Unless your meaning is that you already have work-in-progress code that you are working on to make much better whereas they have not even started, I don't see how your point makes sense.

But even then it debatable whether making bad code good is better than creating good code from the start.

Even good code is a liability. Admittedly "horrific" code is a 10x or 50x liability. Sometimes you accept that kind of technical debt because "it's really important" — e.g. the company will go bankrupt, or whatever.

(Historically, btw, this is why proprietary corporate code is often so much worse than even fairly incompetent open-source code. Because it's just not really that important to ship horrific slop when nobody's income depends on it.)

The idea that shipping "horrific" code now is somehow better than not shipping it until it is fit for human consumption works in some narrow business life-cycle scenarios, but not in any kind of user-facing scenario, and certainly absolutely fucking not any kind of user-facing OS implementation scenario... (T_T)

So, "it's better because our code exists, and their code doesn't" isn't the brag you think it is. Yes, a quick thrown together utility is better than having to manually do something. But that's not the same for an OS, or god forbid, a filesystem.

Especially since the only reason your code exists in the first place is that they did the hard work and your project forked.

It's the operating system, mate. People don't just use operating systems to take screenshots and then post on social media.

> it's better than Asahi code, because our code exists, and their code doesn't

This is an especially horrific comment if you are really related to the project and this also adds to the perspective on why Asahi team might have wanted to have no nothing to do with this project and related people and their thought process. Anyway, good luck.

Does it though?