Second, this is open source, hack it.
Second, this is open source, hack it.
The response that it's open source, don't complain, you fix it, doesn't even seem to apply here. Does it even make sense to commit a patch to put a feature back in that a maintainer with power over the direction of the project decided to remove without explanation?
Additionally, open source is also about community and wanting people to use your software, not alienate users out of some misguided ideal that sounds good in your head but just makes you out to be a selfish jerk in practice.
The fix it argument is valid in any open source project that you don't contribute, and if you want to contribute show first valid arguments.
Open source is about many goals, a simple terminal transparency is not one of them, and why would a user alienated because it doesn't have a transparent terminal?
Also, in the case of a feature being removed I feel that the onus is on the remover to make the case for why it should go.
To presume that a feature that is "just for aesthetic reasons" has little purpose is arrogant and/or implies a lacking understanding of other developers.