The point of the article is not to expound on how user-friendly "Ollama" is. It's about exposing the deception and shameful moral low ground they took.

Don't get me wrong, I do know the reality has changed. Even Greg K-H, the Linux stable maintainer, did recently note[1] that it's not funny any more:

"Months ago, we were getting what we called 'AI slop,' AI-generated security reports that were obviously wrong or low quality," he said. "It was kind of funny. It didn't really worry us."

... "Something happened a month ago, and the world switched. Now we have real reports." It's not just Linux, he continued. "All open source projects have real reports that are made with AI, but they're good, and they're real." Security teams across major open source projects talk informally and frequently, he noted, and everyone is seeing the same shift. "All open source security teams are hitting this right now."

---

I agree that an antidote to the obnoxious hype is to pay attention to the actual capabilities and data. But let's not get too carried away.

[1] https://www.theregister.com/2026/03/26/greg_kroahhartman_ai_...

When in the middle of a group text-chat, someone replied with AI-generated blather. It was dead-clear with the usual sterile vocab, structured buzzphrases, and other LLM "tells".

I politely called him out and asked to use his own voice. In public he insisted that it was his voice and that he used AI only for "formatting". But in private he admits that he created a "gem to assist with multicultural comms", which generated the text. He claims he did it because "not everyone can take the native American English well". A load of bovine manure. I nicely told him to cut this crap and just write as it comes to him. (Basic spell- and grammar-check is fine.)

Skrebbel is largely referring to the OSS projects that need people to do consitent grunt work like shipping predictable releases, stable branch maintenance, backporting security fixes, etc. This is the kind of work maintains that the internet's infrastructure.

A bit like the Nebraska guy from the famous XKCD, dependecy: https://xkcd.com/2347/

I see, I don't have a Megrez at my desk, only in the build system. I only have P550 as my "workhorse".

PS: I made a typo above - the P550 I was referring to was the SiFive "HiFive Premier P550". But based on your HN profile text, you must've guessed it as much :)

This rule will atleast partly stem the danger of HN getting turned into what dang calls a "scorched earth" situation.

Build time on target hardware matters when you're re-building an entire Linux distribution (25000+ packages) every six months.

First, we do have a recent 'binutils' build[1] with test-suites in 67 minutes (it was on Milk-V "Megrez") in the Fedora RISC-V build system. This is a non-trivial improvement over the 143-minute build time reported in the blog.

Second, the current fastest development machine is not Banana Pi BPI-F3. If we consider what is reasonably accessible today, it is SiFive "HiFive P550" (P550 for short) and an upcoming UltraRISC "DP1000", we have access to an eval board. And as noted elsewhere in this thread, in "several months" some RVA23-based machines should be available. (RVA23 == the latest ISA spec).

FWIW, our FOSDEM talk from earlier this year, "Fedora on RISC-V: state of the arch"[1], gives an overview of the hardware situation. It also has a couple of related poorman's benchmarks (an 'xz' compression test and a 'binutils' build without the test-suite on the above two boards -- that's what I could manage with the time I had).

Edit: Marcin's RISC-V test was done on StarFive "Vision Five 2". This small board has its strengths (upstreamed drivers), but it is not known for its speed!

[1] https://riscv-koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=91...

[2] Slides: https://fosdem.org/2026/events/attachments/SQGLW7-fedora-on-...

[1] https://camel-cdr.github.io/rvv-bench-results/

Assuming they will keep their word, later this year Tenstorrent is supposed to ship their RVA23-based server development platform[1]. They announced[2] it at the last year's NA RISC-V Summit. Let's see.

The ball is in the court of hardware vendors to cook some high-end silicon.

[1] https://tenstorrent.com/ip/risc-v-cpu

[2] https://static.sched.com/hosted_files/riscvsummit2025/e2/Unl...

Your question made me look up Arm's history in Fedora and came up on this 2012 LWN thread[1]. There's some discussion against cross-compilation already back then.

[1] https://lwn.net/Articles/487622/

Maybe you're overestimating their "moat" and stickiness. The dust is still settling on this madness and "OpenAI"[1] creates a lot of noise in the market.

These LLMs are being rapidly commoditized, very soon they will become as "boring" as virtual machines or containers. Altman has the exceptional skill to dupe people into giving their money to him. The "infinite money glitch" that he has been exploiting isn't really infinite.

I just hope there'll be a breakthrough with truly transparent LLMs that will stabilize this madness. As I've griped[2] two years ago, I find OpenAI too scummy, and it is unlikely that they will "win" with their sleazy ways.

[1] Air quotes because of their persistent abuse of the word "open"

[2] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40425735

The context gives us the clue: he's using it as a metaphor to refer to AI companies unloading this wretched behavior on OSS.

Yes, there is something to that but he gives too much credit[1] to his own "willingness to be open".

I don't know if KK has taken it too far or not, but the way he expresses it all is not inspiring. It carries an air of pretentious wisdom.

[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46561144

Obviously, there's some truth to it, but there are many unspoken variables that worked in his favor that he doesn't bother to acknowledge them. Some other comments also touched on it.

I'm not being cynical here. I myself have had incredibly good fortune in experiencing the kindness of strangers, both in the East and the West, and I do my best to reciprocate. But I'm acutely aware of how invisible factors that are not in my control helped facilitate some of the good fortune that came my way. I can't merrily attribute it all to my own "openness to experience"!

KK inhales his own good fortune too deeply.

Of course that would be ridiculous. You're trivializing the author's point. I'm not sure you've actually read the article in full. The author admits the difficulty in measuring it and that we may have to rely on "non-scientific" measurements.

Many of the tech robber barons and VCs (who call themselves "angels") carry the air of "my winnings are entirely of my own making". They rarely acknowledge the role of good fortune (in various aspects) in any meaningful way.

They inhale their success too deeply, as Michael Sandel memorably puts it.

"... if you take anything away from this, it is to recognise that if meritocracy is based on achievement only, then we must be sure not to confuse it with effortocracy when it comes to its moral weight."

Related reading: The Tyranny of Merit, by Michael Sandel (I was hoping the article would reference this, and it does.)

[1] https://nonzerosum.games/effortocracy.html