401–410 of 611 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
Is this comment LLM generated? Have fun with 1000x more Buns that literally no one is using or maintaining. An entire software industry built on top of a burning garbage pile of crappy, dead code.
Was just looking at commits and came across a commit and its revert original commit: https://github.com/RsyncProject/rsync/commit/d046525de39315d... ``` - if (!ptr) - ptr = malloc(num * size); - else if (ptr == do_calloc) + if (!ptr || ptr == do_calloc) ptr = calloc(num, size); ``` Written with claude. This is a good example of what slips through LLM attention. It forces all allocations to be calloc as if it is a str…
AI multiplied by Linux overcommit. What times we live in! (My own view: 10.8 GB is nothing these days. Your sprintf buffers are probably larger than that. (And if they aren't: they should be. That, or you should start using snprintf...))
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No there isn't.
I just cannot understand this logic, can you explain why there is no responsibility whatsoever on the part of a maintainer towards the users? Selling a toaster has an implicit warranty of merchantability. Society expects that if you sell me something, it should have certain promises. Yes, there’s no monetary exchange here, the work is given gratis, but there’s still a relationship and an interaction here and I think…
Why would you think this is worth mentioning here?
Instead of explaining, just try to do something, that people actually use, for free, in the open, for some time. It doesn't have to be software, can be work for a nonprofit or a charity etc. I'm sure you will be enlightened.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
To quote Tridge: > As to all the people saying “I’m going to package openrsync for platform XXX and we’ll use that!”. I find that rather amusing. If you do decide to go down that path I’d suggest you try the new rsync test suite on openrsync if you can stomach something that an AI has helped write. I tried it today and openrsync currently fails 85 of 98 tests, so I’m sure it won’t take you long to get it up to speed.…
I have already been using openrsync even before the recent AI drama. Just like I have been using doas for several years. All I need is `rsync -urvP` and I suspect the majority of users don't need the advanced features either. The smaller code base also means less bugs and vulnerabilities. As an example doas is ~1k lines vs 160k for sudo. That surely means a smaller attack surface. The same is true for openrsync and r…
And here: https://marc.info/?l=openbsd-tech&w=2&r=1&s=rsync&q=b you can quite a few other bugs...
I use OpenBSD for routers and love it :-) but it is software, hence it has bugs .-
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I just cannot understand this logic, can you explain why there is no responsibility whatsoever on the part of a maintainer towards the users? Selling a toaster has an implicit warranty of merchantability. Society expects that if you sell me something, it should have certain promises. Yes, there’s no monetary exchange here, the work is given gratis, but there’s still a relationship and an interaction here and I think…
If I hated my users I wouldn’t work on Homebrew for 17 years. I do hate a small subset of hostile users. The selling metaphor doesn’t work. Homebrew is not sold and its license, effectively a EULA, discloses all warranties because it is not sold and we are not paid a wage to build it. I have also built a bunch of proprietary software for money where my obligations are different. I also enjoy that and my responsibilit…
If you don’t mind me probing a little further, what is the motivation to work on it?
> they can fork it
I get that, but I also think it is too pat a narrative at the same time. I think the success of the project is both a testament to the effort that you and the Homebrew team have put into it. It is also an example of just how much effort any project really takes; this stuff doesn’t set itself up nor do all the patching required to make sure things behave as well as they do.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I just cannot understand this logic, can you explain why there is no responsibility whatsoever on the part of a maintainer towards the users? Selling a toaster has an implicit warranty of merchantability. Society expects that if you sell me something, it should have certain promises. Yes, there’s no monetary exchange here, the work is given gratis, but there’s still a relationship and an interaction here and I think…
> Selling a toaster has an implicit warranty of merchantability. Why would you think this is worth mentioning here? Instead of explaining, just try to do something, that people actually use, for free, in the open, for some time. It doesn't have to be software, can be work for a nonprofit or a charity etc. I'm sure you will be enlightened.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why would every company do it though? They'll just all be using the same (Anthropic's) AI-enabled fork.
You think Anthropic wants to be the sole maintainer of thousands of forked OSS projects...? I seriously doubt that would happen, for legal, marketing, and logistical reasons alike.
I don't have a dog in this fight, but a few points that look a little suspicious: - The release with the highest number of attributed bugs is the release _right before_ the first release with Claude-coauthored commits, released in January; is there a chance that unattributed LLM-authored commits made it into this release? - The release attribution methodology is not great, since it will tend to attribute bugs introdu…