How is slate-ntfs different from NTFS-3g and the NTFS 3.1 kernel implementation?
-First of all, slate has a fuller VFS implementation, allowing Steam to see drivers natively. This means that Steam can see drivers directly, without direct intervention.
-User API: comes with an API to easily get driver manufacturer. Has Python, C and Rust support.
-Rust driver, C adapter: can be used with kernels as old as 5.15 while preserving memory safety.
-This code also runs on ARM64 (not fully tested)!
I too have lots of experience in C and I fucking suck at it.
You seem awfully confident given that you have seen exactly zero lines of my code?
if you are implying that your computer draws as much power when you manually code review as an LLM does you are either full of shit or doing something amazingly wrong.
I better fucking hope that there is noone on that team that is worse than me at kernel development, but that does not mean that some of them are not absolute dumbfucks. Nice strawman tho.
Not really, most of my code is closed source and all of it is shit tier. It’s completely LLM-free however
If you believe my comments constitute bullying you have lived a sheltered life my friend.
“Make a company that solves these problems then!”
… dude. Are you all right?
Manual code isn’t magically bug-free. Judge the project by its quality, not whether AI helped write it.
I never said manual code is bug-free. But all errors in manual code are human-made.
I judge a project based on the apparent judgement of it’s owners/maintainers.
A large part of software engineering is using your judgement, whether it comes to overarching design, language choice, algorithmic implementations, but also chosing dependencies, tool, collaborators and documentation. Humans make mistakes, but can learn from them and improve over time. So while a mistake can be embarrassing andor costly, in the long term they are part of the learning process.
When you opt for using LLMs for any of that you are outsourcing your judgement to a box that’s incapable of reasoning or learning. You will still get bugs and mistakes will be made but noone except Scam Altman and Wario Amodei will be happier for it.
Studies also indicate that this is actually negatively impacting our cognitive function in the long term.
And then we can add the ethical and environmental concerns on top of that, and suddenly the collective judgement of a project accepting or condoning LLM use is looking pretty damn bad if you ask me. Even before reading a single line of code in the repository.
Why not actually explain whats wrong with the persons code…
And why would I waste my time reviewing a strangers slop? They did not care while writing it, why would I care to read it?
You care enough to check the repos of each post to identify if they’re claude to bully them evidently.
Not great for the linux community…
deleted by creator
I think it’s fair to point out slop so that those who care can avoid the projects. If you still think this is bullying, well too bad I guess.
That’s not what you’re doing.
What you’re doing is just going to the project page to check if you can call it slop (and bully devs) based only on the maintainers listed (without doing any actual work).
I’d argue thats no better than vibe coding by people not interested in learning. Both sides aren’t interested in doing any real work, but scoring some lazy wins…