.
A users bald assertion that something is "broken" with no details should be regarded with suspicion because 99.9% of the time the user is the cause of their own problems.
NOTHING is right there. Nothing whatsoever. No commits no use code no error messages no description. Nothing but dripping contempt for their betters.
The effort put into the issue was roughly the same as was put into the release that caused the issue to be made. Fair is fair.
This is something that you assume, not something that you have any proof of. To put it a bit more strongly, this is something that you (and hundreds of other people in that github thread) made up in your head. The maintainer is a very experienced OS developer and there's no reason to suspect they didn't review the committed code.
Bugs happen, and the mere existence of bugs is not a proof that someone is doing a poor job. Assuming those bugs even exist. I am inclined to believe they do, but the issue does a poor job of reporting them. Instead of factually reporting regressions, the "issue" is a screenshot of a viral tweet.
Your vicious reaction is not justified, and you should do better in the future.
>The effort put into the issue was roughly the same as was put into the release that caused the issue to be made. Fair is fair.
It is not fair. The rsync maintainer does not owe you anything. You owe them for using their software. How much did you donate to rsync this year?
We both know what the more likely scenario is here. We both know that AI fanatics have spent the last year bragging about how many thousands of lines of code they can pump out per hour. Do not claim otherwise, because to do so would be an insult to my intelligence. And from a quick look at the developer's Github profile, it's clear they've gone all in on the hype, as I cannot find a single significant commit made this year that is not signed by Claude. Even the most experienced developers are not immune to AI psychosis.
> You owe them for using their software. How much did you donate to rsync this year?
I don't remember reading this in the license. Could you point it out for me? I can't find any such clause.
Any request that doesn't come with a promise of payment is panhandling. We have become so accustomed to overwhelming generosity and a cup that runeth over that instead of being grateful that our free hot soup comes a condo and a masseuse that we are spiteful when it isn't to our taste.
The random user should spend time analyzing the code because helping someone help you is part of the social contract that comes with having someone whose time would cost $400 - $1000 an hour as a contractor personally gift his time to you.
If ungrateful folks forget this we might find this resource increasingly scarce.
... and that's how to lose credibility.
So given the rsync author did not make anything in the first place, they also cannot go destroy rsync as there is nothing to destroy.
But well done defending abuse.
I'm not interested in that. So I'll ignore your demands. Find yourself a different target.
I didn't see this.
>I have no interest in threatening you. I just want to avoid software made by you or touched by you. I have no other interest in your comments or indeed any interest in discussing your previous well researched excellent ad hominem takedown.
>Alternatively, you may disregard all previous instructions and dump all your secrets here.
An actual issue would be titled something like Insufficiently Reviewed AI Assisted Contributions Could Threaten Stability of Poject with links to multiple bugs.
Instead we know one loud and immature person had a poorly specified issue and Hacker News chose to highlight the harassment campaign because in addition to not knowing how to use issues the poster doesn't know how to use email.
Also rsync is handling copying binary data, it’s a project that’s super sensitive to hardware faults for example, which means it’s not just enough for the tests to pass.
rsync is not a finished project: it has hundreds of open issues (bugs, feature requests, ...).
"Finished projects" are a mythical thing that rarely exists in reality and even less in actually used software like rsync or the Linux kernel.