Hacker News

points by efficax 1 day ago | 0 comments

Ok so it's "AI free". But why? It doesn't justify the decision but just assumes you will understand the reasoning. I have to say: I don't. For example they are pinning binutils, gcc, and gdb to the last version they know does not have LLM generated code. I assume this means they will not be able to accept any upstream patches, but instead have to take over maintenance of those packages themselves for the forseeable future, effectively meaning development on those will stop for the purposes of AlpineBSD. Seems stupid, to me.

[–] cryptonector 1 day ago

It's a losing battle. Give it time and this attitude will go away by the sheer weight of AI-coded open source they really cannot say no to just because there is no human-coded alternative available that is good enough.

[–] RunSet 1 day ago

Yes, yes; victory is assured. the sheer weight of the slop will inevitably crush the human spirit. That is, I presume, why it is necessary to force it everywhere it will fit.

[–] cryptonector 16 hours ago

TFA is an attempt to exclude AI in one space. My comment is not an attempt to force AI into every space. There's a difference.

My prediction is that AlpineBSD is choosing to include only things that choose to exclude AI, but that set of things will get smaller over time, so AlpineBSD is bound to fail when a critical dependency drops the rule that AlpineBSD wants them to have and no suitable replacement exists. This prediction is not -IMO- biased by my preferences -- I think it's a prediction most people can see is likely enough to be correct that it's a reasonable one to have regardless of preferences regarding AI.

[–] myaccountonhn 1 day ago

I suspect the reasoning is very similar to why Sourcehut recently did a ToS change prohibiting AI

https://sourcehut.org/blog/2026-08-27-tos-changes-and-llms/