I'm lead in my team and AI is being used to varying degrees. One colleague is a problem, but was a problem before AI as well. Me and my other three colleagues have a common understanding of you have to take ownership, understand what you're doing, and document it.

As a reviewer, I ask for the information it lacks.

We (our company) has another project started with "AI first" too, and now still works mainly through "document features and behavior and stuff in md files and AI generates it" - so mostly about spec writing and AI generating. I don't know how well that works, but I've heard bad more than good things (which may be common anyway) and it certainly hasn't lead to meeting timelines (now more than half a year behind the original planned release).

Personally, I'm still skeptical about AI use, but do use it occasionally. Our project is simply too complex (and legacy and long history of changed dotnet technology as well). It's more feasible on newer projects, but Blazor isn't a straight forward framework either, mixing razor, html, css, component isolation, SAP lifecycle, render modes and whatnot.

I haven't used AI to a degree where I feel it significantly [negatively] impacts my capabilities. Thankfully, my team hasn't pivoted into that completely, either. I see the risk and hope pushes though. The promise of AI speeding things up. The customer saying "a bit more risk is fine"; but it's on us to communicate the difference between risks (the bug fix missed one additional unknown place vs long term maintainability and its associated risks).

Not being able to compare some proprietary is besides my point. Not all code is or remains hidden. I specifically wrote "if you can match" to remain neutral on that aspect.

Copied code often matches, often look the same.

You don't wear your skin? 😱

Coommunicate your motivation

coom :yesyes:

It would be interesting to see whether the BSD community finds a way to keep working with Asahi under the new terms.

They could go GPL too. :)

Asahi dual-licensing would be difficult, because then it'd be out there as MIT or BSD, which they don't want. The BSD using custom-licensed parts - the BSD projects probably don't want that.

I am not entirely sure why the GPLv2 license wouldn’t work for the BSDs,

The GPL is a copyleft license. Derivative and combined works must be published under the same license.

You can use BSD with GPL and then publish as GPL, but you can not publish as BSD.

"Sad to see Asahi out there burning bridges for no reason.. relicensing m1n1 and drivers under GPL2-or-later, seemingly without the consent of all prior contributors, under the guise of "defending against AI bad actors", seems entirely disingenuous and misguided."

"no reason" but there's reasons anyway and those are "entirely disingenuous and misguided"

Too bad [their] twitter posts don't go into actual arguments. Why is it supposedly disingenuous? Why misguided? Are there better alternatives? Probably not.

If you can compare the code and it matches you probably have a good case if the AI user can't demonstrate it's not coming from you.

There's different kinds of datasets. Some respect, select and disclose licenses, others do not.

Some model trainers use any data they can, others are selective on what they train on.

It can also be a decision on principle rather than current or future enforcability. If you say "don't copy this" and someone blatantly does, the morality is clearer than if you didn't specifically say that.

There's also a question of how court rulings and law may change the situation of enforcability and usage/ignorance risk.

MIT requires attribution too. GPL is, at the very least, a stronger statement of intention and demand. It can also be seen as protest or indication of a broader move of corporate AI exploitation leading to damage to the whole FOSS ecosystem, with additional restrictions being applied. Corps that would use AI now can't use the MIT product anymore like before.

When I see word matching like this, in the context of AI, I still fear it's embedded in text prompt interfaces, meaning it can be evaded. (D E L E T E instead of delete etc)

It also doesn't tell me much about the wider risks and gaps of the connected system architecture - which, to be fair, I haven't inspected or analyzed, so I don't know one way or the other. One guard may be better than none, but doesn't define or fully describe overall/system risk.

Naturally, I'm more risk-averse and skeptical than many other people. I guess the original commenter is, too. :)

Which software has deterministic trustworthy gates?

I've tried looking into that and was disappointed.

and since the APP is FOSS, it’s probably fine

This (blind) trust is the attack vector, and exploits and attacks have been increasing in this vector

I don’t suppose buying AMD is really much of a protest vote against Nvidia.

Before AI, it was about proprietary vs open standards and iirc open source linux drivers. Surely those still apply.

That's one alternative they describe. They also mention other all-in-one alternatives. Ollama is not the only one of its kind.

Quoting here for full context/content and archiving:

Hello all,

Thank you all for the vocal and clear feedback. We intended this change to simplify the setup for developers who use agents to build APIs with coding agents as we see many people struggling in wiring these up. Installing skills for coding agents is a new way of working with Postman and we thought that the in-product and website messaging conveys the intent.

Based on the feedback from the community, we understand this wasn’t the case so we will be re-designing the experience with the right level of control.

In the meantime, we are reverting this change.

Notably, early earlier comments

• provided proof that information on the website about the cli being included was added later than the issue report
• one comment said they received this stuff as an update

So the "in product and website messaging" seems like bullshit/lies evading accountability, attempting to change facts.

The supposed goal of "simplify setup for developers who use agents" leading to changes on existing workflows and setups for people without explicit consent, confirmation, or information - questionable at best.

Seems pretty clearly like malware/malware behavior.

voxl was built for things like software factories that use headless VMs and sandboxes (CI, computer-use agents), usually on Xvfb with no GPU. It streams them to a plain browser tab over one WebSocket and has APIs for agents.

How is it different from RustDesk? RustDesk is an open-source alternative to TeamViewer and AnyDesk, for reaching your own computers or helping someone with theirs: you install its app on both ends, desktop or phone, and the two find each other through an ID server, then connect directly or through a relay. For that it's the better fit, and it also shares Wayland desktops (experimentally) and Android phones, which voxl doesn't. voxl is for desktops on servers, VMs and sandboxes: it's one process that serves its own page, so there's nothing to install on the viewing side and no ID or relay server to run. The stream goes wherever a URL does, can be embedded in another page and comes with the APIs agents use. RustDesk has a web client too, but it still goes through the ID and relay servers, and the self-hosted one comes with RustDesk Server Pro.

This is about GitHub, not Git, so seems better fit to !github@programming.dev

Resolved
This incident has been resolved. Thank you for your patience and understanding as we addressed this issue. A detailed root cause analysis will be shared as soon as it is available.
Posted 6 hours ago. Nov 04, 2026 - 11:50 UTC

• Fixed "Illegal instruction" error on certain x86_64 CPUs without SSE4.1. pr#5162
• Fixed "lock() not supported" error on Solaris. pr#5167

Further details are available in the changelog!

me follows link to changelog, same two list items

Very interesting, thank you for sharing

I guess I don't know what kind of posts you mean specifically, but yes, please do.

"Programming" can be and is typically interpreted quite broadly. It's not just "writing code" but development in general, and entails computer science.

Looks like this programming.dev instance does not have a computer science community yet, but I would love to see one. Cross-posting is possible too.

Tangential, there's !experienced_devs@programming.dev, but that's a different branch even if it can entail compsci.

I would love to see more practice or science or theory or hands-on posts in this community.

In the end, there's the option of just trying and seeing what votes and comments tell; appreciation or rejection.