Hacker News

Interesting to watch the rapid fragmentation of FOSS into “hard” anti-AI, AI-neutral-to-discouraged, AI-supplemented, and AI-driven camps, akin to the early GPL vs BSD wars. Suddenly I don’t see as many complaints about licensing, and some of the die-hard GPL stans are silently dropping that position as Linux adopts AI-supplemented development.

On one hand it’s unfortunate, because it hypothetically dilutes developer efforts, but on the other hand the most extreme groups already had incompatible personalities and weren’t working well together. This self-sorting may actually result in a better cadence and less energy wasted on arguing.

The downside is that a lot of loud and annoying people seem to be converging on BSD land. I am AI-nonaligned (I just care about Quality) but I’m very much in favor of OpenBSD’s heads-down focused dev culture. I hope that doesn’t change.

These types of projects tend to have a flash of appeal, especially to people used to Linux, because it lessens one degree of unfamiliarity, but they don't seem to stick around for to me obvious reasons.

It's hard to get involved with something like a BSD project because you have to learn a lot and put in enough effort to get committer rights. And then if you want to move the needle you have to do even more work and build consensus without getting overly emotional when people disagree with you. But it is the path I would recommend to have a lasting impact, and I am speaking from experience as a FreeBSD and NetBSD src committer.

Also, pkgsrc is one of the strong points of NetBSD, coupled with pbulk and pkgin. Wrapping that all up in an opinionated installation (like Omarchy recently did to Arch) would be a more survivable effort. But as my friend Larry McVoy would say, it means you don't always get to drive the big red fire truck by yourself.

> AlpineBSD is not a fork of Alpine Linux, its package collection is original (though many packages are ultimately based on aports).

> Alpine Linux uses the OpenRC init system. Currently, AlpineBSD uses s6 and we intend to add OpenRC as an alternative.

I'm not sure where exactly the line should be, but that feels like it's not an Alpine* then. Like, if you're starting your package collection separately and use a different service manager, you're further from Alpine Linux than Adélie Linux is.

(To be clear, I'm a big fan of making a new OS from a *BSD core and a new userspace. I'm just quibbling about naming semantics)

The whole "as little AI code as possible" is tribalism.

I want software that is brilliant and well audited, no matter who or what produced it.

No AI guarantees nothing, especially if it's a C codebase like netbsd, why not also join the rust tribe then?

Alpine is also the codename of the first iOS, hence the default root pwd ‘alpine’. https://mashable.com/archive/apple-ios-codenames#9.CLuUuywuq...

Back in my day, we didn't have artificial intelligence. We had actual ignorance. And we liked it that way.

Ok so it's "AI free". But why? It doesn't justify the decision but just assumes you will understand the reasoning. I have to say: I don't. For example they are pinning binutils, gcc, and gdb to the last version they know does not have LLM generated code. I assume this means they will not be able to accept any upstream patches, but instead have to take over maintenance of those packages themselves for the forseeable future, effectively meaning development on those will stop for the purposes of AlpineBSD. Seems stupid, to me.

I can respect this. Looks like AI auditing code is fine and I can't imagine why auditing would ever be a con. As for the lack of reasons given I guess they leave that for the users which seems completely fine to me. If you are chimping out over not getting a justification then you should probably do some soul-searching.

After reading the web page, I am left with some questions unanswered,

* Is it a goal for AlpineBSD to run on native hardware, or is it intended for containers (a major use-case for Alpine itself)?

* For users who want to avoid AI-generated code, why run this rather than netbsd itself?

If the team want to attract interest, they should give more context.

The mission is unclear. The team could address this by stating goals and milestones on the front page.

There is a link to a tool s6 on the page. The description of that tool opens with a circular definition. It would be clearer if it stated why it exists in the opening paragraph. Near the bottom it talks about "One of the design goals of s6-frontend". It would be better to state all of the design goals.

> NOTICE: The NetBSD kernel has spotty hardware support, much less so than Linux. You cannot necessarily expect AlpineBSD to work on any random computer you have lying around.

Huh. I feel like the author has their BSDs mixed up! NetBSD's main claim to fame is that it runs on practically everything, even lots of platforms no longer supported by mainstream Linux distributions. The page links to the laptop wiki, which is about AMD64 laptops and their finicky peripherals and driver support. A better place to start for hardware support is https://wiki.netbsd.org/ports/.

Neat project. One thing I don't see covered: is everything going to be statically linked like it is on Alpine Linux? Is statically linking libc advisable on a NetBSD kernel? I know (unlike Linux) the FreeBSD kernel ABI can change every major release, but I'm not familiar with NetBSD's approach.

I've been using AI with alpine and had tremendous results. fixing legacy bugs, reducing resources, improving performance. with the right supervision, the results are great.

AI can fix a lot of issues that lingered due to lack of time & patience for proper testing and experimentation.

For example, I had VM instances crashing because of a commercial vendor's agents (telemetry, auth etc). AI identified why the crash occurred, and rewrote the buggy vendor agent with a lighter and more resilient agent.

I brought the issue up with the vendor, and they were stuck with their approach for legacy reasons. Fine! we can both operate happily now. I don't have to use their software.

I so wish Gentoo/BSD still was a thing.

Regardless of how you feel about using LLMs or using products that are developed with LLMs, it is a good idea to have an ecosystem of open source projects with differing levels of LLM involvement, including pristine software written entirely by humans.

The pragmatic argument for hard no-LLM projects: if models are to be useful, they need good input. Hand-written software that has been carefully audited is free from the kinds of feedback errors that will eventually weaken LLM code generation. Otherwise, a bad pattern gets copied. In the next generation, this bad pattern is seen a bit more often as stochastic models converge on it and more open source code adopts it. This is reinforced in the next generation and it becomes a common pattern. Then, in the next generation, this pattern is seen all over. This could be inert "non-coding DNA" like weird naming conventions or pointless comments. Or, it could be bad edge cases that become commonly exploitable.

>A small amount of essential software is pinned to the last version which is not tainted. We pin software as a last resort, preferring to find alternatives or move the package into the tainted repository. The current list of pinned software in “base” and “main” is:

>binutils gcc gdb libffi perl xorriso

Good luck replacing those ...

> NetBSD kernel has spotty hardware support

Oh, how the mighty have fallen. Still remember the times when the meme was that the NetBSD was running on absolutely anything.

Great website, great AI policy. The two are probably related.

> AlpineBSD is an operating system based on the NetBSD kernel with a userspace inspired by Alpine Linux and the objective of making it possible to use as little AI-generated software as possible.

Fucking get over yourself.

while sitting on a cab a few weeks ago, i was watching other large trucks passing through, and i was wondering about what it would be like if these trucks were entirely made by bots, would travelling on roads feel less safer? when you know that the existing old stuff is made by humans and most humans who are good at their work genuinely put in effort and care in their craft, can we say the same about work generated by clankers? Really got me wondering, still split on if all this AI hype will be a net good in the long run. Sure you're more productive and end up spitting out more code, as long as its non critical SaaS stuff, who cares if things go wrong right? for crucial, mission critical stuff, relying only on AI autonomously, especially when they are still prone to make errors, seems like a very dystopian reality. Just today claude code hallucinated the first name of a person because in the username the first name was one letter.

This AI policy is so utterly backwards and stupid I don't even have a nicer way of saying it.

It is really very telling that the AI bros, after flagging bad Google earnings from the front page, need to descend on a tiny new project and flag or downvote all comments that sting.

They are really very insecure people, professionally and socially.

EDIT: It took one second for an AI patrol to downvote this one.