- No need to be snarky. It's a new project, while rsync is time tested, and that is certainly an advantage for rsync and all old software.

- You can install by piping curl to bash, using brew, or by compiling yourself. One thing about distribution I would argue syq gets right is that you are never relying on whatever version of syq happens to be installed on a server. The client syq always talks to a server syq tagged with the exact same version, and when your local copy of syq installs a remote copy, it verifies that the remote binary is signed by me.

- I never said or implied that rsync has a byzantine interface or poor documentation. I think rsync is well documented and the interface is overall fine. Syq even has an rsync compatibility mode, so you don't have to learn any new syntax if you don't want. Still, I tried to provide good docs for syq too, and honestly even if there were a gap in the docs, all you have to do these days is ask AI to look at the source code and tell you what to do. I think this also mitigates the trust issue with a new project from a single contributor.

FWIW, I'm only half-joking with my comment: dealing with software updates is an annoying part of life, and IMO rsync's UI is rather complicated (in that it's easy to use the wrong set of flags and do the wrong thing, sometimes in annoyingly subtle ways) and I basically always need to refer to the man pages (or, these days, an LLM, followed closely by the man pages to sanity-check what I'm doing) whenever I'm writing a new incantation of it rather than copying from an existing script or my shell history. I just chafe a little bit at declarations like "better than," since that's clearly not true (in the same way that rsync is not unequivocally "better than" syq), when more precise and less conceited descriptors like "faster than" are sitting right there on your benchmarks page.

How do you hope to convince sys-admins to install this? I work with clusters where I do not have superuser access, so this is a no go for me.