"KeePassXC asks us to be skeptical of them if we are skeptical of LLMs.[0] This is a convincing argument. A password manager doesn't need 300 regular contributors armed with 14 LLMs; it just needs to do its job, be stable, and be ported to Qt 6 already.
"We are a small group of engineers with extensive open source maintenance and information security experience, and we forked KeePassχ from KeePassXC 2.7.10, the last release before the advent of the LLM policy linked above. We like using a robust, secure, and trustworthy password manager, so that's what we'll focus on. Anything on top of that is a bonus."
He created a throwaway account to ask the question without linking his profile to his identity, slipped and replied with the main account, then ran damage control.
I hope he'll take from that he isn't very good at the Jason Bourne stuff and, as "it takes one to know one," seek further confirmation about who paid a visit to his place.
I'm sorry, I really do think you should let the police handle the "who was that guy" angle before moving on to the technical one. It would take more than "drove a Mediacom truck, showed an ID and knew my address" before I concluded the guy Mediacom has no record of sending, and whose behavior violates their policy (and common sense), absolutely must have been either Mediacom or Jason Bourne.
> And the US could easily just keep destroying every asset in Iran
Could — and even more so: could easily — in an "if ifs and buts..." sense or materially? Wouldn't they run (weren't they running) out of resources? And having reached the point in which progressing with the destruction of assets requires killing the people encircling those buildings, standing on those bridges, wouldn't a new leadership be committed to revenge nevertheless?
Never mind rethinking Copilot entrypoints; are users still forced to have a Microsoft account "for their own safety"? If so, the company isn't making much of an effort to deceive.
> The community makes the system and decides what’s tolerable. That is to say, the community decides the type of users it expects to serve.
Sure, but the community isn't the system; it may inform the direction the system will take, but there isn't a 1:1 equivalence between their respective qualities at any point and across different levels. I made a statement about the OpenBSD community, you implied I was doing a disservice in making such statement about OpenBSD, so I pointed out the distinction.
> When your own example of laziness is to provide a script
We seem to be having different conversations. How did you get "provide a script and someone fails run a script" from "foisting onto others the responsibility for the effort required by what we want to accomplish"?
> So while I agree it’s not a terrible community, I also wouldn’t say it’s inviting.
So... We're mostly on the same page? I opposed someone's claim that it was "notoriously terrible and unwelcoming to newbies." I disagree on both counts. I didn't claim it to be inviting, however, which I find distinct from welcoming: I perceive the former as indicative of an active effort or the desire to attract new members or of is being perceive as attractive from the outside.
> I mean, it’s not inviting to newbies either; which is the plain reading and understanding of “opposite” of what the OP stated.
It's a community that can help a newbie grow in different ways; to increase in knowledge and refine the craft; to be demanding on oneself and to take criticism; so, I find it the opposite of "notoriously terrible."
It accepts anyone interested in learning and willing to make the effort to learn. The community cares about OpenBSD; someone likewise interested in OpenBSD won't be turned always due to politics. So, yes, I find it welcoming.
Is it for everyone? What is? The barbecue club may be the most welcoming place on earth without its being the best fit for a vegetarian.
> Instead it’s “tolerant”, a term which for some reason you don’t seem to like.
I don't see how my preferring my own choice of words over a proposed alternative is indicate of my having something against the latter.
You may want to consider how often, and specially how seriously, you engage with different viewpoints if your first reaction to what looks like is to suppose a mistake and the second is to assume a personal limitation.
> I’d ask if you’re Theo mainly due to the strange back and forth we’re having over semantics and a concern over the OpenBSD community reputation.
Someone commented. I disagreed. You disagreed — on semantics. I expanded. You pushed. And so on. I'm not seeing any of this as some battle for a community's reputation. It's just a discussion.
In this context, what I expanded above as foisting onto others the responsibility for the effort required by what we want to accomplish.
> Why do you believe pointing to the manual is newbie friendly?
To the documentation, which may or may not be a manpage; as it's usually done in response to a request for the information contained therein, I do find it reasonable.
> OpenBSD serves an important niche, but to brand it as newbie-friendly does OpenBSD a disservice.
We're discussing OpenBSD's community, not the system itself.
> Or perhaps you mean newbie tolerant?
I meant what I wrote, that I find the community to be the opposite of "notoriously terrible and unwelcoming to newbies," by which I do not imply newbie-friendliness in a kindergarten sense.
What is? No coddling? Little tolerance toward laziness? Zero toward entitlement? That's closer to the opposite of being patronizing, I would say.
They point to documentation in response to the kind of request I've seen closed with RTFMs elsewhere. They'll expect one to read it, and try one's hand at whatever one is trying to accomplish — and they'll feel slighted by a refusal, given how much work they put into it.
And yet, they go to great, unexpected (given the fame) lengths to help someone actually making the effort; they don't try to put anyone down in order to feel bigger than they are, but they don't sugar coat things to appear more likable either.
In short, no, knowing what one is doing isn't a prerequisite; it's more about not foisting onto others the responsibility for the effort required to move from where one is to where one wants to be — whether in knowledge, maturity or tools.
I find it just the opposite. I can think of few communities nearly as patient or welcoming to anyone who's earnest and willing to put in the work to learn; true, there's no coddling or hand-holding, and, indeed, it tends to be very direct in calling out foolishness or laziness, and can reach epic proportions when it comes to dishonesty or entitlement, but nothing which can't be processed by emotional maturity, nor the gratuitous pedanticism-fueled browbeating often seen in some I-use-foo-btw open-source communities despite their shiny CoCs.
Could you be more specific? Maybe open an issue listing points for possible improvement?