so what's the freebsd take on using ai? seems to be a lot of mastodon rhetoric on linux accepting ai code

There's a gas leak at FreeBSD HQ.

(The policy is relatively pro-.)

there is no policy

our current policy is to apply historical standards to code we accept while a policy is being developed

is there any public document describing the policy development process as it has gone up to here

but also: that is a de facto pro-slop policy

not yet, there's going to be a working group

you're free to interpret it however you'd like, I guess

I will interpret it by the results it has yielded.

ok

Who will make up that working groups? Only humans, or also some llms?

hc, i hope you're being silly.

I think even the most pro-slop people in the world know an LLM cannot meaningfully participate on a policy development working group

Ellenor: I might not be pro-slop, but apparently I am stupid, so I'd like to ask: Why not, exactly?

because computers could not be responsible for a decision, for example

yeah, that's a very weird question

on the fact that pro-slop won't do that, yeah... they'll totally do that

Sorry for the trolling; I had assumed it was obvious

At the same time I'm not sure if terms like 'slop' are really helpful

"policy development working group" implies responsibility?

hc: well, if it's so obvious, please share the reasoning?

I mean I thought it was obvious that I wasn't being entirely serious, because several people had been critical of using llms, so making a related decision by using llms was kind of obviously nonsensical to me

As to the question itself, whether to use llms or not: I am undecided and have no strong genreal opinion

"slop" is a potentially inflammatory term, and a poorly executed reference to 1984 (the correct term is "prolefeed")

this is quite offtopic

let's go to #freebsd-social then i suppose

This is a weird article. "Even for a seasoned Linux veteran like me, FreeBSD can often be a head-scratcher" -- what does that even mean? But I guess that's something for -social, too

different paramters on common apps between the two

that article is a bit of a rollercoaster.

I'd guess what that means is that even if you're plenty familiar with Linux, FreeBSD is different enough to have a learning curve.

which seems uncontroversial; it's not Linux and it doesn't try to be

Linux and FreeBSD share many tools, however, so that not everything is new to a Linux user, and whatever is new, is usually simpler than it was in Linux (IMHO).

if it works

Yes, exactly.

I for one learnt how to use the gnu/linux properly only after installing FreeBSD. Back in the day the linux docs were lagging multiple versions behind, so you didn't know what to do unless you read the source code

Using FreeBSD taught me that the fact that I was confused by the docs not saying the right thing doesn't mean I'm insane =) After that I felt confident enough to try the linux again

I think that was around FreeBSD 5.2

For a while, folks were generating manpages for their tooling at $WORK. Now they don't, and it's infurating, because they have entire `$CMD help $FOO` pages

Oh yeah, borg and rustic are annoying examples of this

I am at FrOSCon over the weekend, if anyone else is there come say hi :)

I believe the first FreeBSD I used on the desktop was FreeBSD 4.

no idea what the KDE version was at that point, but I believe it was around the transition to KDE 3.

then at some point I was walking around in the university of my father, and there was this one guy with that NextSTEP/WindowMaker desktop.

That was some serious thing.

I used WindowMaker back in the day - at first because it was just way lighter-weight than other environments, and then because I just really liked how it worked

It was one of these window managers I kept running for several years, hands down.

Fluxbox was another.

I always liked blackbox.

i3

the window manager for OCD

cybercrypto: well Fluxbox is actually a successor of Blackbox.

bsdrobert: well Sway is some kind of... whatever... ;-)

armin: I know.

but still, if you don't want to get rid of your i3 worklow and you simply want Wayland, well, Sway has you covered 100%!?

it's super smooth actually.

Sway won't work with nvidia drivers, while i3 is kinda tried and true.

No reason to move off of X anyway.

Mileage varies, but it's not like that Wayland is broadly useable on FreeBSD right now anyway. It's still experimental for a reason.

I think the first version of FreeBSD I used was in the 2 or 3.x release era. Downloaded floppy images and wrote them to floppy disks that may or may not have bad blocks when I tried to use them back at home. Wasn't too long after the USL settlement. Maybe a year or so.

I had shells on a couple friends' 2.x boxen, but the first time I installed it and played root was 3.0.

#iwasyoungonce

It was a CD I got mailorder. . . LinuxLabs or something was the company. Just cost me a few bucks.

I later learned I could install it with a single floppy and an IP connection.

Then later you needed two floppies. . . a kernel image and an installer image.

Then connections got faster and CD-rs got cheaper.

When I was in college, I owned a 1/6th share of a parallel port LaCie CD burner.

Bunch of us BBS sysops went together on one, after we'd be burned by tape backups too many times.