291–300 of 534 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is rsync we are talking about. A bug in rsync basically means lost data and/or unreliable backups. I think it's normal to be pissed at lost data. Maybe it's not socially acceptable to spit in the face of a volunteer but it's 100% human to feel annoyed by an obvious drop in code quality.
> Maybe it's not socially acceptable to spit in the face of a volunteer Why are you hedging this? Do you think maybe it is socially acceptable?
I find the way that issue was opened incredible obnoxious, but it is baffling that the maintainers seem to have let AI loose on rsync. Like, why? Why try comparatively experimental crap when your fortune and reputation is made and you're the leader of a niche and immune to market pressure and the people love the thing and it does exactly what it's supposed to and works well? It's like the Matrix, with the little rant…
What https://github.com/RsyncProject/rsync/issues/929#issuecommen... shows is that it no longer works on older Darwin and Linux You cannot expect maintainers to support old systems and know the impact their changes have. Whether its done by AI or hand.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is rsync we are talking about. A bug in rsync basically means lost data and/or unreliable backups. I think it's normal to be pissed at lost data. Maybe it's not socially acceptable to spit in the face of a volunteer but it's 100% human to feel annoyed by an obvious drop in code quality.
> Maybe it's not socially acceptable to spit in the face of a volunteer Why are you hedging this? Do you think maybe it is socially acceptable?
This whole brigading is bizzarre and some people are behaving like irrational animals. I potentially understand the motivations that might bring one to want to "win" this battle but this really isn't it - it just makes you sound like a fanatic. It takes 5 minutes to search for "regression" on the issue page and go through the 17 results. There are potentially even more on the tracker used prior to github. I think thi…
> not sure if this is just me, but after updating rsync, my cpu usage got so bad during my daily backups that i had to stop timeshift from running forever
Or, phrased differently - People are frustrated and annoyed that the tool they trusted with their backups and data are seeing a huge number of regressions and new bugs that break their entire backup infrastructure, all because the main dev is vibecoding that software. Vibecoding experts like Simon Wilson explicitly state that vibecoding is 'viable' in the sense of "only if you hold the tool in a specific way", and this person is either not doing that, or that statement is untruthful. If you actually read the thread in question and just skim over the argument two people are having, there are multiple reports from users in industrial and government settings that now have to go through whole processes to update this software, simply because the software has become immediately untrustworthy in a way that directly harms users and defeats the entire point of the software in question.
I think I would also be mad if I relied on this software for my 500gb+ backups, and I wonder how many more issues have been introduced that we simply won't learn about until a company has a $10 million dollar data loss because they were not testing their backups consistently.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Would you hold off on fixing a security vulnerability if it caused a limited regression? Regressions should be fixed expediently, but if you apply the criteria "need to not happen" they are literally blocking issues. They could then block security fixes.
Which part of security fixing demands thoughtless generation of code slop without regression testing though? I worked on major OSS projects and we never just blindly pushed out untested poor quality code for security fixes since that adds WORSE security regressions.
The methodology describes the effort you may be putting into something, The outcomes are about what results are you prepared to accept.
Would you ship an update with a security fix if it had been thoroughly tested was shown to have certain regressions but no worse security regressions? Would you refuse to fix the security issue until you could do so without any degradation?
It's clear that people can and do accept regressions for security updates. Spectre mitigations cause performance regressions. SharedArrayBuffer got taken away for a while. Being absolutist about things seldom helps.
I agree due care should be taken where possible, but I'm also prepared to accept that mistakes can happen even when people have worked diligently to find issues.
Since you have worked on major OSS projects. Have any of them shipped regressions unintentionally? Right now that is the only thing we have to go on, that these things happened. The degree of care taken is an unknown, as is the degree of LLM involvement. We might know more in a week or two.
If you want to condemn something based upon what might have happened you can specifically state what you think shouldn't happen, and that will stand regardless of whether or not it applies to the current incident.
Obviously "Thoughtless generation of code slop without regression testing" is unacceptable, but that is because the conclusion is written into the statement by saying "thoughtless" "slop" and "without regression testing"
If tridge says 'I gave it thought, I don't agree that it is slop, and I did regression testing' then you have nothing further to complain about, because the incident does not fall under the criteria you specified.
It's saying 'things that are bad, are bad'. The defence is to say 'well, this isn't bad'
This anti-AI hysteria is just such a classic moral panic. It’s just 1) identify something as AI-produced 2) attack and ostracize anyone who might be involved in that production And as with all moral panics, whether (1) is factual is totally beside the point. The point is the almost sexual release you get from (2). I know in this case there is AI-produced code in rsync (as there is with most useful software by now), b…
the anger that's showing up around ai isn't a matter of the masses being misinformed, or the messaging around it, it's a matter of physics. you have this one thing that is being used as an excuse to lay people off en masse, you have tech ceos near daily saying they're gonna come for everyone else's job too, and you have the hyperscalers taking up every bit of oxygen in the room. not even gaming has been safe.
taking the attitude that it's "just such a classic moral panic" is figuring out which way the ocean is receding and running headlong toward it.
Seem to me some people have forgotten about FOSS projects > 15. Disclaimer of Warranty. > THERE IS NO WARRANTY FOR THE PROGRAM, TO THE EXTENT PERMITTED BY APPLICABLE LAW. EXCEPT WHEN OTHERWISE STATED IN WRITING THE COPYRIGHT HOLDERS AND/OR OTHER PARTIES PROVIDE THE PROGRAM "AS IS" WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, EITHER EXPRESSED OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, THE IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY AND FI…
Oh he's legally allowed to do this, it's just that he's a dick for doing it. One of the issue comments says: > Just because you are giving free soup to the homeless, doesn't mean you can piss in it.
But I also think Diogenes would look at this whole situation and start flinging his own shit at people only to say "What, I'm participating in the same way you are" when called on it.
This anti-AI hysteria is just such a classic moral panic. It’s just 1) identify something as AI-produced 2) attack and ostracize anyone who might be involved in that production And as with all moral panics, whether (1) is factual is totally beside the point. The point is the almost sexual release you get from (2). I know in this case there is AI-produced code in rsync (as there is with most useful software by now), b…
it's dangerous to refuse to understand whats happening broadly, and what's taking place in this thread, and to signal that it's ok to keep refusing to understand it. the anger that's showing up around ai isn't a matter of the masses being misinformed, or the messaging around it, it's a matter of physics. you have this one thing that is being used as an excuse to lay people off en masse, you have tech ceos near daily…
Isn't it though? let me quote my other comments in this thread:
> There is undoubtedly AI-written code in the Linux kernel now, but are they out there harassing those maintainers? No. rsync GitHub is easier to brigade.
> They’re also all completely disingenuous (“I’ll have to stop using rsync now”) given that 99.99% of software now includes AI-written code
This is why I call it a moral panic and hysteria. It's not reasoned, considered opposition to AI. The people on that github thread are totally disconnected from reality - it doesn't matter to them whether the accusations are true, it matters that the accusations have been made, and against an easy target that they don't expect fight-back from.
If they really just had a considered moral opposition to AI-generated code, they would be out there harassing Linus Torvalds himself. Are they? No. Because it's just a moral panic.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is rsync we are talking about. A bug in rsync basically means lost data and/or unreliable backups. I think it's normal to be pissed at lost data. Maybe it's not socially acceptable to spit in the face of a volunteer but it's 100% human to feel annoyed by an obvious drop in code quality.
The thing is, showing the annoyance to the volunteer, who is already doing their best, has two possible outcomes: 1) they stop volunteering 2) they will ignore you In neither of that is your issue solved. So maybe it's better to deal with the frustration on your own and then file a bug report.
Poor communication results in professionals firing the customer as well. None of this is exclusive to OSS of volunteer effort. But the communication in general is necessary.
This is just product management and communication issues. There is an perceived problem and the problem MUST be communicated.
Problems aren't solved by shutting up and ignoring things. And based on the discussion in this topic, it's clear there's a lot of people who are worried about rsync code quality here.
This anti-AI hysteria is just such a classic moral panic. It’s just 1) identify something as AI-produced 2) attack and ostracize anyone who might be involved in that production And as with all moral panics, whether (1) is factual is totally beside the point. The point is the almost sexual release you get from (2). I know in this case there is AI-produced code in rsync (as there is with most useful software by now), b…
It’s tough to take your response seriously with loose thinking like “The point is the almost sexual release you get from (2).” Upon further reading, you use emotional language too - “witch-hunt” and “hysteria”. Are these witch-hunts? And can you tell if people over the internet are nearing sexual release? Are you responding to emotional language and other’s loose thinking with your own?