@flaki@flaki.social

@hi all migrated!

@hi @trashheap
Seems to me a bit more nuanced:

Use of AI

Code written with the assistance of AI can be acceptable. However, the question of ownership and copyright of AI-produced work is not yet well-defined in law.

Given this, in order for code produced with AI to be accepted, it must either be trivial enough to be not copyrightable (basic refactoring, one line bug fixes), or there must be a public statement available from the AI publisher showing they do not assert copyright over the work.

@hi as I understand it, OpenBSD already said AI code was not acceptable (introducing notion of copyright). The tmux project that accepts AI is the portable one. I don’t expect code from there to go back to OpenBSD src. Unless it is something trivial and acceptable from their POV.

@aslakr For those who would like to use software, made entirely by human ingenuity; such labels are valuable; and seem to be the "middle ground" a number of large FLOSS projects are settling on, as an example the linux kernel's draft policy requires labeling.

@hi @justine how old was it when you first started the program?

@hi short answer is "because Mark Kettenis told me to" :)
From what I understood, it grab two parts from the u-boot image, the boot-loader and the firmware. I'd rather have grabed file and do regular copy/paste on a filesystem but that doesn't seem to work this way.

@hi @joel Oh, I've seen this pattern before! It writes u-boot to the disk but does not overwrite the partition table that's already there. If you didn't care then a single dd does everything, but the above stops bytes 444–511 being written.

@derek Don't worry. It's not hoarding, it's collecting.

@FritzAdalis nope!

@hi haha, nothing terrific. Just ran OpenBSD on my ODROID HC4 and Raspberry Pi zero 2W and they seem to work pretty well. Not sure why it failed so badly a year ago.

@dentrochat My big pet ppeve issue with LLM generated code, is that it's derivative code of the FLOSS code in it's training set AND since no current LLM respects the license of the FLOSS code in terms of attribution or copyleft; it's all a license violation and useless, regardless of quality.

So I would say all code, as it is generated today.

@justine

My understanding is that original vi only supported one level of undo, and that the "." operator didn't perform additional undos going further back in time. The POSIX standard¹ seems to back this up, not listing "u" among the repeatable commands.

However, multi-level undo is quite useful, so most later versions of vi/vim have included some way to undo multiple levels back…as you note, vi/nvi use "." to keep going back while "u" undoes the undo; meanwhile vim defaults to "u" going back multiple levels of undo, and control+r redoes them (and that doesn't get into the whole undo-tree going back/forward in time). That said, vim allows you to change to the POSIX way if you prefer:

:help undo-two-ways
:set cpo+=u

⸻
¹ https://pubs.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/9699919799/utilities/vi.html#tag_20_152_13_35

@justine vi in OpenBSD *is* nvi, I thought. It's hard to imagine them digging up Joy's code and including it for fun.

But of course if they've done something interesting there, I'd love to know about it.

CC: @r1w1s1@snac.bsd.cafe

@a @jrsharp That one is running Linux with https://github.com/u-root/cpu - on top of oreboot, that is.

I looked a bit into Moody's WIP port of 9front (branch `riscv`), and dug it out again on Saturday. I'd love to get it running on the D1 at some point, but we're not there just yet, sorry.

Wanna help out? It's one of my favourite platforms. The 512MB vatiants works well with upstream oreboot, which is my personal main focus.

@gumnos @r1w1s1

Small world!

I was reading some of your #nvi posts last night. :)

Thank you for the connection.

CC: @RussSharek@mastodon.art

@neauoire I just sent him an email :3

@travisshears i used UXNSMAL (.smal), this is my language for UXN

https://github.com/bbogdan-ov/uxnsmal