Hacker News Reader

Comment by ggm | Hacker News Reader

If the rate of change in the NetBSD codebase was 1/10th of what it is now, I'd be content. The idea that LOC or speed of change is a good measure for a 40+ year old operating system doesn't work for me.

You should get committer flag in NetBSD because of how LITTLE new work you bring to the table, and because of how MUCH code you REMOVE.

View on HN

Then let me remove posix semaphores and replace it all with futexes. It'd be great to not need a file descriptor every time one of my threads wants to wait on a mutex or condition variable.

If that's your first target for removal, I'd wager a large amount of money that you're [unfamiliar](https://man.netbsd.org/compat_freebsd.8) with the NetBSD code base.

I only really have experience talking directly to the kernel abis, i.e. the stuff in netbsd/sys/kern/syscalls.master. I'm using sem_open / sem_wait / etc. as my futex replacement. What abi should I be using? https://github.com/jart/cosmopolitan/blob/master/third_party...

It can be useful just for experimentation, too. You don't have to commit all the code it writes.

Most of the time it just feels like an autocomplete that is actually useful, it's scary good at writing the rest of the line exactly the way I was going to.

Anyway, your argument seems much more reasonable than the original post - they're just faffing about copyright which is completely pointless since Microsoft already declared they'll take care of any copyright lawsuits related to Copilot.

> it just feels like an autocomplete that is actually useful

And a lot of us have been saying these LLM's are nothing but advanced autocompletes... and maybe that isn't a bad thing?

> Microsoft already declared they'll take care of any copyright lawsuits related to Copilot.

How very kind of them!

edit: it's almost like you, as a user, get a taste of having so much money youre legally untouchable!

Microsoft declared they will assume liability for commercial customers who can prove they complied with all relevant requirements. You just showed why a broad policy is safer.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com