whimblepop

A well-behaved application should not only use XDG on Linux, but it should use platform-native conventions on macOS as well: "~/Library/Application Support", etc.

What makes ACP deficient for headless uses of LLM agents? Maybe fixing that or standardizing on another protocol designed for pluggable LLM agents (I guess ACP is more oriented towards pair programming in an IDE, at least originally) is a better idea imo.

I bet if you contribute in those various other ways for a while, you can probably eventually submit patches. Not as exciting as being able to jump right in, for sure. But it sounds like there's a way in, and I guess you can carry your own patches in a downstream fork in the meantime.

One thing I hope IBM understands here is that healthy F/OSS projects aren't really the kind of thing you can buy and proprietarize even by "forking"/re-licensing your own code. Ages ago, Oracle learned this when they bought Sun, particularly with the birth of The Document Foundation and LibreOffice. More recently, Hashicorp is facing the same phenomenon with the departure of the chief maintainer of Terraform to work on OpenTofu at Spacelift.

Many F/OSS maintainers care pretty deeply about things like software freedom, taking good care of our digital commons, and leaving their mark on the world in a public way. I imagine that's especially true at Red Hat. You can buy the company, you can change the relationship to the community of "outside" contributors, and you can even release new versions of the software under a proprietary license. You can create upheaval for a lot of people, including the users. But you will often not only fail to walk away with key maintainers on your team, but watch them go on to form your competition on a new fork.

I don't personally know anyone who works at Red Hat, but even from the interactions I've seen recently in issue trackers and PRs to projects maintained in part by Red Hat engineers, I'm inclined to have a bit of faith. The upstream-first culture there still seems pretty strong and pretty quality-oriented to me. I don't think you can reliably keep engineers like that and turn them into drones who don't care about the craft and their impact on users and developers.

Does "external" contributors effectively mean drive-by contributors? I assume there's still more than a single developer, and it's somehow possible to be admitted as a member of the project if you have some existing public reputation.

Good luck with your game! I hope you get there. :)

Why not treat AI-generated art as scaffolding in cases like this? Use the AI-generated music or sprites so that in early stages, your game can more closely resemble a complete game and you can think through your aesthetic preferences with concrete examples.

Then, if the project lives and grows long enough to be published, you start soliciting involvement from human artists but with minimal budgetary commitments. If your project gains momentum, you start allocating more realistic incentives for human collaborators.

I chose to listen to the blog post instead of just reading it. I don't know how much if it is just the idea of AI-generated music for me, but the listening experience was extremely repulsive.

GNU Emacs isn't the first Emacs, although it's still an impressively long-lived and vivacious one.

I thought it went without saying that GPT 5.6 Sol is the wrong model to use for things like filtering tweets. Apparently not?