Sure, Apple (like all other BigTech) suck. But the Asahi project is quite amazing. I don't see a reason to complain about the Asahi project.

> In my personal experience, it is not worth to make it write code

Sure, totally fine with that! I am completely okay with people not using LLMs, just like I am completely okay with people using an IDE instead of vim. Do what works for you.

> I would guess that it isn't necessarily efficient for [Linus Torvalds] to generate code with an LLM

It seems like he disagrees: sometimes it makes him more efficient. But in any case, I think it is his choice. I won't judge him for using an LLM, or an IDE, or even if he wanted to develop on Windows. Why should I care? I care about his contributions.

My problem is that many people say "I don't like working with LLMs, so I don't want other to use them". If you don't like working with LLMs, just don't. And let others use the tools they want.

Except if it is philosophical: something like "I believe LLMs are bad for society because X and Y, and I don't want to be related to them". Similar to "I don't want to work with weapons" or "I refuse to open source my code because it could be used to build weapons". Sure, I respect such ideas. I don't respect the "I don't like this tool so I think people who use that tool are unprofessional".

Which means that "as a maintainer", I don't write anything. I merge code that falls from the sky. Whether it was an AI cloud or a manual-coding cloud, I don't know: from where I stand, it falls from the sky.

> there is a significant difference between "I wrote this." and "I found this."

Of course. When I write code ("I wrote this"), then it does not fall from the sky: I wrote it. I know, it's me :-). But in the open source world, being a maintainer means that you deal with code that falls from the sky. Unless you decide to close your project to contributions and only accept people you trust.

However, I remember that a couple of university researchers (PhD candidates maybe?) thought it would be a good idea to introduce security issues in Linux, and managed to do it. Without AI and without a lot of resources.

A consequence of that was that Linux immediately reverted all the patches coming from that university, saying "we don't know if we can trust you guys" (but really I guess as a way to tell universities "if you fuck with us we ban you, now keep your people in line").

And that's what I was thinking about when I said that if too many contributors misbehave, as a maintainer I will just stop accepting contributions from people I don't know. And maybe that will happen. Maybe it will be harder and harder to just be accepted into the club of the people who can send a contribution and have it reviewed at all.

So we agree :-). Of course I would like it if Apple was making my life better. I just find it naive to consider that companies are anything other than profit-maximizing machines. If they happen to do something you like, it's because it is profitable for them. They couldn't care less about you.

> But people are gonna bitch.

Whatever you do, people are gonna bitch. Again it would be a bit naive to think that if you do "your best", or if you do "what's right", or if you "genuinely try", then everybody will appreciate. There will always be enough people bitching, of that I am certain.

Would be cool if Apple decided to support Linux, of course. But why would they? If it was profitable for them, they would do it. Instead they think it's more profitable to enshittify their products. That's life.

Now people who reverse engineer that to help us run Linux on Apple hardware... I would guess they don't make a fortune doing that, and I find it impressive work.

And then somehow consider that because LLMs can make bad programmers worse, it has to mean that it will make all programmers worse. And therefore Linus Torvalds using LLMs will necessarily make Linux worse.

Something like this?

So what? WhatsApp is end-to-end encrypted. Signal is better (e.g. because the client is open source), but security is a gradient. WhatsApp is better than Telegram in terms of security.

> but then install Google Maps

Again, it's a gradient. Sure, they leak some data, but at least they don't leak all the content of all their messages. Or would you say that if you leak your name on the Internet, you may as well publish your sextape because "now everybody knows your name, you have nothing to hide anymore"?

> How many managers are uploading Excel sheets?

So because my company leaks my work documents to Microsoft means that I should leak the content of the messages I send to my partner? How do you get to that conclusion?

> finally govt will lose their passport database and ...

Right. And it is a known fact that when the government loses their passport database, suddenly your private pictures appear on the public Internet! /s

It's preferable to use Signal because they don't collect as much metadata as WhatsApp, and the client is open source.

I don't care so much about the numberless registration. Actually I don't even understand why people care so much about it.

Do you now?

> You wouldn't want the OS you are using to be developed by a dilligent but a low IQ and mediocre skill level programmer.

So you also know that people using LLMs to produce code are diligent but low IQ and mediocre skill?

> it triggers laziness and reluctance to put effort into understanding every piece of code.

Linus has been mostly reviewing code for what... decades? The rest of the contributors have been his LLM in some way. Would you say that he has gotten "reluctant to put effort into understanding every piece of code" he reviews?

Nothing says you have to use AI. Just like nothing says you have to use a computer. You could have someone print the code for you, write your patch with a pencil on paper, get a pigeon to send your patch to someone who can then submit it, and it would be judge in the same manner. Granted, it's probably more efficient to use a computer.