NetBSD 9.5 released and EOL for NetBSD-9

(blog.netbsd.org)

114 points by jaypatelani11 hours ago

2 comments

jmclnx10 hours ago
I need to get around and upgrade an old mini-tower with an AMD-586 w/512MB memory from 9.3 to 11.0, I may wait for 11.1.
- soupbowl2 hours ago
  What do you use that low spec machine for?
  - jmclnx1 hour ago
    It is a backup machine for important files. Plus testing items I develop to see how they run in limited environments.
    - 0dayz40 minutes ago
      Just wondering how does that fair over a vm or container that has similar limitations?
    - soupbowl1 hour ago
      Cool, was just curious.
3qajsh179 hours ago
[flagged]
- emidln7 hours ago
 If you think you can identify frontier model-generated planned and reviewed c/c++ from human-generated planned and reviewed c/c++, I've got some bad news for you.The "no slop" policy is the same as it ever was: garbage has to make it through patch code review. If an LLM wrote it rather than a human and it passes patch review, it's fine. Rejecting features or fixes because a probabilistic algorithm said "should look like this" feels a lot like rejecting c/c++ because you read Intel's docs and have a hex editor.Edit: s/like like/look like/
 - a31ahg7 hours ago
 We should also abolish all laws that forbid dumping garbage on the side of the road because it is really hard to catch and prosecute the perpetrators!Let us just allow it!
 - sigseg1v6 hours ago
 Totally inaccurate comparison. Garbage dumped on the side of the road is still garbage. It's more like if someone dumped lab-grown diamonds on the side of the road that are virtually indistinguishable from mined diamonds. Someone would be happy to take them and none the wiser.
 - AdieuToLogic59 minutes ago
 > It's more like if someone dumped lab-grown diamonds on the side of the road that are virtually indistinguishable from mined diamonds.Equating LLM generated code to "lab-grown diamonds" is disingenuous at best.> Someone would be happy to take them and [be] none the wiser.If the quality of GenAI PRs were equivalent to those authored by experienced contributors, then there would not be as many GenAI PR bans in FOSS operating system repositories.
 emidln31 minutes ago
 The quality of GenAI PRs scales with the driver. Many are low-effort, ill-considered, overly verbose and otherwise bad. I've seen decades of similar patches/PRs from humans.If it "looks like claude" in that it's overly verbose (in code or comments), missing tests, etc then it should be rejected for lack of merits. If the only indication is "this user fixed 10 bugs in an hour" and the PRs are otherwise fine on the merits, rejecting the PRs because an LLM wrote them is the same as rejecting them because you know they're from an emacs user.