Nice idea but I won't trust a tool that first the commit is 11 hours ago.
It is indeed not open sourced, as the repo only has a README and a download script. The "open source" they are referring to I think is the similar README convention.
Which makes this comment they made on Reddit especially odd: https://www.reddit.com/r/aws/comments/1q3ik9z/comment/nxpq7t...
> And the folder structure is almost an exact mirror of mine
Even though Rust has patterns on how to organize source code, similar folder structure is unlikely, particularly since the original code is not public so it would have to be one hell of a coincidence. (the funniest potential explanation for this would be that both people used the same LLMs to code the TUI app)
What you're learning here is that there's not really a viable market for simple, easily replicable tools. People simply won't pay for them when they can spin up a Claude session, build one in a few hours (often unattended!), and post it to GitHub.
Real profit lies in real value. In tooling, value lies in time or money saved, plus some sort of moat that others cannot easily cross. Lick your wounds and keep innovating!
What _would_ you trust as a source of truth for source code if not a public commit log? I agree that a squash commit’s timestamp in particular ought not be taken as authoritative for all of the changes in the commit, but commit history in general feels like the highest quality data most projects will ever have.