4 ms·

Upside: At least they used a different name. On other occasions, they just hijack the name. Like they did with dstat.

• dralley 6y ago
  That was a misunderstanding where they saw that there had been no commit activity for 3 years, and no responses to issues/PRs filed in the past 18 months, and assumed the upstream was dead. Making that assumption was reasonable - moving forwards without at least making an attempt to contact the maintainer "just in case" was not. It would have been courteous to at least try. But it's not exactly the deliberate hostile takeover that you make it out to be. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1614277#c9 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1614277#c9 >> To my knowledge, there is no need (legally) to obtain consent to use the name 'dstat' for a replacement command providing the same functionality. It might be a nice thing to do from a community perspective, however - if there was someone to discuss with upstream. >> However, dstat is dead upstream. There have been no updates for years, no responses at all to any bug reports in the months I've been following the github repo now, and certainly no attempt to begin undertaking a python3 port. >> Since there is nobody maintaining the original dstat code anymore, it seemed a futile exercise to me so I've not attempted to contact the original author. And as pcp-dstat is now well advanced beyond the original dstat - implementing features listed in dstat's roadmap for many years, and with multiple active contributors - I think moving on with the backward-compatible name symlink is the best we can do.