all 24 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 43 points 9 hours ago (9 children)

It's an unfortunate news, burnout in open source was real even before AI. Now it has just exploded.

Reviewing code has always been a bottleneck. AI made sending a patch nearly free, but reviewing one costs the same as ever, and it lands on a few volunteers.

For code that millions run, someone has to understand every line, so the sender should do that work, not the maintainer. Otherwise you’re just moving the cost onto the people who can least afford it.

There should be a simple rule: if you can’t explain your patch line by line, don’t send it. And maintainers should feel free to reject any patch by default when the sender can’t explain it.

  • source
  • hideshow 9 child comments
  • [–] 21 points 9 hours ago (5 children)

    I'm a programmer. I vibecode a bunch of prototypes and personal projects. I couldn't imagine being inconsiderate or stupid enough to submit pure hallucinated code to any project, let alone a kernel project. And to have an agent open the PR for me, with code I haven't read or don't understand? absolutely insane

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 5 hours ago* (last edited 2 hours ago)

    I can't imagine myself doing that either, but I've seen that happen so often that it's just disheartening. I've asked for explanation of code in PRs and got "idk, the AI generated that" way too many times, and that's from professional software engineers, people who should know better. The corner-cutting is just too much for me

    Edit: typo

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 6 points 8 hours ago

    Same here. Vibecoding my own tools is fine, because I’m the one who pays for the bugs. A kernel patch is different: thousands of people pay for them, so understanding every line is the minimum.

    Anyone who sends code to public software should follow a simple code of ethics. A low barrier to entry is great, it’s how most of us started. But the bar for responsibility should rise with how many people run your code, and right now it doesn’t.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 1 point 4 hours ago (2 children)

    Yup. I "vibe coded" changes to a number of projects, but I either kept it on my own fork (it's open so upstream can grab it any time they want), or thoroughly reviewed before submitting.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 3 hours ago* (1 child)

    Yep, pretty much. The only times I've ever submitted LLM generated code to a public project was when it was more or less identical to what I would have written by hand; and even then, I've never once considered having an agent hallucinate a PR...

    I knew the problem, I knew what the fixes would look like, I had the LLM draft the changes, I read it through and fixed up some slop and documented it appropriately. The code it generated: I understood, I wanted, I polished, I committed, and I owned as my code which I and nothing else was soley responsible for.

    That, to me, is a little bit different than pure vibe coding; where most of the time I won't even read it. Sometimes I don't even care what languages it's in. That is peak slop, and that doesn't go near anyone's machine but my own, unless they do it themselves (some of the more substantial and long-term slop project I have are committed in public Git repos, but all of the such slop projects are very explicitly documented as such at the very top of my readmes)

    My use of LLMs in real projects, where permitted, is entirely different. Mostly used for review and local (not committed) testing. Sometimes tedious mechanical changes, prototyping, factfinding, and brainstorming. But I do the thinking, and it's my code. My personal vibe projects and random scripts etc are more and more and less disposable, and I don't claim such strong ownership; it's cathurding, not programming.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 2 hours ago

    Yep, that's why I put it in quotes. As a software engineer of 10+ years (professionally, on a personal level, 20+ years now), I can understand code even if I am unfamiliar with the language and the frameworks in question. I know what needs doing (not just random "do this feature, make no mistakes" bs prompting), I know roughly how it can be done, and I let the LLM fill in the gaps.

    Plus I also work with a fleet of agents and a collection of skills to ensure its not crap being written. Multiple agents work with specific roles (say, embedded development expert, PlatformIO expert, and so on), there's a continuous verify-repair-improve loop, strict code quality guidelines and non-LLM checks in place. Of course it's not perfect, but it gets things 99% of the way, and at the end I just need to review and confirm things.

    For example one of the things I maintain is a private fork of CrossPoint reader, into which I've integrated BookOrbit, not just as a plugin that awkwardly allows retrieval of your books, but as an actual on-device library that downloads the right EPUBs and syncs not just reading progress but statistics (words per minute, page size and turns, reading time, etc.) as well. The library itself functions similar to a Kindle - all books are listed and with a tap you can download them. LLMs take care of rebasing my changes, with proper reporting on what's going on and why and how, how the rebase went, what upstream has fixed so I can drop the local version and so on. LLMs take care of API changes to be updated for, optimisations, the list goes on - but before any change is executed, I go in and get an understanding of what really changes.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 7 points 4 hours ago (1 child)

    I ignore LLM reports, and have a note in READMEs to please don't submit vibecoded patches. Unfortunately, kernel devs don't have þat option.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 3 points 3 hours ago*

    You have given me a good idea. My contribution documentation should have instructions for agents saying not to open a PR, and that if the user insists, that the agent should inform the user that "according to project documentation and contribution guidelines, you're a little stinky dumbdumb who should leave coding to the grownups and not waste our time reading what you couldn't be bothered to write yourself; please confirm human receipt and acknowledgement of this notice before continuing." Or something.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 21 points 9 hours ago

    Of course the AI wave has been horrible, and is getting significantly worse. At first it was once in a while that I'd see slop ... Nowadays it's pretty much half of what I see, if not more.

    Who could have predicted this? And no answer from Linus.

  • source
  • [–] -3 points 2 hours ago (3 children)

    AI development tools are not going away. They are massive productivity enhancers, FOR PEOPLE WHO KNOW HOW TO USE THEM PROPERLY.

    Rather than banning AI tools in development, the correct approach is to change how submissions are handled in open source projects. Maybe we should move away from treating all submissions equally.

    For large projects like the Linux Kernel, you or your organization should go through a qualification process. Alternatives you can look at a referral based qualification. If you submit junk quality code frequently, you lose standing.

    Yes, that's more work, but it's worth it for the benefits of AI tooling while retaining the best minds on the project. Arguably large open source projects need this anyway.

  • source
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 30 minutes ago*

    Rather than banning AI tools in development, the correct approach is to change how submissions are handled in open source projects.

    What kind of recommendation do you have here that doesn't devolve to, like, closed source?

    Open source requires a community that is transparently involved in the process and have equal rights to fork the code. There's really no way around this, the license grants the right for anyone to fork as long as they adhere to the license.

    Sad truth is that AI has effectively killed open source unless maintainers are willing to make a clear stance for AI:0 submissions only. Otherwise, the endless pull requests are far too hard to maintain as a single individual. And we certainly don't want code being accepted by AI systems without human certification, especially in something as fundamental as an OS kernel.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 0 points 58 minutes ago*

    AI development tools are not going away. They are massive productivity enhancers, FOR PEOPLE WHO KNOW HOW TO USE THEM PROPERLY.

    It depends.

    To be more specific, they are massive productivity enhancers over the short term with the trade off being lost productivity over the long term. If your scope is going to be over the long term then using LLM tools is going to be a net negative benefit.

    A single small scope disposable project however might be more productive to be vibecoded as the negative effects to the coder (e.g. cognitive debt, skill atrophy, etc...) can be overcome by paying off that debt and reinforcing acquired skills in the next project with thinking through challenging problems and hand coding a larger project.

    But you need to take care to make sure it's a one off, otherwise you open yourself up to compounding those negative effects. The real danger is the productivity boost from one small scoped disposable project is psychologically seductive and you risk yourself falling into a cognitive surrender / death-spiral. We already know it uses the same pathways as those found in gambling and drug addiction so caution is definitely warranted.

    Rather than banning AI tools in development, the correct approach is to change how submissions are handled in open source projects. Maybe we should move away from treating all submissions equally.

    For large projects like the Linux Kernel, you or your organization should go through a qualification process. Alternatives you can look at a referral based qualification. If you submit junk quality code frequently, you lose standing.

    Yes, that’s more work, but it’s worth it for the benefits of AI tooling while retaining the best minds on the project. Arguably large open source projects need this anyway.

    This can work, but it's easy to get it wrong.

    Online competitive gaming suffers a similar problem: If all your opponents are bots or cheaters, then the game is no longer fun and players leave.

    The best solution we have for that is shadowbanning. When a user is found to have been cheating, only match them with other cheaters, and don't tell them. But that doesn't work in source forges where bad users can tell they can't communicate with everyone.

    The next best solution is to make it expensive to be a bad actor. Make it so that to participate, you need a paid account (usually a small $5 fee). Bad actor's accounts are banned and to participate again, you need to jump through the hoops of purchasing a new account. This is used in gaming with purchasing subscriptions (where the credit card number is blacklisted), or by tying a phone number to the account which is sent a validation text message (where the number is blacklisted). This is also used by phone app stores to combat spam app submissions.

    It's not a perfect solution, but it's effective.

  • source
  • parent
  • [+] -29 points 9 hours ago (8 children)

    Developer no longer wants to developer. Got it. Not news these days.

  • source
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] 15 points 9 hours ago (5 children)

    Why solve problems when you can yell at a robot and it does random things?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [+] -11 points 9 hours ago (4 children)
  • [–] 4 points 7 hours ago (3 children)

    Damn. Bro really just called AI human 💀

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • 63 comments in c/linux@lemmy.ml view that post
    [–] 87 points 1 day ago (22 children)

    Why is it starting to feel like they will slopify the entire kernel?

  • source
  • hideshow 22 child comments
  • [–] 68 points 1 day ago (18 children)

    Because they are....and Linus set it in motion by acting like LLM code slop is the way forward for linux.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 18 child comments
  • [–] 31 points 1 day ago (10 children)

    Yeah Linus thinks because he can easily validate the code generated by ai and know what to use and what to discard/recreate, that everybody else can also do the same. It doesn't work that way. This is gonna end up killing linux or somebody is gonna fork it to keep it human only

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 10 child comments
  • [–] 11 points 1 day ago (4 children)

    Yea which is scary as hell, Linux has always been the "security choice" for an OS...now... everyone in the security field is going to start getting a bit more cautious about it.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 8 points 1 day ago (2 children)

    It's for this reason that i'm starting to eye openbsd. Apart from wifi for my laptop not working it seems surprisingly compatible in terms of hardware, but the bigger issue would be that i would be more limited when it comes to gaming. As a Guix/Nix enjoyer i would also kinda miss declaring my OS through code. I'm probably sticking with linux for the time being but i'm gonna try getting more familiar with openbsd as well

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 21 minutes ago

    Same here. Have been using Linux since 1998 and a daily driver since 2005. After all this time I am starting to look to alternatives to potentially jump to. Currently I run Triqsuel which uses a de-blobed kernel but all the code coming in nowadays will slip past that filter and it will increasingly fall to the wave of slop code.

    I wish Haiku OS was a bit more stable because it has so much potential, but I have still found it lacking despite the brilliant work everyone has done on it.

    So it might be a BSD system in future as well.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 6 points 1 day ago* (4 children)

    Yeah Linus thinks because he can easily validate the code generated by ai and know what to use and what to discard/recreate

    I mean, the Linux kernel exists because of him? I would argue to say he knows the most about Linux than anyone arguing against him.

    somebody is gonna fork it to keep it human only

    People are going to generate and commit code without acknowledging the LLM usage, then 5-10 years will pass and a huge whistleblower will go ““BabaMan29484” has been committing LLM code for years and nobody except I knew about it!! [Insert evidence] [Insert community outrage] [insert fork of a fork created by “real humans”]”


    I won’t argue and say that LLM generated code isn’t plagiarism, I mean it has to learn somewhere, but if it’s being audited by industry professionals I can’t see the negative to using it.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] [S] 2 points 9 hours ago (1 child)

    The dictatorship of Technocratism. This same (circular) argument is pushed by neoliberal fuckers on austerity, when that's just a game they were paid to play.

    Software existed before Linus Torvalds and will thrive after him.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 2 points 19 minutes ago*

    In another time line, Stallman and the GNU team don't attempt a moonshot Kernel with Hurd and Linux kernel never gets its foot in the door. Many are still promoting Libre/Free software and not the morally corrupted open source that Linus and Eric Raymond fell into for quick success.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] [S] -1 points 1 day ago (6 children)

    Lil kids, noobs, need to be taught to stop idolize guys like Greg and Linus, they went corporate and became evil.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 34 points 1 day ago (5 children)

    They're not evil, and "went corporate" is a vague and meaningless jab.

    Dont idolize people is generally good advice though. I think these guys' problem is that they're old and jaded, and should've stepped down long ago. If there's no one fit to take their place, that's a reflection of their failure as leaders.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [+] [S] -18 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (4 children)

    They are evil, they have to be to play along. The big money dictates what happens in the Linux Foundation

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 1 day ago (3 children)

    Are you donating to Linux? The only reason Linux is where it is at now is big money. Ifnitbwas just people coding in their spare time it would be no where near where it is today. People have to make money. Do youbwork for free?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 14 minutes ago

    I do work for free if it is for the greater good. Any works I have done by myself are all copyleft. I have even inherited loads of copyrights from written works that I immediately put into public domain.

    Live simply, don't use much, share as much as possible.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 8 points 9 hours ago

    Let's see how many more things can be harmed by "AI". It's going great!

    Ban Anthropic's IPO before they destroy the economy completely.

    https://daringfireball.net/misc/2026/11/gary-marcus-anthropic-ipo.pdf

  • source
  • [–] 25 points 1 day ago (14 children)

    This is why I am downloading Debian 13 and its entire repository tonight (~500gb). I want to make sure I have a working copy archived.

  • source
  • hideshow 14 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 1 day ago (11 children)

    Where can I find the entire repository? Can find all the pakkages butt no "download all"

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 11 child comments
  • [–] 7 points 1 day ago (1 child)

    Assuming you are installing on a 64bit PC, and that I read the docs correctly.

    1. Install "debmirror"
    2. Mount destination USB drive (2TB is ideal) to "/mnt/<your_biggo_disco>"
    3. run the following command

    debmirror --arch=amd64
    --method=http
    --host=deb.debian.org
    --root=debian
    --dist=trixie,trixie-updates
    --section=main,contrib,non-free,non-free-firmware
    --nosource
    /mnt/<your_biggo_disco>

    That should work. Give it a test drive before committing to an all night archiving.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 4 points 1 day ago (6 children)

    I am working on it and I'll try to share a script for it. I'll reply to your comment again once I do.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 6 hours ago (4 children)

    I've already done this for Debian Testing if you run into any problems let me know.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 6 hours ago (3 children)

    What was your download total?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 5 hours ago

    Way smaller. Like 180GB or something like that I don't remember exactly. But I didn't do the full mirror I just did source and non-freefirmware and stuff like that. I can check my mirror update command when i get on my desktop to see exactly what I did. I have a script that has it in there.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 2 points 5 hours ago

    I use mine for pulling packages because I want it to work without internet. I just keep a USB stick with the installer to install the distro from and then would point my sources to the local mirror and update it for an installation. That's not really my use case tho since it's more something to help me maintain my existing installation and always have any packages I might want. Not meant to be a full backup. So yours being bigger does make some sense.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 11 points 1 day ago (3 children)

    Huh. Guess I'll be looking even harder at switching to a BSD to escape the slop.

  • source
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 12 hours ago* (1 child)

    Hopefully, the amount of bugs/fixes will slow down, when "all" existing bugs and security issues has been found and fixed. Going forward, code will be AI checked, before it is pulled into the kernel, and minimise the amount of issues making it into the kernel. This could ultimately lead to less time spent on fixing these issues later.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 9 points 12 hours ago

    Clearly you haven't been in enough contact with AI generated code. I'm keeping track of merged or reviewd PRs in my team with race conditions or general concurrency issues. We're up to ten in 3 months (that we've noticed). Other teams are doing the same and the numbers are unnerving

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 5 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (7 children)

    Good... This is called karma.

    We needed a serious alternative since a long time ago anyway. Enshitification of the Linux Foundation hopefully will trigger the rise of a less fascist, maybe even antifascist, organisation.

  • source
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 9 points 1 day ago (1 child)

    Can you explain what the karma is here? I’m not familiar / don’t have the context you’re referring to

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 4 points 1 day ago

    They are Anti-AI but Linux kernel lead developer Linus Torvalds took a position of 'The cat (AI) is out of the bag and not going back in, so it's better to adapt than ban AI' much to their chagrin.

    'karma' = 'you deserve this' cue simpsons' nelson laugh

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] [S] 17 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (3 children)

    The Linux Foundation is the enshitification itself.

    We need that new organization however I wouldn't know where to look right know: the FSF is full of libertarians. It's a miracle that they created the GPLs. And the *BSDs are even worse.

    We're in a dire need of something not tainted by braindead American ideologies.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 8 points 1 day ago (1 child)

    As long as two conditions are fulfilled, and I look at the track record here, I don't give a shit about personal background:

    1. The organization does work that is either democratic socialist or is compatible with democratic socialism.
    2. The organization readily hires, has no negative selectivity when it comes to promoting, respects, includes, enfranchises, cooperates with, actual known track record dem soc people and projects.

    And this is 100% in line with my approach in general. Outside software, I consider Islam and Christianity to have negative doctrinal elements, but I 100% support Zohran Mamdani, Abdul el Sayed, and James Talarico. I don't put a lot of weight on personal background, and do my best to judge based on track record.

    I consider libertarianism and ancappism to be highly toxic, but as a background, it won't detract from the good work the folks are doing.

    For all I know, without some weighty evidence, these "libertarians" are closeted democratic socialists. We can't throw orgs like the FSF, that have done amazing good work, under the bus casually.

    But if a new org appears that is explicitely dem soc, and they do good work, I wencome that. There is plenty of space under the sun for many good things.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] [S] 3 points 13 hours ago

    You sound like a Dem. If you think Dems and whatever you call DemSoc are Leftists, oh boy, we need to talk.

    But I'm not throwing out the baby with the water, the FSF did many great things. But it's limited in what they want to do.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 3 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

    Agreed, this is a kind of hegemony in which I grew up with the FSF and GNU being the good guys and the best we have so I can't imaging better.

    To their credit they exist and their contribution is the best we have so far. Despite full of engineers the western communist movements can't build anything. So W for the libertarians for that one. For now.

  • source
  • parent
  • [+] -10 points 6 hours ago (9 children)

    AI found a bunch of security issues that up until now had not been found. Just because no one had found them doesn't mean the security exposure wasn't there. Talk about shooting the messenger (AI in this case). Lorenzo should ask himself why the vulnerabilities hadn't been found until now.

  • source
  • hideshow 9 child comments
  • [–] 12 points 6 hours ago (4 children)

    Are you serious? He's one human being. He's not getting paid to do this. All the people who volunteer their time to maintain Linux have lives and jobs too. He didn't "shoot the messenger" He said "Given the current throughput in the kernel resulting from AI-generated series, I unfortunately lack the bandwidth to generally be able to offer review except in those areas I maintain.

    I have separated the patches into areas maintained by David, Andrew, and Alice + Danilo, so each can take the patches relevant to the subsystems, for convenience.

    Apologies for doing this, but given the current trends I'd like to do something to make my inbox a little more manageable :)"

    It's right there in the post. It doesn't matter if the vulnerabilities are valid or not. The man can't keep up with doing everything he'd been doing because its just too much work for one person to handle.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 4 hours ago (1 child)

    I agree broadly, but how do we know he isn't being paid by ARM for this work?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 5 points 3 hours ago

    Even if he is he was being paid for the workload he was doing before. That workload has vastly increased. It would not be reasonable to expect him to take on a bunch of new work with no pay increase. And that's assuming its even possible for him to do it all by himself.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 2 points 2 hours ago (1 child)

    There seems to be a lot of entitlement in the open source consumer community. It's kinda wild how so many people seem to think they can dictate how people spend their personal time just because they (wannabe dictator) like the thing they (the person spending their free time making free shit) made.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 2 points 56 minutes ago

    I think it's because of capitalism as cliche as that sounds. People are so used to the idea that they're entitled to things and stuff like "the customer is always right" that they've got it in their head that the consumer is sacred. That they have rights or something as the user. That people who make things should be grateful they use them. Rather than the other way around being the case. If you use FOSS software and you never donate to any of them, never submit issues, never provide diagnostic data, etc then you are just a leech. You aren't entitled to anything. There's nothing wrong with leeching off something like this that's why people make it but for fucks sake be grateful. Even a little bit of money makes a difference btw. I use Debian and I will send them 5-10$ a year. I'm also considering sending them some of my old hardware but I'm not sure if it would be very useful to them lol.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 6 points 4 hours ago

    yes i can also point an LLM on the kernel, instruct it to find vulnerabilities and it will invent one because it's a sycophantic removed. Doesn't change the fact that 80% of those reports are absolutely worthless and that are also written by LLM are miserable to read and verify.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 5 points 5 hours ago

    This is actually a great opportunity for you to bolster your argument on multiple fronts.

    Grab your favourite LLM , point it at that article and ask it to summarise the meaning.

    See how that stacks up against the take you just posted.

    For bonus points, also provide the prompt, name of model/harness used and the response you were given, for independent verification.

    That way, you get to promote your favourite workflow and provide corroborating evidence of interpretation.

    1000035258

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 1 point 36 minutes ago

    i don't know how you nterpreted that article, but to me it was just a dude overwhelmed by volume, and sending some to others so he can continue to be effective. i don't think he was claiming anything about AI or the patches themselves.

  • source
  • parent