Daniel can be wrong. He can even be wrong about curl.

He's probably correct here, as far as I can determine in 2 minutes, but "he's correct because it's Daniel" is the worst possible argument.

This reminds me of this old exchange about the history of C (specifically, Eric S. Raymond's "contribution" to it): https://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2011/10/14/dennis-ritchie-h...

I think the counter-argument is that "curl" is a project maintained by Daniel. If you are going to ship a product that doesn't behave in the same way you should call it something else. So Daniel is right about what "curl" should do, but Apple can be right about what "applecurl" which is very similar to curl should do.

I think it should warrant more dialogue than that first line support shut down though, even if the Apple team's gut reaction is to disagree.

Not 'Daniel' specifically, but in general when you're packaging a tool and its author/maintainer(s) contact you about it.

He’s been maintaining an essencial part of the computing infrastructure for 25 years and doing a great job at it.

A fair coin can land on heads 20 times in a row, but the odds are not great.

I think parent doesn't mean Daniel is never wrong even without proof but if one side claims a bug is a bug and the other says it's not than you can pretty sure it's a bug if Daniel considers it as one.

It's about the evaluation of a finding.