NetBSD 9.5 released and EOL for NetBSD-9

If you think you can identify frontier model-generated planned and reviewed c/c++ from human-generated planned and reviewed c/c++, I've got some bad news for you.

The "no slop" policy is the same as it ever was: garbage has to make it through patch code review. If an LLM wrote it rather than a human and it passes patch review, it's fine. Rejecting features or fixes because a probabilistic algorithm said "should look like this" feels a lot like rejecting c/c++ because you read Intel's docs and have a hex editor.

Edit: s/like like/look like/

Re: NetBSD 9.5 released and EOL for NetBSD-9

#5

Post by a31ahg » Sun, Sep 06, 2026, 7:35 PM UTC

emidln wrote: post #4

3qajsh17 wrote: post #3

[flagged]

If you think you can identify frontier model-generated planned and reviewed c/c++ from human-generated planned and reviewed c/c++, I've got some bad news for you. The "no slop" policy is the same as it ever was: garbage has to make it through patch code review. If an LLM wrote it rather than a human and it passes patch review, it's fine. Rejecting features or fixes because a probabilistic algorithm said "should look…

[flagged]

Re: NetBSD 9.5 released and EOL for NetBSD-9

#6

Post by sigseg1v » Sun, Sep 06, 2026, 8:04 PM UTC

a31ahg wrote: post #5

emidln wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you think you can identify frontier model-generated planned and reviewed c/c++ from human-generated planned and reviewed c/c++, I've got some bad news for you. The "no slop" policy is the same as it ever was: garbage has to make it through patch code review. If an LLM wrote it rather than a human and it passes patch review, it's fine. Rejecting features or fixes because a probabilistic algorithm said "should look…

[flagged]

Totally inaccurate comparison. Garbage dumped on the side of the road is still garbage. It's more like if someone dumped lab-grown diamonds on the side of the road that are virtually indistinguishable from mined diamonds. Someone would be happy to take them and none the wiser.

Re: NetBSD 9.5 released and EOL for NetBSD-9

#7

Post by soupbowl » Mon, Sep 07, 2026, 12:44 AM UTC

jmclnx wrote: post #2

I need to get around and upgrade an old mini-tower with an AMD-586 w/512MB memory from 9.3 to 11.0, I may wait for 11.1.

What do you use that low spec machine for?

Re: NetBSD 9.5 released and EOL for NetBSD-9

#8

Post by jmclnx » Mon, Sep 07, 2026, 1:17 AM UTC

soupbowl wrote: post #7

jmclnx wrote: post #2

I need to get around and upgrade an old mini-tower with an AMD-586 w/512MB memory from 9.3 to 11.0, I may wait for 11.1.

What do you use that low spec machine for?

It is a backup machine for important files. Plus testing items I develop to see how they run in limited environments.

Re: NetBSD 9.5 released and EOL for NetBSD-9

#9

Post by soupbowl » Mon, Sep 07, 2026, 1:30 AM UTC

jmclnx wrote: post #8

soupbowl wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What do you use that low spec machine for?

It is a backup machine for important files. Plus testing items I develop to see how they run in limited environments.

Cool, was just curious.

Re: NetBSD 9.5 released and EOL for NetBSD-9

#10

Post by AdieuToLogic » Mon, Sep 07, 2026, 1:59 AM UTC

sigseg1v wrote: post #6

a31ahg wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

Totally inaccurate comparison. Garbage dumped on the side of the road is still garbage. It's more like if someone dumped lab-grown diamonds on the side of the road that are virtually indistinguishable from mined diamonds. Someone would be happy to take them and none the wiser.

> It's more like if someone dumped lab-grown diamonds on the side of the road that are virtually indistinguishable from mined diamonds.

Equating LLM generated code to "lab-grown diamonds" is disingenuous at best.

> Someone would be happy to take them and [be] none the wiser.

If the quality of GenAI PRs were equivalent to those authored by experienced contributors, then there would not be as many GenAI PR bans in FOSS operating system repositories.