3 ms·

No tests whatsoever. This isn't getting close to being merged into mainline and it will stay out-of-tree for a long time. That's even before taking on the brut

by rvz 1y ago

No tests whatsoever. This isn't getting close to being merged into mainline and it will stay out-of-tree for a long time. That's even before taking on the brutal linux kernel mailing lists for code review explaining what that C code does which could be riddled with bugs that Claude generated. No thanks and no deal.

yeasku 1y ago
[flagged]
- firesteelrain 1y ago
  Upvoted you however it did solve the author’s problem and if he decides to post to GitHub then it could help someone later. Plenty of people working on retro architectures that wish they had things like this
- geor9e 1y ago
  The authors using it. You're implying software created solely to fulfill one persons desires is a bad thing.
  - yeasku 1y ago
    [flagged]
    - squeakywhite 1y ago
      The post was created to show how AI helped this person solve their particular problem - which it appeared to do successfully. Other people commenting about AI hype on the post isn't an indication that the post itself was created to hype AI, or that that the post itself is "bad".
      - yeasku 1y ago
        [flagged]
        anyfoo 1y ago
        > I said nobody will use the driver. But I am terrible wrong because one person will? Yes? The person who needs it is using it. Other people who need it (anyone who wants to archive tapes of that kind) now can, too. > Second, another post on hackernews about how AI helps you code is not AI hype? Do you think it was written with the intent to specifically hype AI, rather than to report on a passion project?
        yeasku 1y ago
        [flagged]
        anyfoo 1y ago
        Why do you call what the author did shit? It is resurrecting an old tape driver for archival purposes. It may not have much commercial use, but anyone having those old tapes will appreciate it.
        yeasku 1y ago
        [flagged]
        winterrdog 1y ago
        I think you should read to learn, instead.
        yeasku 1y ago
        Where did I wrote that this post is shit? Learn to fucking read before writing lies.
        squeakywhite 1y ago
    - anyfoo 1y ago
      I don't think the author is in the camp of unconditionally hyping AI: https://dmitrybrant.com/2023/03/25/artificial-stupidity https://dmitrybrant.com/2023/03/25/artificial-stupidity Even without that other article, this really reads like the author tried it for menial tasks on a neat passion project, and reports his success on it. (I'm a kernel developer, so I can empathize.)
    - grim_io 1y ago
      One man's AI hype is another man's tangible productivity boost and/or UX improvement.
    - ambicapter 1y ago
      This isn't really hype, since in this case it actually built something. They're talking about reasonable uses of "AI", which this is one example of.
    - pmarreck 1y ago
      [flagged]
- Cthulhu_ 1y ago
  This is an unnecessary snipe at AI, whereas the more interesting part is that someone is doing the work of ensuring older hardware remains functional.
deleted 1y ago
[deleted]
geor9e 1y ago
"The intention is to compile this driver as an out-of-tree kernel module, without needing to copy it into the kernel source tree. That's why there's just a simple Makefile, and no other affordances for kernel inclusion. I can't really imagine any further need to build this driver into the kernel itself. The last version of the driver that was included in the kernel, right up until it was removed, was version 3.04. BUT, the author continued to develop the driver independently of kernel releases. In fact, the last known version of the driver was 4.04a, in 2000. My goal is to continue maintaining this driver for modern kernel versions, 25 years after the last official release." - https://github.com/dbrant/ftape https://github.com/dbrant/ftape
- fock 1y ago
  and there have been continous ports since then: https://github.com/Godzil/ftape/tree/master https://github.com/Godzil/ftape/tree/master - note the caveats which apparently all disappeared here...
  - fock 1y ago
    and of course this didn't take into account you posted that, because I got directed straight here by AI!
  - kelnos 1y ago
    Looks like that hasn't been updated in 6 years, and only supports the 2.6.x kernel. I doubt it would have been significantly easier to start the porting effort from that vs. the original 2.4.x source.
kelnos 1y ago
> No tests whatsoever. Test coverage between subsystems in the Linux kernel varies widely. I don't think a lack of tests would prevent inclusion. > No thanks and no deal. I mean, now we have a driver for this old hardware that runs on a modern kernel, which we didn't before. I imagine you don't even have that hardware, so why do you care if someone else gets some use out of it? The negativity here in many of these comments is just staggering. I've only recently started adopting LLM coding tools, and I still remain a skeptic about the whole thing overall, but... damn. Seems like most people aren't thinking critically and are just regurgitating "durrrr LLMs bad" over and over.
- cmpxchg8b 1y ago
  Yes, the negativity is infuriating. This is the mindset that is going to get left behind. I'm no LLM maximalist but they clearly have their uses in the right context and the right hands.

by rvz 1y ago

yeasku 1y ago

[flagged]

firesteelrain 1y ago
Upvoted you however it did solve the author’s problem and if he decides to post to GitHub then it could help someone later. Plenty of people working on retro architectures that wish they had things like this
geor9e 1y ago
The authors using it. You're implying software created solely to fulfill one persons desires is a bad thing.
- yeasku 1y ago
  [flagged]
  - squeakywhite 1y ago
    The post was created to show how AI helped this person solve their particular problem - which it appeared to do successfully. Other people commenting about AI hype on the post isn't an indication that the post itself was created to hype AI, or that that the post itself is "bad".
    - yeasku 1y ago
      [flagged]
      - anyfoo 1y ago
        > I said nobody will use the driver. But I am terrible wrong because one person will? Yes? The person who needs it is using it. Other people who need it (anyone who wants to archive tapes of that kind) now can, too. > Second, another post on hackernews about how AI helps you code is not AI hype? Do you think it was written with the intent to specifically hype AI, rather than to report on a passion project?
        yeasku 1y ago
        [flagged]
        anyfoo 1y ago
        Why do you call what the author did shit? It is resurrecting an old tape driver for archival purposes. It may not have much commercial use, but anyone having those old tapes will appreciate it.
        yeasku 1y ago
        [flagged]
        winterrdog 1y ago
        I think you should read to learn, instead.
        yeasku 1y ago
        Where did I wrote that this post is shit? Learn to fucking read before writing lies.
        squeakywhite 1y ago
  - anyfoo 1y ago
    I don't think the author is in the camp of unconditionally hyping AI: https://dmitrybrant.com/2023/03/25/artificial-stupidity https://dmitrybrant.com/2023/03/25/artificial-stupidity Even without that other article, this really reads like the author tried it for menial tasks on a neat passion project, and reports his success on it. (I'm a kernel developer, so I can empathize.)
  - grim_io 1y ago
    One man's AI hype is another man's tangible productivity boost and/or UX improvement.
  - ambicapter 1y ago
    This isn't really hype, since in this case it actually built something. They're talking about reasonable uses of "AI", which this is one example of.
  - pmarreck 1y ago
    [flagged]
Cthulhu_ 1y ago
This is an unnecessary snipe at AI, whereas the more interesting part is that someone is doing the work of ensuring older hardware remains functional.

deleted 1y ago

[deleted]

geor9e 1y ago

"The intention is to compile this driver as an out-of-tree kernel module, without needing to copy it into the kernel source tree. That's why there's just a simple Makefile, and no other affordances for kernel inclusion. I can't really imagine any further need to build this driver into the kernel itself. The last version of the driver that was included in the kernel, right up until it was removed, was version 3.04. BUT, the author continued to develop the driver independently of kernel releases. In fact, the last known version of the driver was 4.04a, in 2000. My goal is to continue maintaining this driver for modern kernel versions, 25 years after the last official release." - https://github.com/dbrant/ftape https://github.com/dbrant/ftape

fock 1y ago
and there have been continous ports since then: https://github.com/Godzil/ftape/tree/master https://github.com/Godzil/ftape/tree/master - note the caveats which apparently all disappeared here...
- fock 1y ago
  and of course this didn't take into account you posted that, because I got directed straight here by AI!
- kelnos 1y ago
  Looks like that hasn't been updated in 6 years, and only supports the 2.6.x kernel. I doubt it would have been significantly easier to start the porting effort from that vs. the original 2.4.x source.

kelnos 1y ago

> No tests whatsoever. Test coverage between subsystems in the Linux kernel varies widely. I don't think a lack of tests would prevent inclusion. > No thanks and no deal. I mean, now we have a driver for this old hardware that runs on a modern kernel, which we didn't before. I imagine you don't even have that hardware, so why do you care if someone else gets some use out of it? The negativity here in many of these comments is just staggering. I've only recently started adopting LLM coding tools, and I still remain a skeptic about the whole thing overall, but... damn. Seems like most people aren't thinking critically and are just regurgitating "durrrr LLMs bad" over and over.

cmpxchg8b 1y ago
Yes, the negativity is infuriating. This is the mindset that is going to get left behind. I'm no LLM maximalist but they clearly have their uses in the right context and the right hands.