4 ms·
So, instead of having one or two maintained projects that work super well, now we have hundreds or thousands of people half-assing it locally each time they nee
by tecleandor 2mo ago
So, instead of having one or two maintained projects that work super well, now we have hundreds or thousands of people half-assing it locally each time they need it? Doesn't sound efficient.
- esafak 2mo agoI have the same objection to forking open source projects; changes should be upstreamed when possible.
- IAmGraydon 2mo agoIt might make sense to do this if there literally isn't an existing solution out there, but I think most would find that it's better to use an existing solution than to recreate the wheel every time there's a need. It's just less effort/time/money.
- serf 2mo agoyou're right, but flipped on its' head it also means that a well-meaning FOSS project may not ship out a zero-day in the future that affects half the planet at once. now we'll just always be vulnerable from different angles in different and unique ways across the globe. better? well, no.. but it is different, and biology has offered tons of wisdom about why it's a good thing to achieve things different ways across the world, maybe some far-future version of this weird fragmentation of work that is happening now will contribute to some kind of herd effect that reduces the severity or magnitude of some bug or work of malice. who knows though, i'm probably just considering it too positively. The disintegration of consolidated effort is a pita, I agree.
- tecleandor 2mo agoThere has to be a middle ground between a monoculture and not sharing a single knowledge bit between every human. Because if everyone is making their half assed thing just for themselves using LLM without sharing anything, that also means FOSS will stop existing, and knowledge will only evolve inside the corporations that have money for creating their provate knowledge bases.