311–320 of 369 posts
"We should be able to trust that our tools will remain the tools we actually signed up to use." Yep... well that's what free software and open-source is for. You can't trust corporations so you MUST have the actual code. Harsh lesson but at least if something is learned and the mistake not repeated, that's OK.
FTFY. Free software is the user-freedom fork of that concept, while open source is the developer-corporation-freedom fork.
"We should be able to trust that our tools will remain the tools we actually signed up to use." Yep... well that's what free software and open-source is for. You can't trust corporations so you MUST have the actual code. Harsh lesson but at least if something is learned and the mistake not repeated, that's OK.
You need at least:
1. A Copyleft license
2. Rights staying with the authors, no CLA, no Copyright assignment
3. A diverse enough set of truly independent contributors to reliably prevent collusion.
Bonus points if everything is held together by an organization that operates for the good of the public (and not only its members, 501(c)(3) > 501(c)(6)).
Good examples are Linux, Git, Inkscspe and QEMU. Notably all software from the 90s or early 2000s.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Do we still need an IDE though? I am very happy with Claude Code last 6 months. I can totally see why Google got rid of everything, but the dialog box. Perhaps it was stupid to do that without warning, but ultimately this is the future.
I find this comment mind-boggling; in an honest confusion, not insulting way. I use Claude Code (and desktop) on a daily basis; but I can't even imagine doing anything complex without being able to see the code.
and claude opens up a new emacs frame (aka "window" if you're not an emacs doc writer) with a magit diff buffer of whatever we've been working on. This happens instantly because the emacs server is already running since startup and this is just popping up a little client window
> We should be able to trust that our tools will remain the tools we actually signed up to use. If that is your priority (it is mine, too), why not use one of the many open source harnesses? There's for example Pi, and countless others... With Google Antigravity or Claude Code or another proprietary solution, it's absolutely certain they'll change the harness in ways you will not like. Why even write a blog post abou…
is there a good open editor that offers a good native AI exeriience? there's good agent harnesses, but good integrations with an editor like antigravity (now the antigravity IDE) or vscode copilot seem to be tied to businesses and focused on their business goals.
Google made its lack of interest in Antigravity IDE obvious from very early. Updates were few and far between and app-breaking bugs stuck around, despite tons of reports. Google's lack of focus is astounding. They sprinkle random products here and there and seem to then tepidly pick the product surface that is doing least bad and then tepidly focus on that. Compare that to every other AI lab, large and small that kno…
can someone shed some light on the internal politics here, I thought anti-gravity was what the acqui-hired windsurf leadership team shipped?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No, it's more that Gemini models are simply not very good for coding compared to the top two. Even with Antigravity I use Claude models.
Depends on the language. Gemini and Claude are far superior when it comes to C# for instance, compared to anything that OAI offers.
At least, that's my heuristic that tends to work for my workflow. I use a combination of Gemini-CLI, Claude Code, and Github Copilot, but across those, the underlying model choice works best according to which part of the applicaiton I am messing with