That's a poor argument that doesn't change the fact that any feature requires maintenance time and effort which for some users could be better invested in features they actually use, in improving overall stability, reliability, performance, etc. The more such unused features a product has, the less relevant it is for those users.
The question is, was adding "AI" to this product requested by most users, or was it done to tick off a marketing checkbox and capitalize on the hype?
What stability, reliability, and performance problems are you hitting with Atuin?
I posted a longer comment upthread, but I’ve been self-hosting and running an old version for over two years now, and haven’t had any recurring problems on those fronts. It’s pretty damn stable software and everything they’ve been doing lately has just been extra features and gloss.
Atuin is open source. You dont like their new release? Fork the previous repo, and customize it however you want. That's the whole essence of open source.
It's open source software, so this attitude of "the work hours have to be spent how I want them to be spent" feels rather icky to me.
There's also a very weak souled scarcity mentality. It feels like you are working to take umbrage, to come up with outrage. Some users do find these features good and useful. That should be celebrated. Demanding features not be present? That's so condescending.
OSS is not immune to enshittification, and, in fact, is prone to it. It's not entitled to have the opinion that a piece of software might be heading in the wrong direction. Paying for software doesn't somehow buy you this right. What's icky to me is the idea that the opinion of users who support the author financially is more valuable than of those who don't, which goes against the entire ideal of open source.
Besides, VC-funded OSS often prioritizes the needs of its shareholders rather than its users. If you find these features useful, that's great. But there's no reason that they should be universally celebrated. The authors might want to listen to all viewpoints.
“I want this feature” and “I want this feature to not exist” are fundamentally incompatible viewpoints when applied to any given feature. It seems like adding that feature and making it opt-in is a good middle ground. The people that want it can have it and the people who don’t want it can pretend it doesn’t exist. This outcome seems like the result of listening to all viewpoints, so I’m not sure what problem you’re trying to point out.
I do use powershell but it doesn’t provide auto complete for commands. I repeat I don’t want history. I want commands or args suggestions. Just like zsh auto complete
I don't need my terminal emulator to support tabs, windows, or session management. My WM manages tabs and windows, and I use tmux for sessions, which also gives me a scrollback buffer, selection, clipboard, search, etc. This combination allows me to use any simple terminal emulator, such as urxvt, st, and now foot, without issues.
Ghostty didn't appeal to me, but I might give this a try. It's good that OSC support is planned. A plugin-like system, similar to st's but less cumbersome, would be nice to have.
It's comical how much time I've spent convincing people that tabs are a window manager feature not an application feature. People in the Alacritty issue on the subject were pissed!
I've heard this a lot on HN over the years but it doesn't make much sense to me. Some thoughts:
1. App tabs improves UX for 99.999% of users who aren't using a WM with a good tab solution (if one even exists).
2. WM tabs means launching a new app instance for every tab you might want vs having lightweight app tabs.
3. App tabs can do all sorts of app-level things and UX polish that dumb WM tabs can't do because they are so general. My terminal emulator tabs show a badge count of bell notifications, can be dragged around into groups, or dragging into other tabs as split panes. My browser tabs show you which tab is playing music and can impl right click -> mute.
4. I bet even the biggest WM tab cheerleader still uses browser tabs.
5. WM tabs are a different concern than app tabs, not a replacement. WM tabs are useful when you want tabs and the app doesn't provide a good tab metaphor or when you want to tile/group app instances a certain way. That doesn't mean it's not useful for the app instances themselves to have app tabs when it makes sense.
Agree on all the points, except 4. There are even people out there who use lynx as their primary browser :)
Although while I usually like tabs for most apps, I don't use tabs for terminal and rely either on window manager or tmux. I guess the difference is that I often want a mix of tabs and having multiple terminals side by side, whereas I don't really need that for a browser (or very seldom)
Sway had the better, though often tedious, WM tab solution that I've tried. Niri had a useless one.
I really tried to love sway splits and tabs for terminal windows. But I finally admitted I'd rather just alt-tab to a few different terminal apps, each with its own concern (maybe one per project, this one for my remote machine), and best of all, each with its own internal tabs.
That said, tabs in kitty and tmux, for example, are so basic that you don't necessarily lose much if you were to use WM tabs instead.
On the other hand, tabs in iTerm2, Ghostty, Cmux, probably macOS Terminal -- a bit more powerful and intuitive since you can do things like drag them, and they can show info like terminal state. And in some of those apps, they can be displayed vertically which is my favorite.
I would love tabs for Spotify. I just discovered I can at least open new windows from the linux YouTube music client by middle clicking, a revelation !
Every application (or concept) can introduce “tabs”, but it means something wildly different for that particular application. Tabs (or instances) in an application immediately bumps into the concept of state (statefull vs stateless) in applications.
Sometimes, it makes perfect sense. The reason tabs made sense for web browsers since 2004 is because each web page could be thought of as a “stateless” instance of an application. You’re not asking for “tabs”, you wish every application could be “Stateless”. Stateless is a beautiful thing, until you understand what state is, and who needs to manage it.
If every “tab” of Spotify had no idea what the other “tab” is playing and you had to switch back and forth between tabs to pause-and-play songs, that would be a bug, not a feature. While 2 “windows” playing audio (if you instruct them to) is expected.
Interesting you mention tmux because it itself resembles a terminal emulator. It has its own terminal feature matrix that controls what your parent emulator can render. It sounds like you aren’t using tabs and splits in tmux but it does include them.
It sounds like you could get away with using a tool like https://zmx.sh which only handles session persistence (attach/detach). It also uses libghostty but only for state restoration on reattach.
On tiling WMs I use rxvt-unicode with no window decorations, no gaps, 1 px border, no scrollbar. Then tmux does the rest, namely tabs and splits. Automatic session saving has been a life saver on more than one occasion.
There is some good insight here, but I wouldn't say that he "nailed it".
We still don't have computer programs that are able to "decide" what "they" "want" to do. We have programs that can mimic this behavior, but the implementation is effectively the same as the chess and flight programs we've had for decades: searching a gigantic solution space very quickly. What's changed is the amount of data and compute we can throw at the problem.
The emergent behavior we observe from these systems is the result of our human inability to comprehend the relationships and patterns in the vast amount of data we feed them. We assign anthropomorphic qualities like creativity, intelligence, reasoning, thinking, etc., to this behavior in an attempt to make the technology more approachable, and, of course, more marketable, which fuels further investments.
What's very much uncertain is whether continuing to scale up will lead us to machines that can do all of the things Altman talks about. There's disagreement about this even between leading figures in the field, but being negative about it is not as profitable.
> Sometimes the LLMs can't fix a bug so I just work around it or ask for random changes until it goes away.
It's insane that this quote is coming from one of the leading figures in this field. And everyone's... OK that software development has been reduced to chance and brute force?
Also if something is fun, we prefer to to it that way instead of the boring way.
Then it depends on how many mines you step on, after a while you try to avoid the mines. That's when your productivity goes down radically. If we see something shiny we'll happily run over the minefield again though.
Ah, another one of these. I'm eager to learn how a "social climber" talks to a chatbot. I'm sure it's full of novel insight, unlike thousands of other articles like this one.
> What we actually need is a standard for websites to expose a machine-readable interaction layer alongside the human one.
We had this 20 years ago with the Semantic Web movement, XHTML, and microformats. Sadly, it didn't pan out for various reasons, most of them non-technical. There's remnants of it today with RSS feeds, which is either unsupported or badly supported by most web sites.
Once advertising became the dominant business model on the web, it wasn't in publishers' interest to provide a machine-readable format of their content. Adtech corporations took control of the web, and here we are. Nowadays even API access is tightly controlled (see Reddit, Twitter, etc.).
So your idea will never pan out in practice. We'll have to continue to rely on hacks and scraping will continue to be a gray area. These new tools make automated scraping easier, for better or worse, but publishers will find new ways to mitigate it. And so it goes.
Besides, if these new tools are "superintelligent", surely they're able to navigate a web site. Captchas are broken and bot detection algorithms (or "AI" themselves) are unreliable. So I'd say the leverage is on the consumer side, for now.
> not having to ever again touch Xorg.conf has improved my quality of life
I haven't touched xorg.conf in decades. I suppose you might have to do it to configure some unique setup, but for me this hasn't been an issue in a long time.
Now with Wayland, instead of having to touch a single config file, we have to learn how each compositor/WM is configured, and do it there instead. It hardly seems like an improvement in that regard, IMO.
> Now with Wayland, instead of having to touch a single config file, we have to learn how each compositor/WM is configured, and do it there instead.
Not really. I only need to know how to configure the compositor which I use. I don't need to know how to configure all the other compositors, in the same way I didn't know how to configure all the existing Xorg window managers.
The question is, was adding "AI" to this product requested by most users, or was it done to tick off a marketing checkbox and capitalize on the hype?
reply