5 ms·

This whole brigading is bizzarre and some people are behaving like irrational animals. I potentially understand the motivations that might bring one to want to

This whole brigading is bizzarre and some people are behaving like irrational animals. I potentially understand the motivations that might bring one to want to "win" this battle but this really isn't it - it just makes you sound like a fanatic. It takes 5 minutes to search for "regression" on the issue page and go through the 17 results. There are potentially even more on the tracker used prior to github. I think this behavior is very silly and people are just trying to justify their hate to AI by latching onto every possible thing, seemingly forgetting that before AI people did mistakes as well. If you have proof that AI involvement in rsync has lead to a significant increase in open issues please show it to me - I'll be happy to change my mind.

consp 4mo ago
> I think this behavior is very silly and people are just trying to justify their hate to AI by latching onto every possible thing It's not silly to have issues with something. People act on their issues. Possibly not the issue underlying the commit at hand here but something else, and act on it which makes it something to consider. My guess is people are tired of the "AI is the greatest thing since [cultural reference]" being forced down their throat and grasp at every straw to combat it, which is a sane response in my opinion and should be taken into account.
- thevinter 4mo ago
  > It's not silly to have issues with something. I absolutely understand and agree. As I said, I understand the underlying reason. The silly part is the brigading - issues should be adressed on their own merits. The specific GH issue, and some of the comments therein, make the whole crowd they're affiliated with look bad. (imho)
  - consp 4mo ago
    I'd argue there would be two lanes as well: one where the issues are addressed in code, the other being the discussion of why people think this is a bad idea and speak so openly about it. This topic is the second I guess. Looking at the flow there is quite a bit of flamebait by the LLM and non-LLM camps which only muddies the water and doesn't resolve anything. The better discussion (imo) would be to decide if the vide coded fixes are worth it and if not, fork the project somewhere and let the distro's chip in to maintain that.
    - sysguest 4mo ago
      idk maybe LLM people should only commit what they actually understand, only in bite-size (maximum few lines in few files) and with at least 1~5 tests that shows the edge cases drive-by 20-file pull-requests that ultimately end up costing maintainer's burden seems to hit hard here.
- throwaway7356 4mo ago
  > and grasp at every straw to combat it, which is a sane response Attacking every open source maintainer who might use AI for the sin of having used AI because one hates AI is just abusive behavior, not "sane response". What would the "sane response" be for people tired of the "AI is being forced down my throat and I need to combat it by attacking open source maintainers" side? Grasp at every straw to combat such behavior?
  - deleted 4mo ago
    [deleted]
  - beepbooptheory 4mo ago
    [flagged]
  - e40 4mo ago
    > Attacking every open source maintainer who might use AI for the sin of having used AI because one hates AI is just abusive behavior, not "sane response". That's not what happened, and I think you know it. The number of LOC introduced in the last 2 versions of rsync is off the charts. And there are bugs. I've been in a situation like the author of that issue. Upgrade a package and things fall apart and it would be very, very expensive to debug it to file the appropriate bug reports... so I roll back to a known good version. Yes, the language the person used wasn't the greatest. IMO, this is a litmus test for how you feel about AI. For the people that hate it, it's just a big pile on and "I told you so" ... we don't have enough info about the author to know if they are anti-AI. We know they are against using AI in a BAD WAY.
    - MuteXR 4mo ago
      The absolute bulk of the LOC introduced are docs and a unit test system. Let's not just make stuff up now.
  - deleted 4mo ago
    [deleted]
  - deleted 4mo ago
    [deleted]
- deleted 4mo ago
  [deleted]
- lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 4mo ago
  > It's not silly to have issues with something. Note this is not what OP called silly. It's possible to take legitimate issue with something, then act silly about it. People are free to their opinions but not necessarily to (as an extreme example) write their opinions on the wall with their excrement. Regardless of any veracity behind the opinion, some decorum is expected in its expression. (I guess unless one is explicitly doing away with decorum but that's when violence takes its place.)
- daishi55 4mo ago
  They’re just picking easy targets to bully. There is undoubtedly AI-written code in the Linux kernel now, but are they out there harassing those maintainers? No. rsync GitHub is easier to brigade.
  - not_a9 4mo ago
    > There is undoubtedly AI-written code in the Linux kernel now You can grep commit logs by “Assisted-By” these days and there sure is a whole bunch of LLMs.
- rrrx3 4mo ago
  > My guess is people are tired of the "AI is the greatest thing since [cultural reference]" being forced down their throat and grasp at every straw to combat it, which is a sane response in my opinion and should be taken into account. Let's engage in some parallelism then This happens with literally everything in our society. Right now, every single food product seems to be infused with protein. In the past, they've had GMOs removed, MSG removed, been Fiber-infused... the list goes on and on. We don't see people bullying and threatening grocery store clerks and managers over clear hype-cycle bullshit. Why? Because every rational person knows this is pure nonsense. This behavior is NOT sane. As many others have pointed out, this is just a regression that occurred during regular software development. There's nothing remarkable here that makes it AI-specific, other than that the contributions were AI-assisted. Regressions in software happen. You roll back to a stable version and make a bug report. You don't shit your diaper and sling it at the maintainer. Acting like a giant fucking douche is NOT NORMAL BEHAVIOR.
  - BetterThanSober 4mo ago
    >regression happens Yes, but some should absolutely be caught with a robust test suite, especially if it is not an edge case. When was the last time there was a breaking regression in SQLite again?
    - rrrx3 4mo ago
      What does your strawman argument about a hypothetical regression in SQLite have to do with this? What would a regression in the Windows Calculator have to do with this? What does your whataboutism prove here? Nothing. A mistake was made. There are well worn paths for fixing the mistake. Acting like a giant fucking petulant pissbaby is not the critical path to getting things fixed and is deeply corrosive to the positive collaborative environment we’ve all spent decades building within shared, community software. Get the fuck over yourself.
      - BetterThanSober 4mo ago
        > positive collaborative environment Yeah for human, by humans For some critical software, open-source or not, a regression could literally kills, that's why I put SQLite as an example. A simple miss should NOT pass into stable, if it's an edge case due then yeah learn from it and built a test suite for that if possible rsync is highly popular tools and a lot of people depends on them, whether you like it or not. At a certain point (I don't know what point, 10k, 20k, 500k users?) maintainers should respect the user expectations over their own ego and convenience This is a problem for OSS in general, people treats their project like a hobby because it didn't pay enough, or corporates uses it without contributing back
ls612 4mo ago
AI has become a partisan political issue with all of the attendant consequences. At this point you may as well complain about the sun rising in the east :(
- culi 4mo ago
  I'm not sure how partisan it is but it's certainly politicized. Regular people also weren't the ones that politicized it. These AI companies knew the risks they were taking on when they donated to Trump, bought out local city boards, heavily invested in lobbying campaigns, etc. They are betting that the federal government will protect them from the consequences of their meddling by positioning themselves as a geopolitical priority. Claude has already been used to plan and prioritize targets in Iran https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2026/03/04/anthropic-ai-iran-campaign/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2026/03/04/anthrop... > As planning for a potential strike in Iran was underway, Maven, powered by Claude, suggested hundreds of targets, issued precise location coordinates, and prioritized those targets according to importance, said two of the people. The pairing of Maven and Claude has created a tool that is speeding the pace of the campaign, reducing Iran’s ability to counterstrike and turning weeks-long battle planning into real-time operations, said one of the people. The AI tools also evaluate a strike after it is initiated, the person said. > The Pentagon began to integrate Anthropic’s Claude chatbot into Maven in late 2024, according to public announcements. The system has been used to generate proposed targets, to track logistics and provide summaries of intelligence coming in from the field. The Trump administration has vastly expanded the use of Maven into many other parts of the military, with over 20,000 military personnel using it as of last May.
  - ls612 4mo ago
    And all this has nothing to do with whether Claude+Tridge is better than Tridge alone at writing code for rsync.
    - culi 4mo ago
      Clearly it does. Look at the thread we're in.
izacus 4mo ago
[flagged]
123ahsg6 4mo ago
The way it is done with meme pictures is bizarre. The language used is the same that Tridgell knows from the LKML, so that is not the primary concern. How are maintainers supposed to know that users don't trust AI if no one voices that concern? rsync was very stable. Should people silently move to Openrsync and never say anything?
- daishi55 4mo ago
  If you look through that thread, it’s very clearly an online hate mob whipped into a frenzy by someone on mastodon. They should all go back to mastodon and reddit and stop bothering people who actually work on important things. They’re also all completely disingenuous (“I’ll have to stop using rsync now”) given that 99.99% of software now includes AI-written code, whether it’s known or not.
- ejpir 4mo ago
  yes, you should, you have no say in how people develop their software. submit a bug report if you like, but keep your opinion away from issue trackers.
  - kstrauser 4mo ago
    I agree. Like everything else open source, fork it if you’ve got a problem with it. Vote with your code. The author shared the code with the world. No part of that gives the world a vote in how the author chooses to maintain it.
- sarlalian 4mo ago
  How are the maintainers supposed to know that the users don’t trust VS Code if no one voices their concerns like a rabid mob? Seriously why should the maintainer care what users think about how they produce code? Bugs happen, regressions happen regardless of whether it’s human or AI written. The only valid criticism is that he’s moving too fast for quality code review by others. That said, I bet if you search through the issues you’ll find multiple places where users have complained about their bug staying open for too long without being addressed.
fao_ 4mo ago
I think people are very justifiably angry that a very stable, well trusted tool, has started to immediately go downhill. The Linux Mint Timeshift tool has an issue open documenting a number of regressions that are currently open on the rsync issues page, that were only introduced post-vibecoding (https://github.com/linuxmint/timeshift/issues/548 https://github.com/linuxmint/timeshift/issues/548), one of those links goes to a larger aggregate of bugs reported downstream (https://github.com/void-linux/void-packages/issues/60825 https://github.com/void-linux/void-packages/issues/60825). I think it is incredibly rational and sane, given the reputation of vibecoded software as-such (where every professional who loves it is saying "you have to hold it in this very specific way so it doesn't cause bugs, and also you should probably only use it for version 0s so you can map out the domain"), for people to be angry that their load-bearing industry standard backup tool that is very, very well respected is suddenly pulling the rug out from under them because the maintainer wants to "add more features" and is doing it in what is clearly an unsafe way. Also from the timeshift thread: > not sure if this is just me, but after updating rsync, my cpu usage got so bad during my daily backups that i had to stop timeshift from running forever Or, phrased differently - People are frustrated and annoyed that the tool they trusted with their backups and data are seeing a huge number of regressions and new bugs that break their entire backup infrastructure, all because the main dev is vibecoding that software. Vibecoding experts like Simon Wilson explicitly state that vibecoding is 'viable' in the sense of "only if you hold the tool in a specific way", and this person is either not doing that, or that statement is untruthful. If you actually read the thread in question and just skim over the argument two people are having, there are multiple reports from users in industrial and government settings that now have to go through whole processes to update this software, simply because the software has become immediately untrustworthy in a way that directly harms users and defeats the entire point of the software in question. I think I would also be mad if I relied on this software for my 500gb+ backups, and I wonder how many more issues have been introduced that we simply won't learn about until a company has a $10 million dollar data loss because they were not testing their backups consistently.
- pishpash 4mo ago
  Exactly this. The most salient comment basically said that AI use has increased the cadence of commits beyond reliable testing capacity for what was a stable product in equilibrium. It isn't an issue specific complaint so it wouldn't make sense to only flag one specific issue. In fact you'd fall behind trying to chase the AI moving head. This has everything to do with AI, and isn't a normal issue reporting situation. The other camp seems highly defensive, which reeks of indefensibility.
4asgkl 4mo ago
[flagged]
- mylons 4mo ago
  what a fascinating take. i just scrolled the github thread. there’s very little, if any substance. your perception must be very interesting to have gleaned anything but seething AI rage.
potsandpans 4mo ago
Averse behavioral ai syndrome
thefz 4mo ago
> seemingly forgetting that before AI people did mistakes as well. It's just that they now have the chance to do them 1000% faster and not even realize
ray_v 4mo ago
I haven't decided where I land on this idea of pointing llms at mature, human-crafted software projects (again, assuming they are moderately mature projects). It's clearly a win for 1-man projects and greenfield projects, but maybe not for what's described above ...__yet__.

consp 4mo ago

> I think this behavior is very silly and people are just trying to justify their hate to AI by latching onto every possible thing It's not silly to have issues with something. People act on their issues. Possibly not the issue underlying the commit at hand here but something else, and act on it which makes it something to consider. My guess is people are tired of the "AI is the greatest thing since [cultural reference]" being forced down their throat and grasp at every straw to combat it, which is a sane response in my opinion and should be taken into account.

thevinter 4mo ago
> It's not silly to have issues with something. I absolutely understand and agree. As I said, I understand the underlying reason. The silly part is the brigading - issues should be adressed on their own merits. The specific GH issue, and some of the comments therein, make the whole crowd they're affiliated with look bad. (imho)
- consp 4mo ago
  I'd argue there would be two lanes as well: one where the issues are addressed in code, the other being the discussion of why people think this is a bad idea and speak so openly about it. This topic is the second I guess. Looking at the flow there is quite a bit of flamebait by the LLM and non-LLM camps which only muddies the water and doesn't resolve anything. The better discussion (imo) would be to decide if the vide coded fixes are worth it and if not, fork the project somewhere and let the distro's chip in to maintain that.
  - sysguest 4mo ago
    idk maybe LLM people should only commit what they actually understand, only in bite-size (maximum few lines in few files) and with at least 1~5 tests that shows the edge cases drive-by 20-file pull-requests that ultimately end up costing maintainer's burden seems to hit hard here.
throwaway7356 4mo ago
> and grasp at every straw to combat it, which is a sane response Attacking every open source maintainer who might use AI for the sin of having used AI because one hates AI is just abusive behavior, not "sane response". What would the "sane response" be for people tired of the "AI is being forced down my throat and I need to combat it by attacking open source maintainers" side? Grasp at every straw to combat such behavior?
- deleted 4mo ago
  [deleted]
- beepbooptheory 4mo ago
  [flagged]
- e40 4mo ago
  > Attacking every open source maintainer who might use AI for the sin of having used AI because one hates AI is just abusive behavior, not "sane response". That's not what happened, and I think you know it. The number of LOC introduced in the last 2 versions of rsync is off the charts. And there are bugs. I've been in a situation like the author of that issue. Upgrade a package and things fall apart and it would be very, very expensive to debug it to file the appropriate bug reports... so I roll back to a known good version. Yes, the language the person used wasn't the greatest. IMO, this is a litmus test for how you feel about AI. For the people that hate it, it's just a big pile on and "I told you so" ... we don't have enough info about the author to know if they are anti-AI. We know they are against using AI in a BAD WAY.
  - MuteXR 4mo ago
    The absolute bulk of the LOC introduced are docs and a unit test system. Let's not just make stuff up now.
- deleted 4mo ago
  [deleted]
- deleted 4mo ago
  [deleted]
deleted 4mo ago
[deleted]
lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 4mo ago
> It's not silly to have issues with something. Note this is not what OP called silly. It's possible to take legitimate issue with something, then act silly about it. People are free to their opinions but not necessarily to (as an extreme example) write their opinions on the wall with their excrement. Regardless of any veracity behind the opinion, some decorum is expected in its expression. (I guess unless one is explicitly doing away with decorum but that's when violence takes its place.)
daishi55 4mo ago
They’re just picking easy targets to bully. There is undoubtedly AI-written code in the Linux kernel now, but are they out there harassing those maintainers? No. rsync GitHub is easier to brigade.
- not_a9 4mo ago
  > There is undoubtedly AI-written code in the Linux kernel now You can grep commit logs by “Assisted-By” these days and there sure is a whole bunch of LLMs.
rrrx3 4mo ago
> My guess is people are tired of the "AI is the greatest thing since [cultural reference]" being forced down their throat and grasp at every straw to combat it, which is a sane response in my opinion and should be taken into account. Let's engage in some parallelism then This happens with literally everything in our society. Right now, every single food product seems to be infused with protein. In the past, they've had GMOs removed, MSG removed, been Fiber-infused... the list goes on and on. We don't see people bullying and threatening grocery store clerks and managers over clear hype-cycle bullshit. Why? Because every rational person knows this is pure nonsense. This behavior is NOT sane. As many others have pointed out, this is just a regression that occurred during regular software development. There's nothing remarkable here that makes it AI-specific, other than that the contributions were AI-assisted. Regressions in software happen. You roll back to a stable version and make a bug report. You don't shit your diaper and sling it at the maintainer. Acting like a giant fucking douche is NOT NORMAL BEHAVIOR.
- BetterThanSober 4mo ago
  >regression happens Yes, but some should absolutely be caught with a robust test suite, especially if it is not an edge case. When was the last time there was a breaking regression in SQLite again?
  - rrrx3 4mo ago
    What does your strawman argument about a hypothetical regression in SQLite have to do with this? What would a regression in the Windows Calculator have to do with this? What does your whataboutism prove here? Nothing. A mistake was made. There are well worn paths for fixing the mistake. Acting like a giant fucking petulant pissbaby is not the critical path to getting things fixed and is deeply corrosive to the positive collaborative environment we’ve all spent decades building within shared, community software. Get the fuck over yourself.
    - BetterThanSober 4mo ago
      > positive collaborative environment Yeah for human, by humans For some critical software, open-source or not, a regression could literally kills, that's why I put SQLite as an example. A simple miss should NOT pass into stable, if it's an edge case due then yeah learn from it and built a test suite for that if possible rsync is highly popular tools and a lot of people depends on them, whether you like it or not. At a certain point (I don't know what point, 10k, 20k, 500k users?) maintainers should respect the user expectations over their own ego and convenience This is a problem for OSS in general, people treats their project like a hobby because it didn't pay enough, or corporates uses it without contributing back

ls612 4mo ago

AI has become a partisan political issue with all of the attendant consequences. At this point you may as well complain about the sun rising in the east :(

culi 4mo ago
I'm not sure how partisan it is but it's certainly politicized. Regular people also weren't the ones that politicized it. These AI companies knew the risks they were taking on when they donated to Trump, bought out local city boards, heavily invested in lobbying campaigns, etc. They are betting that the federal government will protect them from the consequences of their meddling by positioning themselves as a geopolitical priority. Claude has already been used to plan and prioritize targets in Iran https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2026/03/04/anthropic-ai-iran-campaign/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2026/03/04/anthrop... > As planning for a potential strike in Iran was underway, Maven, powered by Claude, suggested hundreds of targets, issued precise location coordinates, and prioritized those targets according to importance, said two of the people. The pairing of Maven and Claude has created a tool that is speeding the pace of the campaign, reducing Iran’s ability to counterstrike and turning weeks-long battle planning into real-time operations, said one of the people. The AI tools also evaluate a strike after it is initiated, the person said. > The Pentagon began to integrate Anthropic’s Claude chatbot into Maven in late 2024, according to public announcements. The system has been used to generate proposed targets, to track logistics and provide summaries of intelligence coming in from the field. The Trump administration has vastly expanded the use of Maven into many other parts of the military, with over 20,000 military personnel using it as of last May.
- ls612 4mo ago
  And all this has nothing to do with whether Claude+Tridge is better than Tridge alone at writing code for rsync.
  - culi 4mo ago
    Clearly it does. Look at the thread we're in.

izacus 4mo ago

[flagged]

123ahsg6 4mo ago

The way it is done with meme pictures is bizarre. The language used is the same that Tridgell knows from the LKML, so that is not the primary concern. How are maintainers supposed to know that users don't trust AI if no one voices that concern? rsync was very stable. Should people silently move to Openrsync and never say anything?

daishi55 4mo ago
If you look through that thread, it’s very clearly an online hate mob whipped into a frenzy by someone on mastodon. They should all go back to mastodon and reddit and stop bothering people who actually work on important things. They’re also all completely disingenuous (“I’ll have to stop using rsync now”) given that 99.99% of software now includes AI-written code, whether it’s known or not.
ejpir 4mo ago
yes, you should, you have no say in how people develop their software. submit a bug report if you like, but keep your opinion away from issue trackers.
- kstrauser 4mo ago
  I agree. Like everything else open source, fork it if you’ve got a problem with it. Vote with your code. The author shared the code with the world. No part of that gives the world a vote in how the author chooses to maintain it.
sarlalian 4mo ago
How are the maintainers supposed to know that the users don’t trust VS Code if no one voices their concerns like a rabid mob? Seriously why should the maintainer care what users think about how they produce code? Bugs happen, regressions happen regardless of whether it’s human or AI written. The only valid criticism is that he’s moving too fast for quality code review by others. That said, I bet if you search through the issues you’ll find multiple places where users have complained about their bug staying open for too long without being addressed.

fao_ 4mo ago

I think people are very justifiably angry that a very stable, well trusted tool, has started to immediately go downhill. The Linux Mint Timeshift tool has an issue open documenting a number of regressions that are currently open on the rsync issues page, that were only introduced post-vibecoding (https://github.com/linuxmint/timeshift/issues/548 https://github.com/linuxmint/timeshift/issues/548), one of those links goes to a larger aggregate of bugs reported downstream (https://github.com/void-linux/void-packages/issues/60825 https://github.com/void-linux/void-packages/issues/60825). I think it is incredibly rational and sane, given the reputation of vibecoded software as-such (where every professional who loves it is saying "you have to hold it in this very specific way so it doesn't cause bugs, and also you should probably only use it for version 0s so you can map out the domain"), for people to be angry that their load-bearing industry standard backup tool that is very, very well respected is suddenly pulling the rug out from under them because the maintainer wants to "add more features" and is doing it in what is clearly an unsafe way. Also from the timeshift thread: > not sure if this is just me, but after updating rsync, my cpu usage got so bad during my daily backups that i had to stop timeshift from running forever Or, phrased differently - People are frustrated and annoyed that the tool they trusted with their backups and data are seeing a huge number of regressions and new bugs that break their entire backup infrastructure, all because the main dev is vibecoding that software. Vibecoding experts like Simon Wilson explicitly state that vibecoding is 'viable' in the sense of "only if you hold the tool in a specific way", and this person is either not doing that, or that statement is untruthful. If you actually read the thread in question and just skim over the argument two people are having, there are multiple reports from users in industrial and government settings that now have to go through whole processes to update this software, simply because the software has become immediately untrustworthy in a way that directly harms users and defeats the entire point of the software in question. I think I would also be mad if I relied on this software for my 500gb+ backups, and I wonder how many more issues have been introduced that we simply won't learn about until a company has a $10 million dollar data loss because they were not testing their backups consistently.

pishpash 4mo ago
Exactly this. The most salient comment basically said that AI use has increased the cadence of commits beyond reliable testing capacity for what was a stable product in equilibrium. It isn't an issue specific complaint so it wouldn't make sense to only flag one specific issue. In fact you'd fall behind trying to chase the AI moving head. This has everything to do with AI, and isn't a normal issue reporting situation. The other camp seems highly defensive, which reeks of indefensibility.

4asgkl 4mo ago

[flagged]

mylons 4mo ago
what a fascinating take. i just scrolled the github thread. there’s very little, if any substance. your perception must be very interesting to have gleaned anything but seething AI rage.

potsandpans 4mo ago

Averse behavioral ai syndrome

thefz 4mo ago

> seemingly forgetting that before AI people did mistakes as well. It's just that they now have the chance to do them 1000% faster and not even realize

ray_v 4mo ago

I haven't decided where I land on this idea of pointing llms at mature, human-crafted software projects (again, assuming they are moderately mature projects). It's clearly a win for 1-man projects and greenfield projects, but maybe not for what's described above ...__yet__.