It might have missing pieces, but it’s easier to vibecode any needed networking additions to Gitoxide (which is maintained) than to just go and burn tokens trying to clone all of git again.
Git wants to add Rust. Gitoxide is a multi year project that’s going to be more maintained than an ad-hoc “it says it passes the test” vibeclone.
I’m not even against vibecloning things when it’s useful, but this shows no benefits. Git is a beloved tool that few people dislike, it’s not like vinext (people disliking the vendor lock-in they have with nextjs).
Also execs should keep in mind that “we burned thousands of dollars on tokens to re-create this beloved software so we can have our own copy”, even without the copyright/licensing argument, just isn’t something positive that the community will react positively to.
It doesn’t feel nice to see your favourite works cloned for no benefit. We’re past the “it was an experiment to see how far AI can go” stage now.
As mentioned, we also work on the Gitoxide project and Byron is a member of our team. We are well aware of all large community efforts and we're also cohosting the Git Merge conference this year.
There is a recent effort to vibe-loop more Git into Gitoxide, which is interesting:
I still think that this is a project that can have value with a little more work. This announcement is merely a milestone, not the end product. I wasn't sure it was really possible to do, even halfway through the project. There has been a lot learned and there is a lot to learn, but I think there are useful applications for both a high quality, hand crafted, opinionated partial Git library (Gix) as well as a vibed, fully implemented, partially sloppy LLM Git library (Grit). We think it's worth exploring and investing in both options for now.
Also, I am the exec involved and I've done quite a lot for the Git community over the years. I would never try to have my "own copy" of it, that's ridiculous. I wrote and open sourced the Pro Git book (https://git-scm.com/book/en/v2) and Git community book before it (https://schacon.github.io/gitbook/index.html), I created the official Git website (https://git-scm.com), I cofounded GitHub which hosts nearly all open source in the world, I have evangelized and supported the Git ecosystem for almost 20 years now. I restarted and funded development of libgit2 15 years ago, which you could similarly argue was an exec trying to have our "own copy" of Git under a more permissive license and would have been a similarly ridiculous argument.
> Also, I am the exec involved and I've done quite a lot for the Git community over the years. I would never try to have my "own copy" of it, that's ridiculous. I wrote and open sourced the Pro Git book (https://git-scm.com/book/en/v2) and Git community book before it (https://schacon.github.io/gitbook/index.html), I created the official Git website (https://git-scm.com), I cofounded GitHub which hosts nearly all open source in the world, I have evangelized and supported the Git ecosystem for almost 20 years now. I restarted and funded development of libgit2 15 years ago, which you could similarly argue was an exec trying to have our "own copy" of Git under a more permissive license and would have been a similarly ridiculous argument.
This "I am Scott Chacon" part doesn't matter. 95% of people here already know.
I think Byron (Gix author/maintainer) is one of the most excited people about the Grit project.
Gitoxide is great and we will continue to push it forward. Grit is an orthogonal project. Perhaps we can use one in the other or maybe Grit goes nowhere. But we thought that a small investment in a different approach is worth the effort.
https://github.com/amedeedaboville/mish
A mosh clone that uses QUIC as the transport layer so it can do both “unreliable datagrams” like UDP and also a TCP-like reliable stream, so it has scrollback buffer.
Also QUIC means the crypto is handled for me, no need to trust the LLM to hand roll its own crypto.
Cool Rust libraries enable this like alacritty for the terminal, and being able to have russh (rust implementation of ssh) means it works even if ssh isn’t installed (eg on windows which og mosh never supported).
Claude tested this thing forwards and backwards: e2e tests, simulated (foundationDB like) tests for the network and for tokio async thread ordering, 12 different fuzzing targets, even some light model checking on the protocol itself. Each fuzzing round found bugs.
Except for a few “it may have bugs, I have only proven it correct” scenarios I’d say it’s looking like it’ll be as trustworthy as (maybe more than?) the original. I’m really happy with it.
For a polynomial P (of degree n) to approximate a function F on the real numbers with minimal absolute error, the max error value of |P - F| needs to be hit multiple times, (n+2 times to be precise). You need to have the polynomial "wiggle" back and forth between the top of the error bound and the bottom.
And even more surprisingly, this is a necessary _and sufficient_! condition for optimality. If you find a polynomial whose error alternates and it hits its max error bound n+2 times, you know that no other polynomial of degree n can do better, that is the best error bound you can get for degree n.
I'm interested in the topic, and the book cover looks great, so I'll probably read it.
But it seems a bit "Maintenance: For Boys". The items mentioned on this page are "the maintenance of sailboats, vehicles, and weapons", and "Soviet tanks, or tricked-out Model Ts".
No mention that for millenia we were mending our clothes, cleaning our houses, maintaining our food systems.
The reason this book sounds interesting is that maintenance is systematically undervalued, and basically in our human history pushed onto women and the lowest social classes. But the marketing material seems to highlight only the "sexy" stuff like weapons and vehicles. Where's the maintenance of washing our hands, washing our clothes, cleaning our streets?
There's this artist, Mierle Laderman Ukeles, who was the "Artist in Residence" at NYC's department of sanitation in the 70s, and tried to use conceptual art as a way to highlight the work of the department and make "maintenance art" a thing. I'm interested in that kind of re-valuing of maintenance.
I bet this book will be interesting, I just don't like the framing as "Maintenance: Of Everything" since it's clearly not the whole story. Hopefully part 2 has a broader scope and mindset.
I don't disagree with your desire to see house/clothes/etc. maintenance covered, but this is such a perplexing comment.
As far as I understand, you take the book's title to be being false advertising, and seem to be upset that it leaves out some subjects.
How does one get upset that an author didn't include handwashing instructions in a book?
You could have made your (very true) point about the devaluation of some maintenance work as a general observation, without shaming the author for omitting some subjects of your choosing. What does it achieve to go into a culture war based on the description of a book you haven't read?
The book is basically one chapter according to the table of contents: Vehicles. On some bookshop, it's even shelved under the automotive category.
What review did you write to Hawking's Theory of everything?
You might be right. I read the lyrical flourish of the multiple questions (What about hands? What about etc.?) and the "for boys" quip as unnecessarily aggressive and dismissive, but maybe that wasn't the intention.
What a terrible reply to an interesting and genuine comment.
> but this is such a perplexing comment.
There is nothing perplexing about the comment it's extremely straightforward.
> You... seem to be upset that it leaves out some subjects.
It doesn't leave out "some" subjects it leaves out a ton of subjects which OP rightly raises. Just about every subject on maintenance.
> without shaming the author for omitting some subjects of your choosing.
The books title contains the phrase "Maintenance: Of Everything"! These aren't a few specialty obscure subjects that were left out. It left out just about everything and OP lists some extremely notable ones. And also calls out important topics for society that have previously been undervalued and appear to be undervalued here.
> How does one get upset that an author didn't include handwashing instructions in a book?
Do you not realize the importance that maintaining of hygiene has played in shaping modern society. To post such an insultingly dismissive reply with a comment like "didn't include handwashing instructions" is absurd.
I'd genuinely want to understand why we have such a different understanding of that comment.
Surely the title can't be taken literally, otherwise the book would be the size of wikipedia, no?
I didn't say the topics left out were obscure, but arbitrarily chosen. Can some book titled "How the world works" that talks about economy be criticised for not talking about effective communication or table manners?
And re the undervaluing, I mentioned that myself, but surely we can't expect every book to include arbitrarily chosen topics that happen to be undervalued? Hawking's book doesn't mention wealth inequality for example.
Not wanting to argue, I just don't understand why I'd see the original comment as out of line while you see mine in the same way.
I didn't take the parent comment to be dismissive or false advertising or that the parent commenter is even that upset about anything. It's just constructive criticism. The original comment says they will "probably read it"! I think we should all be more generous of each others comments.
Of course the book can't talk about everything but it claims to be maintenance of everything, and in general, there is a tendency to overlook the role and impact of marginalised communities in the histories. It's fine that the author hasn't done it, it's their book, but it's important to mention here because it could help the author go deeper into their point. Do you not think exploring those topics would be interesting in this book given the blurb? I certainly think it's an interesting point.
> No mention that for millenia we were mending our clothes, cleaning our houses, maintaining our food systems.
The omissions that the parent comment mentioned aren't arbitrary by the definition that we have been doing them for thousands of year.
> What a terrible reply to an interesting and genuine comment.
The "interesting and genuine [GP] comment" was hardly that: While it might not have been the GP commenter's intent, to me the comment came across as evidencing a faint sense of entitlement and tunnel vision — as in, "why hasn't the author of the book — which I haven't read — covered what I think should have been in this first volume of the series?"
I'm listening to the Audible version of the book. It's fascinating — especially the early chapter(s) about the approaches of Henry Royce of Rolls-Royce (costly, near-bespoke manufacturing, by highly-skilled engineers and mechanics, of splendid automobiles meant for the wealthy) versus that of Henry Ford (precision engineering of assembly-line machinery to enable mass production of workhorse cars that working people could afford).
(I hadn't known that in his youth, Stewart Brand was an Airborne-qualified U.S. Army infantry officer for two years after graduating from Stanford — this was back in the days of the draft. https://sb.longnow.org/SB_homepage/Bio.html)
Yeah, uv is cool and a step above conda, but that business model doesn’t look very profitable…
They did say they want their thing to have understanding of the code, so maybe they’ll sell semgrep-like features and SBOM/compliance on top.
Semgrep is ok popular, but if it maybe bundled into something else (like the package registry itself) that might get enough people over the line to buy it.
Private registries and “supply chain security” tools individually aren’t the hottest market, but maybe together the bundle could provide enough value. Let’s see how it goes.
yeah but they're still >50% off SFBA salaries. SFBA comp for a sr dev can easily be $200k+ (and can go higher, lots of anecdotes on here about $350k+ salaries at BigtechCos), for an EU dev scratching 90k euro is considered "good". Devaluing the dollar by 10% and increasing the price of EU salaries by 10% doesn't really change the picture.
Oh this is great! I always have this problem. I find that's one of my biggest barriers when reading queueing theory content. I'm only doing it intermittently so I don't have memorized the meanings of ρ,σ,μ,λ...
Visually I also often confuse rho and sigma, and math texts will use psi ψ and phi φ in weird fonts and I can never tell them apart.
I too made a version of this (just a small Go DNS resolver + port forwarding proxy) that lets you do a similar thing: https://gitlab.com/amedeedabo/zoxy
I used the .z domain bc it's quick to type and it looks "unusual" on purpose. The dream was to set up a web UI so you wouldn't need to configure it in the terminal and could see which apps are up and running.
Then I stopped working the job where I had to remember 4 different port numbers for local dev and stopped needing it lol.
Ironically, for once it's easier to set this kind of thing up on MacOS than on Linux, bc configuring a local DNS resolver on linux (cf this taiscale blog post "The Sisyphean Task Of DNS Client Config on Linux" https://tailscale.com/blog/sisyphean-dns-client-linux). Whereas on Mac it's a couple commands.
I think Tailscale should just add this to their product, they already do all the complicated DNS setup with their Magic DNS, they could sprinkle in port forwarding and be done. It'd be a real treat.
It might have missing pieces, but it’s easier to vibecode any needed networking additions to Gitoxide (which is maintained) than to just go and burn tokens trying to clone all of git again.
Git wants to add Rust. Gitoxide is a multi year project that’s going to be more maintained than an ad-hoc “it says it passes the test” vibeclone.
I’m not even against vibecloning things when it’s useful, but this shows no benefits. Git is a beloved tool that few people dislike, it’s not like vinext (people disliking the vendor lock-in they have with nextjs).
Also execs should keep in mind that “we burned thousands of dollars on tokens to re-create this beloved software so we can have our own copy”, even without the copyright/licensing argument, just isn’t something positive that the community will react positively to.
It doesn’t feel nice to see your favourite works cloned for no benefit. We’re past the “it was an experiment to see how far AI can go” stage now.