Thread

1. recursivedoubts · 1790522383 · focus · HN ↗

   They are open source developers, giving away free software as a gift. There is no duty here.

   We can speak, respectfully, of how important backwards compatibility is to us, and ask nicely for them to give more of their time to support it when their free sodftware isn't backwards compatible. Perhaps we can even offer to help implement it.

   But they have no duty to do so or to "care" for their users. (They have already demonstrated they care for their users, btw, by giving them free software.)

   EDIT: I missed an important part of the story, which is that they mutated existing files in a non-backwards compatible manner. That should have been avoided, I understand where the (secondary) author is coming from now.

   1. gozzoo · 1790522975 · focus · HN ↗

      > They are open source developers, giving away free software as a gift. There is no duty here.

      But actually there is! They didn't start from scratch. They took another very successfull and beloved project with the promise "to make it better". There is some promise here and the duty not to make it worse.

      1. margalabargala · 1790523528 · focus · HN ↗

         "Better" is subjective. They made it better...for themselves. Then gave it away so people who share their opinion, had the opportunity to choose to use it.

         1. macintux · 1790527971 · focus · HN ↗

            > Then gave it away so people who share their opinion, had the opportunity to choose to use it.

            How many neovim users were made aware that the software would proactively delete their decade-long file history?

            1. margalabargala · 1790530294 · focus · HN ↗

               Probably no more than a rounding error away from zero.

Unofficial Hacker News client; not affiliated with Y Combinator.