Proposal to prohibit vibe coded projects from being hosted on SourceHut
3 points by PuercoPop
3 points by PuercoPop
I have a feeling all these prohibitions simply empower GitHub’s monopoly as folks are going to go back to a place where they can host their projects, vibe-coded or not, without the fear of getting the rug pulled by some future random new rule.
Or something like Cursor's Origin takes off as a de facto hub for performatively agentic projects.
I now also have reduced initial trust for any small project that doesn't host on, or mirror to, Codeberg or such. After all, the odds are increased that it is a vibecoded project.
I feel like any platform that doesn't put such rules into place is going to be a home for projects that don't fit the rules of other platforms.
I think every code hosting/git platform should follow this. imho
The anti-bot screens are getting so agressive older phones cant access the sites without burning a battery for few minutes.
Seriously, this took almost a minute on my iPad. At least give me Tetris or something while I wait.
Greg Kroah-Hartman replies and comments on LLMs in Linux:
On Wed, Aug 19, 2026 at 03:44:42PM +0200, Drew DeVault wrote:
However, the Linux take on LLMs is the exact sort of take that I think we should aim to address with this policy. It sits pretty close to where we would want to draw the line: it is not entirely vibe coded, but it includes substantial code authored in whole or in substantial part by an LLM. Moreover, the political weight of Linux means that Linux's endorsement of LLMs for its development has an outsized impact on the reputation of LLMs in open source, for example by pushing us to consider carefully if we should draw the line to include or exclude one of the biggest software projects in the world in spite of our reservations on ethical grounds.
I hate, with the passion of a thousand suns, the pain that LLMs are causing to me and most open source projects right now, BUT I can NOT ignore that they have created, at giant expense, a fuzzy-tool that lies 1/3 of the time while finding and fixing real security bugs. This tool is nothing that anyone will actually pay the real money for, BUT I will begrudgingly deal with it now, to take from their resources in order to make Linux better.
Just like I used these tools recently to find and fix real bugs in rsync over the past months, they can be used to improve the infrastructure we all depend on for making our ecosystems work. And I can point out, there are "semi sane" ways of using them, locally, that circumvent a portion of the atrocities that LLMs cause today (but not all, I agree.)
I have banned their use for some sections of Linux that I maintain, as they make no sense to use there, BUT again, it is a tool, much like a fuzzer, that can be exploited by us to make our software better.
Also, sometimes I think that people forget that free software, and open source software for almost all licenses, does not control the use of that software in any way.
Anyway, it's your call as to what you wish the policy to be here, but pragmatic ones are usually the best, and for Linux right now, that's what we have done.
thanks,
greg k-h