81–90 of 108 posts
Sounds like something I could use, but installing a binary via `curl` doesn't sit right with me. Next problem you have is "explain how this thing was installed on my system" followed "is it up to date (including security patches). I hope they have deb package or snap some day.
new utility command coming soon! wdtci - "what does this curl install?"
Sounds like something I could use, but installing a binary via `curl` doesn't sit right with me. Next problem you have is "explain how this thing was installed on my system" followed "is it up to date (including security patches). I hope they have deb package or snap some day.
I understand that installing via `curl` isn’t for everyone, but since this is the first release, I intentionally kept it simple. Now that the tool is gaining some traction, I can definitely plan proper packages for future releases. Thanks for your inputs.
> witr is successful if users trust it during incidents. > This project was developed with assistance from AI/LLMs [...] supervised by a human who occasionally knew what he was doing. This seems contradictory to me.
https://github.com/pranshuparmar/witr/tree/main/internal/lin...
It should be the last option.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If you're capable of auditing the LLM’s outputs and doing a decent code review then you don't need an LLM.
Nobody who was writing code before LLMs existed "needs" an LLM, but they can still be handy. Procfs parsing trivialities are the kind of thing LLMs are good at, although apparently it still takes a human to say "why not using an existing library that solves this, like https://pkg.go.dev/github.com/prometheus/procfs "
to quote the top comment: just show a screenshot of its results, if its useful its fine, being fast is just gravy.
A quick note on scope: this is not meant to replace existing monitoring or observability tools. It’s designed for those moments when you SSH into a box and need to quickly understand “why is this running” without digging through configs, cron jobs, or service trees manually. Happy to answer questions or adjust direction based on feedback.
New tools are always welcome, and having a purpose to explain a purpose seems like a good pitch.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The last bit > supervised by a human who occasionally knew what he was doing. seems in jest but I could be wrong. If omitted or flagged as actual sarcasm I would feel a lot better about the project overall. As long as you’re auditing the LLM’s outputs and doing a decent code review I think it’s reasonable to trust this tool during incidents. I’ll admit I did go straight to the end of the readme to look for this exact…
If you're capable of auditing the LLM’s outputs and doing a decent code review then you don't need an LLM.