I mostly agree, but there seems to be a persistent problem where software authors and maintainers don't have a good communication channels to reach end-users. T

I mostly agree, but there seems to be a persistent problem where software authors and maintainers don't have a good communication channels to reach end-users. The only thing that seems to work consistently is embedding deprecation warnings directly in the software. Asking people to subscribe to some enormous mailing list that covers thousands of releases of thousands of different products, or to keep an eye on a forum that gets hundreds of post today, is not really fair to the end-user. It's easy to end up feeling like Arthur Dent: your house is about to be destroyed to build a highway, and while technically there was a long notice process, the process was not conducted in a way that you would ever have known about it. Homebrew is an interesting case because they do actually have a system in the package manager that displays a "caveat" to the user after installation. The maintainer probably could have added a warning there, before bumping the package version. None of this should be taken to excuse a for-profit corporation failing to give even the faintest whiff of a shit about auditing The tools that they depend on, let alone taking some ownership and responsibility thereof. But I do think we as an industry in general should spend some time thinking about this communication channel problem, because it can bite even vigilant, well-intentioned users now and then. Of course, one could also point the finger at the "rolling" release model that Homebrew uses as an extra source of difficulty in this arena, but I am more willing to blame the end-user in that case as well, because they ought to know what they are signing up for when using a rolling release package manager.