51–60 of 148 posts
I feel really sorry for the developer. I've only been a casual observer, but from my view point the community's reaction was... not great, to put it lightly. I get that a lot of us are tired of 'AI' being shoved down our throat at every possible turn. I get that a lot of us have privacy concerns. I get that maybe you don't want it in your terminal emulator. But iTerm is a free (both as in gratis and as in libre) open…
[flagged]
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Say they introduce a bug, that will try to call that API even when there is no key.
Say they introduce a bug, that deletes every file on your machine.
The comments are such a facepalm. > Increases the attack surface No it doesn’t. It fork/executes the plugin in a different process AND verifies the signature. If an attacker can replace the binary and do things with it, you already have a much larger problem. Even if they do, all it does is pass JSON around, it doesn’t allow you to execute anything from within iTerm (afaik) > It can be called by any process It’s not…
It's before. You can code sign and verify macOS binaries with any certificate you wish, including a self-signed one (useful in case you want your private iTerm fork). Note the plugin should be signed with the same certificate as the iTerm app [1], just using a paid account won't work.
[1] https://gitlab.com/gnachman/iterm2/-/blob/b0e6b336a6be9bca00...
iTerm2 and AI Hype Overload
I'm not an iTerm2 user and the attitude of the developer in the response has certainly convinced me to never become one. I understand open source developers get burnt out, particularly with backlash from demanding users who contribute nothing in return, but the contempt for users with very valid concerns about AI and data leaks is not a healthy sign.
If you are a Mac user and not using (or at least considering) iTerm2, you are doing yourself a disservice. It is by far the best terminal emulator available and runs circles around the built-in option.
If you are a not a Mac user, then the entire discussion is moot either way.
The comment for the change contains a note of bitterness: > I have two goals in this change: To allow developers in restrictive but technically incompetent organizations to continue to use iTerm2. That is, they disallow anything that could potentially exfiltrate data, but don't have their act together enough to implement MDM. So that people who hate AI can feel at ease that no AI will happen by accident without havin…
[flagged]
I'm sure they actually are.
I'm at least quite glad that he listened and moved it into a separate plugin.
I'm not an iTerm2 user and the attitude of the developer in the response has certainly convinced me to never become one. I understand open source developers get burnt out, particularly with backlash from demanding users who contribute nothing in return, but the contempt for users with very valid concerns about AI and data leaks is not a healthy sign.
The comment for the change contains a note of bitterness: > I have two goals in this change: To allow developers in restrictive but technically incompetent organizations to continue to use iTerm2. That is, they disallow anything that could potentially exfiltrate data, but don't have their act together enough to implement MDM. So that people who hate AI can feel at ease that no AI will happen by accident without havin…
The whole drama was pretty silly, and the fact that everyone got upset that a feature that is inactive by default, consumes no processing power, memory or anything else and bullied the author of the open-source program should make everyone unhappy. This is why open-source maintainers burn out and we can't have nice things. Honestly, people, please consider the human on the other side of the toxic discourse.
Exactly. You have to provide it your own API key. If you don’t want it, don’t put it in and bam, no problem
That was the wrong way to do it. The feature should have been disabled with an actual, clear toggle that shows that it is. This blew up in the developers face for a good reason.