> People don’t care that an application is a streamlined 3MB or a big round 200MB boy At the risk of beating this topic to death here on HN...Some people care;

> People don’t care that an application is a streamlined 3MB or a big round 200MB boy At the risk of beating this topic to death here on HN...Some people care; I know I do. I think the audience for rsync would care more than a nontechnical user, for sure. If I downloaded a program with an extremely basic UI that essentially is a string builder, I probably wouldn't bother if the final executable was over, say, 10MB. My preference would be to hack together a basic CLI menu that could do the same thing and I can stick it in a folder that contains a bunch of other scripts. Am I the target audience, or even close? Probably not, but I don't know many people who want what rsync offers who aren't programmers. From the linked ServerFault page asking why Windows users don't use rsync: > I would say that rsync is just too freaking complicated. Anyone I know who uses it regularly has a pre-set group of flags that generally does what they want. This is followed by more reasons Windows users can't handle or don't want a CLI, along with a few mentions of Robocopy on Windows. Which, honestly, is the reason I don't use rsync on Windows. Windows (both Desktop and Server) ships with Robocopy, not rsync. To run rsync, I'm (or rather, was until WSL) forced to use a Cygwin-like environment to run it, which is overkill unless you're already using an environment like that (i.e. not on a Windows Server instance, most likely).