[flagged]
Yes, the famously useless PosmarketOS.
Why don't you share the list of very useful things you created instead, mono442?
PostmarketOS in 2026-02: generic kernels, bans use of generative AI
11–20 of 116 posts
Re: PostmarketOS in 2026-02: generic kernels, bans use of generative AI
#12Earlier quoted context omitted.
Weird stance to take. I can understand "untested AI-genned code is bad, and thus anything that reeks of AI is going to be scrutinized" - especially given that PostmarketOS deals a lot with kernel drivers for hardware. Notoriously low error margins. But they just had to go out of their way and make it ideological rather than pragmatic.
as a kernel developer, I use LLMs for some tasks, but can say it is not there yet to write real kernel space code
Same.
Having an LLM helps, especially when you're facing a new subsystem you're not familiar with, and trying to understand how things are done there. They still can't do the heavy duty driver work by themselves - but are good enough for basic guidance and boilerplate.
Re: PostmarketOS in 2026-02: generic kernels, bans use of generative AI
#13Earlier quoted context omitted.
Weird stance to take. I can understand "untested AI-genned code is bad, and thus anything that reeks of AI is going to be scrutinized" - especially given that PostmarketOS deals a lot with kernel drivers for hardware. Notoriously low error margins. But they just had to go out of their way and make it ideological rather than pragmatic.
It's fine for a project to have moral/ideological leanings, it's only weird if you insist that project teams should be entirely amoral.
The main reason open source projects exist at all is because of people who started them with quite often fringe ideological leanings. Just look at the GNU project.
Re: PostmarketOS in 2026-02: generic kernels, bans use of generative AI
#14Earlier quoted context omitted.
as a kernel developer, I use LLMs for some tasks, but can say it is not there yet to write real kernel space code
Same. Having an LLM helps, especially when you're facing a new subsystem you're not familiar with, and trying to understand how things are done there. They still can't do the heavy duty driver work by themselves - but are good enough for basic guidance and boilerplate.
Guidance and boilerplate... in other words, documentation.
Re: PostmarketOS in 2026-02: generic kernels, bans use of generative AI
#15Earlier quoted context omitted.
Weird stance to take. I can understand "untested AI-genned code is bad, and thus anything that reeks of AI is going to be scrutinized" - especially given that PostmarketOS deals a lot with kernel drivers for hardware. Notoriously low error margins. But they just had to go out of their way and make it ideological rather than pragmatic.
as a kernel developer, I use LLMs for some tasks, but can say it is not there yet to write real kernel space code
Exactly, you can use it for some tasks. But why "explicitly forbid generative AI".
If you use AI to make repetitive tasks less repetitive, and clean up any LLM-ness afterwards, would they notice or care?
I find blanket bans inhibitive, and reeks of fear of change, rather than a real substantive stance.
Re: PostmarketOS in 2026-02: generic kernels, bans use of generative AI
#16Earlier quoted context omitted.
Weird stance to take. I can understand "untested AI-genned code is bad, and thus anything that reeks of AI is going to be scrutinized" - especially given that PostmarketOS deals a lot with kernel drivers for hardware. Notoriously low error margins. But they just had to go out of their way and make it ideological rather than pragmatic.
It's fine for a project to have moral/ideological leanings, it's only weird if you insist that project teams should be entirely amoral.
> It's fine for a project to have moral/ideological leanings
As long as they align with the correct (i.e. yours) values, of course. When they adopt the wrong values, it's not fine.
Re: PostmarketOS in 2026-02: generic kernels, bans use of generative AI
#17Earlier quoted context omitted.
as a kernel developer, I use LLMs for some tasks, but can say it is not there yet to write real kernel space code
Exactly, you can use it for some tasks. But why "explicitly forbid generative AI". If you use AI to make repetitive tasks less repetitive, and clean up any LLM-ness afterwards, would they notice or care? I find blanket bans inhibitive, and reeks of fear of change, rather than a real substantive stance.
They explain why in their AI policy. It's an ethical stance. Of course they wouldn't notice if there aren't clear signs of LLM-ness, but that's not the main reason why they forbid it.
https://docs.postmarketos.org/policies-and-processes/develop...
Re: PostmarketOS in 2026-02: generic kernels, bans use of generative AI
#18Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's fine for a project to have moral/ideological leanings, it's only weird if you insist that project teams should be entirely amoral.
The main reason open source projects exist at all is because of people who started them with quite often fringe ideological leanings. Just look at the GNU project.
And fringe economical leanings, too. Just look at the GNU project: the firmware in printers is still of subpar quality, and GNU didn't really help to change that... and why on Earth would it, anyway?
Re: PostmarketOS in 2026-02: generic kernels, bans use of generative AI
#19Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's fine for a project to have moral/ideological leanings, it's only weird if you insist that project teams should be entirely amoral.
> It's fine for a project to have moral/ideological leanings As long as they align with the correct (i.e. yours) values, of course. When they adopt the wrong values, it's not fine.
But it is fine. If I disagree with a project's values I'm not going to contribute to it, and they wouldn't want me there either.
Re: PostmarketOS in 2026-02: generic kernels, bans use of generative AI
#20Earlier quoted context omitted.
as a kernel developer, I use LLMs for some tasks, but can say it is not there yet to write real kernel space code
Exactly, you can use it for some tasks. But why "explicitly forbid generative AI". If you use AI to make repetitive tasks less repetitive, and clean up any LLM-ness afterwards, would they notice or care? I find blanket bans inhibitive, and reeks of fear of change, rather than a real substantive stance.
> But why "explicitly forbid generative AI".
The AI policy linked from the OP explains why. It's half not wanting to deal with slop, and half ethical concerns which still apply when it's used judiciously.