Linux

Cosmic supports both Tiling and Floating modes. The floating mode is normal, and the Tiling is slightly less customisable than pure tiling window managers but it's pretty good while staying accessible which is what matters.

Me interrogating the linux source code: "Describe in single words only the good things that come into your mind about... your mother."

Even if you don't disclose it it's immediately obvious to anyone with a brain that you haven't worked at all on it.

Have to think about this in an open source context. You have an open ended population ready to submit to your project if they think they can be useful

Now, thanks to GenAI, a bunch of people who aren't good at various things now thinks they are good at various things. Whether it's coding, making comics, making videos, what have you. Try to do nuance even if it strictly makes sense, and you are stuck with the slop problem if your project is sufficiently popular.

In terms of more directly on your points, if someone does GenAI to do a security analysis, ok, but I'd want them to do the tedium of trying to identify the false positives and then re-report it in their words of actual understanding. It can catch things, but along the way makes a haystack of sillyness to go through. Same for code review, legitimate issues, but lots of missing (I spent a non trivial amount of time yesterday because a GenAI code review insisted a variable would be unitialized when referenced, when I see an uncoditional assignment just a few lines above, trying to think if there was some catch I wasn't seeing). So indirectly using it and only subjecting the developer/maintainer to that which you know makes sense.

Problem being is that people have used Claude and have forwarded to me saying "I don't understand this well enough to judge, but forwarding to you just in case". I have the same tools doing the same things as you, I don't need meat proxies that just pass through the stuff without understanding.

The issue for now is LLM generation of code, not code auditing.

And no, I don't give a fuck whether some genius in theory could paint s new Mona Lisa with it. The issue us how it is used in practice, most of the time, today. At $WORK, I have a severely ai-pilled Senior Embedded Software Architect which hasnt managed in one and a half year to set up a working driver for a RS232-controlled stepper motor, from a port of previously working code. A thing that should take a week at most. I had to educate him that in C++ drivers, you need to use locks or mutexes to access variables that are concurrently changed and read from several threads. AI enables catastrophic levels of incompetence.

And FOSS projects need to protect themselves against that.

As a retired senior programmer, I would have loved to use LLMs in the past for very specific things. I wouldn't use it every day, but like every couple of months I had to do a massive refactor that took weeks to complete. I usually ended up writing codemod and just painfully changing tens of thousands of lines of code. Would be cool to just say "hey LLM, see how I did this one? Do the same thing everywhere else you find it. If you encounter anything that's too different from my template just leave it for me to review"

If it turns out that it gets ruled as copyright violations, you can bet your ass they're going to reform copyright law instead of rolling everything back.

I don't disagree that it is a risk, and I am trying to move toward projects that do have err on the side of avoiding that risk. I have NetBSD on my laptop, and when I get a little more comfortable with it, I intend to convert the other Linux installations I maintain.

BUT, I believe the BSDs already went through a situation where some of their source was possibly under restrictive copyright and rather than "rolling back", they "simply" identified the possibly infringing code and re-wrote those sections to have the same function (which can't be copyrighted) without sharing any creative expression (which is). So, even the projects that are taking the risk that an LLM (or other generative AI) generates infringing code might not have quite as much cleanup / lost effort as you describe.

Also, LLM out isn't automatically a derivative work of the training data. I'd have to dig through some other messages to find an exact quote from their documents, but I believe they (EDIT: the U.S. copyright office) said only output that is "significantly similar" to training data is potentially infringing. That does further limit the risk.

I still think it's too high of a risk because well-meaning contributors might incorrectly introduce infringing code, since for models that don't disclose their training data (Claude, Copilot, Gemini, etc.) even dedicated contributors don't have the information they need to discover the output is infringing. In that past, that result (introducing infringing code) was generally limited to the acts of malicious actors that are submitting code they know to be infringing to poison a project and open it to legal action.

But, I can't ask that someone (i.e. a project maintainer) substitute my risk/reward judgement for theirs, and I have no experience maintaining a large project. All of my code contributions are to either projects others maintain, or my own hobby projects that I doubt have any users other than myself (and I don't even use all the published/available ones anymore).

IMO one of the major problems with LLm code generation is that it has the capacity to overwhelm human capacity to review code and properly understand the codebase.

From that perspective, a prohibitive policy doesn't have to be 100% effective to be useful, it just needs to slow things down enough to keep the manageable and maintainable (and fun to work on).

Some people will absolutely lie, but I suspect most contributors will respect the rules, and ultimately cut down on AI PRs overall, as those AI contributors switch to projects who are pro-AI.

I admit I haven't followed the KDE AI debacle very closely, but as far as I understand KDE has not yet decided on an AI policy. Am I mistaken?

Edit:
From all primary sources I've been able to track down, nothing suggests an AI policy has been decided. This is the best explanation of the situation I've found so far, though it is a bit over a week old: https://planet.kde.org/nate-graham-2026-09-23-kde-and-ai-and-you-and-me/. If you have a primary source that says otherwise, please link it here, I'd like to know what their AI policy ends up being.

There's no need to excise anything unless you specifically let an agent create a commit. No need for pre-push hooks.

I think KDEs policy is quite rational, it's a compromise and still clearly anti-vibe coding. IMO the problems are overstated