This is the first time I read about this drama, can somebody explain to me why getting forked is bad thing..?
But I agree with the article, when you read deeper into the comments and commits, it's not virulent in the record (though I'm sure tempers flared).
That being said, I'm just a lowly web dev and barely understand what's going on under the hood.
I was responding to a comment which said, essentially, that you will end up with lots of forks that are each strong in some particular way. This is not generally how it works in my experience. In general, the fork with (for example) better ease of use will also be the one with better speed because it will get much more time and attention than other forks.
I have to believe "These variants can fill various niches, such as security, speed, or ease of use" and "many will succeed" were also there for a reason, and those are what I was responding to. My point is that for most projects, you don't end up with a bunch of viable forks. It's rare even to end up with two viable public forks, much less several. It's not much like sexual reproduction because sexual reproduction requires there to be multiple breeding entities.
Well, no. Because the realistic alternative to forking isn't that the people with irreconcilable differences that led to the fork continue working on the same code base, its that some subset of them abandon the code base altogether. Forking -- especially when the forks are under compatible open source licenses and useful code that is compatible with the vision on both sides of the divide can migrate from one fork to the other -- potentially increases, rather than decreases, the effective development effort on both sides of the forks compared to what it would otherwise be.