Linux forks [LWN.net]

Linux forks

Posted Jul 23, 2026 19:41 UTC (Thu) by bluca (subscriber, #118303)
In reply to: Linux forks by Cyberax
Parent article: Codeberg: Protecting our FLOSS commons from LLMs

And how exactly would anyone measure that?

to post comments

Linux forks

Posted Jul 23, 2026 20:15 UTC (Thu) by Cyberax (✭ supporter ✭, #52523) [Link] (6 responses)

By looking at it? Purely vibe-coded software is extremely apparent right now.

Linux forks

Posted Jul 23, 2026 20:53 UTC (Thu) by einar (guest, #98134) [Link] (5 responses)

> By looking at it? Purely vibe-coded software is extremely apparent right now.

Depending on the field, human written code can be several orders of magnitude *worse* than some made by a LLM. I had the misfortune of having to handle that for 10+ years of my career.
So, not necessarily "extremely apparent".

Linux forks

Posted Jul 23, 2026 20:59 UTC (Thu) by Cyberax (✭ supporter ✭, #52523) [Link] (4 responses)

Sure. And Codeberg will also exclude bad human-written code according to the same dumping-ground policy.

Linux forks

Posted Jul 23, 2026 21:03 UTC (Thu) by einar (guest, #98134) [Link]

That wouldn't be the smartest idea. But again, I'm not using Codeberg, so it doesn't matter much to me.

Linux forks

Posted Jul 23, 2026 21:04 UTC (Thu) by bluca (subscriber, #118303) [Link] (2 responses)

Which part of the policy says that they forbid bad human/artisanal code?

Linux forks

Posted Jul 23, 2026 21:39 UTC (Thu) by Cyberax (✭ supporter ✭, #52523) [Link] (1 responses)

The "not a dumping ground" part. Which actually has been there from the beginning.

Linux forks

Posted Jul 23, 2026 21:47 UTC (Thu) by bluca (subscriber, #118303) [Link]

So if I dump _good_ artisanal code (according to some vague and undefined metric) then I am ok? Good to know