[hackinthebochs]

The fact that users do not see the behavior as the same is the problem. When the users are telling you how they use your software and you respond by saying "that's bizarre, don't do that", then there's a serious disconnect. Developers should be responsive to user feedback, not dictate how their software should be used.

[0xffff2]

I think the serious disconnect is in user expectations. Developers of paid produces should be responsive to user feedback. Developers of open source software are free (legally, ethically and morally) to care or not about user feedback exactly as much as they wish.

Users of open source software are free to fork the software if the original developer isn't responsive to their particular needs. They're not entitled to demand that the original developers respond to their feedback. They're even less entitled to complain when the develop does respond with a specific reason why they won't act on their feedback.

[hackinthebochs]

I disagree. It's one thing to not have the time or bandwidth to change or add a feature. Certainly free users aren't entitled to a developers time. It's another thing to disagree with a style of usage and refuse to accommodate users out of principle. The software is marketed as an open source replacement for utorrent. If he wanted to treat it as his little fiefdom, he shouldn't position it as a replacement for utorrent. If I had any expectation that a pull request for this feature would be accepted, I would fix it myself. But his demeanor suggests otherwise. That's not the way to approach software that positions itself as a community project.