To your later comment, the devices are provided. You dont need to buy them.

Also that's not actual price. the tuition fees are that, doesn't mean that's the price. It's just heavily subsizied by the government. Hard to find sources, but the actual price/student in Germany seems to be ~10k Euro/student/year.

Hard to find

I understand how appealing it is to build an AI coding agent and all that, but shouldn't they - above everything else - make sure they remain THE platform for code distribution, collaboration and alike? And it doesnt need to be humans, that can be agents as well.

They should serve the AI agent world first and foremost. Cause if they dont pull that off, and dont pull off building one of the best coding agents - whcih so far they didnt - there isn't much left.

There's so many new features needed in this new world. Really unclear why we hear so little about it, while maintainers smack the alarm bell that they're drowning in slop.

1. There needs to be reframing of the engineer role in the team, by the leadership. It's not just to build things, but to help the customer. The job of the engineer is to build a good product for the customer, not just to "build", fix Jiras, ...

2. At the same time, get some engineers on customer calls. It doesnt need to be everyone, but you need to shorten the feedback cycle that engineers directly get signal from their users. A lot of information gets lost through Jira's, intermediates, ...

They dont have need talk, just listen. Will they pay attention? That comes back to the reframing of their job being to create a good product for users. If everyone understands that's the goal, they will.

If you have engineers building custom extensions for your database, because your CRM product needs some low level performance optimizations - it'll still be good but less interesting.

The goal is to get some engineers talking to customers, cause they'll talk to other engineers. And engineers know how to talk to engineers. It'll shorten the feedback cycle, and that's good for both speed + signal.

Now I don't know how much of that you already do, and they might even do all these things already, and what you see is the output of the worst issues already taken care of. If the latter is the case, there's some more cross team comms needed

(Motivated) people at small companies "care", and what I mean with that is they are responsible and can see a large enough portion of the customer experience that - if something is broken - they'll see the pain and try to address it.

At a big company no one cares. They of course care about their job, but their job is such a small fraction of the overall customer experience, that seeing their work having an impact on their customer is exceptionally difficult.

That's why large companies need to encode customer feedback into a system to imitate feedback cycles. Mostly in metrics. That's a very lossy way to capture signal, and leaves a lot to be desired, but so far it doesnt seem like anyone has come up with a better system.

It's fully open, fairly minimal, very extensible and (while getting very frequent updates) never has broken on me so far.

Been using it more and more in the last two months, switching more and more from codex to it now.

We'll need a bunch of steps like that, to get closer to the efficiencies we're hoping for.

I do think it's more painful to distribute files when you're a distributed as a single binary vs scripts, since the latter has to figure out bundling of files anyway.

But still - it does exist

Can't tell if you're ragebaiting here, but I'm very confused by this question because they support an entirely different set of features, and if you use both it's painfully obvious how they're different.

Docker is built for running services, distribution is part of that, but it's core is that you can pull an image and run random service on your machine packaged with all the right libraries, network them into your machine in the way you like so it can access the right things, constrain it's resources, and create our own image based on it.

Snap/Flatpak is built to distribute applications, sandboxing being a core part of it, with applications wanting to integrate into distribution mechanics such as audio, URL handling, taking screenshots, ...

GCI itself is just a command line tool, just layering opinions and convenience on top to make the experience more smooth

With coding agents becoming good, there were a lot more things I started building, and I just wanted to run all of those things!

GCI was built to solve this. It’s just a CLI, just uses ssh to interact with your target machine, and relies on docker swarm to get your services running (docker swarm is IMO underrated, providing benefits even with a single node).

It can deploy on any machine that can be ssh’d into and runs docker.

GCI provides the missing devx gap between docker swarm and fly.io. Building images locally, getting them onto the target machine, fetching logs, managing different servers, …

Check it out on github, or for more in-depth docs at https://gci.jonas.foo/

Comments URL: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47299428

Points: 5

# Comments: 3

Sure Google can go against that, but it's openai is definitely in a much better spot. It's pretty important for a consumer market.

It's about what he created, not what he didnt create.

They're not acquiring the product he built, they're acquiring the product vision.

huh? That is clearly not the case. memory bugs - sure. Not having a public test suite, not accepting public contributions, weakly typed columns and lack of concurrency has nothing to do with the language. They're governance decisions, that's it.

>I see this situation trhough the prism of the innovator's dilemma: the incumbent is not willing to sacrifice a part of its market to evolve, so we need a new player to come and innovate.

I don't think the innovators dilemma quite applies in the open source world. Projects are tools, that's it. Preserving a project for the sake of preserving it isn't a good idea.

If people need to run a sqlite db in these exotic places, shedding it means someone else has to build their own tool now that can do it. Sqlite has decided that they care about that, so they support it, so they can't use rust. Seems sound.

Projects coming and going is a good thing in open source, not a bug.

No idea how this is solved at the moment, so seems like a smart step

These are ways I'd suggest to approach working with LLMs if you enjoy building software, and are trying to find out how it can fit into your workflow.

If this isnt you, these suggestions probably wont work.

> I don't get any enjoyment from "building something without understanding".

That's not what I said. It's about your primary goal. Are you trying to learn technology xyz, and found a project so you can apply it vs you want a solution to your problem, and nothing exists, so you're building it.

What's really important is that wether you understand in the end what the LLM has written or not is 100% your decision.

You can be fully hands off, or you can be involved in every step.

I can recommend for that problem to make the "jumps" smaller, e.g. "Add a react component for the profile section, just put a placeholder for now" instead of "add a user profile".

With coding LLMs there's a bit of a hidden "zoom" functionality by doing that, which can help calibrating the speed/involvment/thinking you and the LLM does.