I absolutely agree with this. The author has spent an insane amount of time to build all this stuff and instead of getting recognition and/or being payed adequately he is getting shitstorm after shitstrom.

As an outsider I have to say that I think what the Rust community has technically achieved is remarkable. But on the social side it is not so bright, avid Rust users constantly spam forums of other programming languages with toxic comments. But this incident shows that the situation is even worse than expected, the Rust community even treats its own peers like sh..

Well, no different than any other tech where the community is an echo chamber full of fanboys. Linux used to be like that, especially some of its distros (uhm Gentoo?), cryptocurrency fans are like that, Apple users probably don't need mentioning neither ...

Gentoo is just a meme spread by some 4chan /g/ board's members. Maybe you meant Arch?

... Gentoo predates 4chan's existence by 3 years, is one of the older and more respected distros still around, and is the basis of Chrome OS and Container Linux. Don't assume that 4chan somehow defines the things they happen to be interested in.

"btw I use Arch" is a meme as well

Well, it's easy to get confused when you look at the professional looking website with a well crafted logo, a promo list of features and a copyright notice from the "The Actix Team". The community page even says "We're a welcoming community so don't be afraid to engage.". Ouch!

Huh nothing you said indicates it is a professional project. Sleek does not equal professional.

The easy way to tell is to remember if you're paying them or not.

Absolutely not. You can get professional (but not necessarily timely) support from me for multiple projects I maintain on GitHub, for free.

For many people, their personal interest in open source is writing code for fun and showing it off. For others, it's making a product that people can rely on. The second one is my motivation; don't take that away from me.

That’s fine. It’s even admirable if you to do that. But it isn’t and shouldn’t be mandatory.

While “mandatory” would be a stretch, I don’t think there’s anything unreasonable about expecting project owners not to overstate the maintenance level of their projects. Deliberately conveying a false impression to people is called lying, and it’s generally regarded as being bad.

The distinction between "amatuer" and "professional" is literally the motivation for the action, i.e. if you are doing it for enjoyment vs if you are doing it to get paid or advance your career.

If you are making products that people can rely on primarily because you enjoy it, you are literally an amatuer.

There are figurative connotations of quality and polish implicit with those terms, but I find those connotations unfortunate and in many cases unwarranted.

Sure. I'm not saying I am a professional. I'm saying I will provide professional-style support (according to the connotation), just not necessarily in a timely fashion, and it's demoralizing when other people say you should avoid my amateur software because they're leaning on the connotations of "amateur" and "professional."

That's not true at all. You can pay for amateur bullshit, and you can get professional software and support for free (and free as in freedom).

You can get professional software and support for free, until you can’t. This “you’ve provided me free support once, so it’s your obligation to support me for free indefinitely whenever I ask” attitude has certainly contributed to my open source exhaustion as a maintainer.

Well, good luck getting a company you paid for a product to provide indefinite support, large professional software companies cancel projects and EOL software all the time.

You only have a right to complain about the amateur bullshit you paid for, though.

You have a right to complain about anything and everything.

For instance, I don't pay a penny for HN but I can complain that these discussions sometimes become self-congratulatory prattle where angry people carrying a giant chip on their shoulder posit absurd, completely ridiculous notions and they're supported in their group delusion by like-minded parrots. You don't have to agree with my complaint, but nor do I need your or anyone else's permission to hold it.

My Ethernet is stuck in ipv6, professionally tell me how to fix it, for free.

That's not an open source project any of us maintain.

Also, there are expectations for both sides of a professional interaction. My employer buys various fancy networking equipment for lots of money and we absolutely wouldn't expect an answer for that question.

Sure, could you provide some more detail?

I actually did that for years in a linux forum.

> It's a personal project.

If you create an organization on GitHub for a project that is meant to remain personal, this kinda sends a wrong signal.

Blaming some users for being rude and entitled, and then deleting an open source repo out of spite... it's a bit hard to feel sympathy for the guy here.

For information, the repo has not been deleted but simply moved: https://github.com/fafhrd91/actix-web

> If you create an organization on GitHub for a project that is meant to remain personal,

Sounds like there were intentions or plans to transform a one man project into something bigger. Some steps were made. Hence, a nice looking website, a github org, benchmarks etc. All those signals are intentions, the vision of the future self. They may or may not come true.

Nothing signaled an established business model or sustainable backing of any kind.

Exactly. It can be argued it's unprofessional to become dependent on third-party software without any background recherche regarding the maintainer's motivation, team size, financial standing, etc., especially when said third-party software isn't a replaceable, standards-based component such as, say, Java Servlet containers and other web components used to be.

Professional pursuits are things related to a vocation, not directly tied to an exchange of money for every interaction under consideration. If you're in the industry of software development, and tie your identity to an open source project, it is de facto professional.

In this example it is held as a significant accomplishment on this individual's linkedin page. Which isn't surprising as professional credibility is a primary motivation driving a lot of open source involvement. We are seeking a different, less direct form of compensation.

So it's fair to say that acting like this is unprofessional.

That doesn't mean it isn't merited, or that they might have been frustrated or had good reason. But professionally they would have been much better served by other means: Simply announcing that they're retiring from the project and encouraging forking and the percolation of a new canonical version, etc.

> And this seems like a perfectly personal thing to do with something that's preventing happiness.

Sure, if you want to spread the misery. That's still kind of a dick move, even if he's perfectly within his rights.