YHK - yet another hacker news clone

If I'm not mistaking, you can put public domain or at least BSD/MIT code into the Linus kernel which is licensed under GPLv2. Other people are then free to use that specific code under that specific license instead of GPLv2.

Also, Linus Torvalds wrote long time ago (before v2.6.12) some simple assembly routines in linux/include/asm-i386/string.h [1] which are public domain:

    NO Copyright (C) 1991, 1992 Linus Torvalds,
    consider these trivial functions to be PD.

[1]: https://github.com/torvalds/linux/blob/v2.6.12/include/asm-i...

It will poison it if you replace all of your code with public domain code.

A small patch here and there of uncopyrightable code doesn't really matter. Years of small patches, on the other hand, could end up replacing most or all the code.

If you have the policy that all contributions have to be significantly written by a human, and thus copyrightable, you don't have to worry about whether certain files or modules or the entire project are copyrightable in the future.

Who is against using LLMs to find root causes of bugs?

>> as machine written code cannot be Copyrighted, thus, cannot be Open Source, and thus, cannot be in the kernel because it isn't open source.

> This is wrong.

Has this actually been litigated? It seems to one of those things where two camps think the answer is obvious, they’ve got it, but they disagree.

I want to keep this parallel between C++ and LLM and replace in this quote

> LLM is a horrible tool. It's made more horrible by the fact that a lot of substandard programmers use it, to the point where it's much much easier to generate total and utter crap with it. Quite frankly, even if the choice of not allowing LLM were to do nothing but keep the vibe programmers out, that in itself would be a huge reason not to use LLM

That actually sounds right ! ;)

This sounds like one:

    C++ leads to really really bad design choices. You invariably start using
    the "nice" library features of the language like STL and Boost and other 
    total and utter crap, that may "help" you program, but causes:
    
     - infinite amounts of pain when they don't work (and anybody who tells me 
       that STL and especially Boost are stable and portable is just so full 
       of BS that it's not even funny)
    
     - inefficient abstracted programming models where two years down the road 
       you notice that some abstraction wasn't very efficient, but now all 
       your code depends on all the nice object models around it, and you 
       cannot fix it without rewriting your app.

git was good to get got. I hope something is annoying Linus as much these days as source control was then. I appreciate the way he solves problems.

Given a lot of the starry-eyed reactions on HN, I’ve come to suspect that a lot of the devs here were/are primarily working on CRUD apps. That would also track with the amount of attention that Ruby articles get around here.

A couple of days ago we had these flow of Rust based "reimplementation" of Adobe and Microsoft applications. A lot of people couldn't get past the "yeah but it's full of bugs, it's just SlopWare" opinion.

These people couldn't see the forest. The writing is on the wall, that Slopware is the WORST it will ever be. 1 year ago that was unimaginable. Next year, the quality of the developed software will be way better.

Selling "code" or "apps" is dead. My wife works in Workday and I've told her to sell as much stock as she can, because there will be an "inflection point" where ALL software based companies will collapse. The same way as Silicon Graphics, Sun , DEC and similar companies collapsed (along with a bit of IBM and HP, who pivoted) with the rise of PC power. Salesforce, SAP, Workday and all smaller companies that sell generic software will fall down.

I think the contributing factor is people who make software but have no idea what they're doing. They want to make photoshop, but they have no knowledge of photo manipulation or how photoshop works, or any software engineering/development practices. And then we wonder why slop still exists. I am of the opinion that it will always exist: people just have no idea what they want to make let alone how they want to work. "Reimplement photoshop" is a nice end-goal, but you have to actually know to a decent degree how photoshop actually works! Not to mention the reverse engineering knowledge you need

If Linus Torvalds is being outperformed what hope is there for the rest of us?

Pretty much all of the no longer existing empires. Roman empire, perhaps.

Clearly his analogy is about the usage of AI causing a downfall in the project itself. Maybe no one can understand the project anymore after thousands of AI commits. Maybe no one can contribute without having access to some fancy AI provider. Maybe the AI was using you, the developer, as a tool all along and the end game is for your project (and other FOSS projects) to be replicated under the tutelage of a few big corporations, making all FOSS projects irrelevant.