He seems to believe AI will help lessen the burden. I hope he's able to find other maintainers.

Best luck!

That said I increasingly have a very strong distaste of these AI generated articles. They are long and tedious to read and it really makes me doubt that what is written there is actually true at all. I much prefer a worse written but to the point article.

I was searching for a fairly simple replacement for s3 for testing. I'd been using Minio for a while now, and simply ended up implementing my own on top of Postgres. Fun intersection given the post. (Note, I know it isn't optimal, but as I always have Postgres available it fits well, and I don't have high storage needs, just the api compatibility)

https://www.chainguard.dev/unchained/secure-and-free-minio-c...

You wouldn't get the other changes in this post (e.g., restoring the admin console) but that's a bit orthogonal.

But there are a bunch of changes to docs, CI workflows and issue templates. Which is what is the easy part of managing a fork, and I've seen a bunch of forks that ended up only updating readme-s, CI, etc.

I'll have more faith in the fork when the maintainers do actual fixes.

This blog post is extremely heavy on LLM written content, which isn’t a promising early sign

> Normally this is where the story ends — a collective sigh, and everyone moves on.

> But I want to tell a different story. Not an obituary — a resurrection.

I’ve seen several announcements of forked open source projects from people who thought that maintaining a fork is easy now that they can have an LLM do all the work. Then their interest trails off when they encounter problems the AI can’t handle for them or the community tires of doing all of the testing and code review for a maintainer who just wants to prompt the LLM and put their name on the project. When someone can’t even write their own announcement without an LLM it’s not an encouraging sign.

For a web GUI, I had been using this project: https://github.com/huncrys/minio-console

I switched to rustfs this week though and am not looking back. I'd recommend it to others as well for small scale usage. Its maturing rapidly and seems promising.

I don't see how these two lines can be written together.

The goal is either to remain S3-compatible or to freeze the current interface of the service forever.

As it stands this fork's compatibility with S3, and with the official MinIO itself, will break as soon as one of them pushes an API update. Which works fine for existing users, maybe, but over time as the projects drift further apart no new ones will be able to onboard.

For the single node use-case, I'm working on https://github.com/uroni/hs5 . The S3 API surface is large, but at this point it covers the basics. By limiting the goals I hope it will be maintainable.

And I say this because minIO started to actively engage on the ugly parts of the license

LLM generated TL;DR: The factual sections read like a real person who knows what they're doing. The rhetorical flourishes read like someone pasted their draft into Claude and said "make it more compelling." The work deserves better than the prose it got.

LLM output given "<DOC>X</DOC> Identify parts written by an LLM"

Here are the passages that read as LLM-generated rather than naturally written:

*Overwrought dramatic pivots (LLMs love the "Not X — Y" antithesis):* - "Not an obituary — a resurrection." - "Not 'unmaintained' — officially, irreversibly, done." - "That demand doesn't disappear — it just finds its way out."

*Explicitly labeling rhetoric that should speak for itself:* - "The ironic part:" — just show the irony, don't announce it. - "The consensus in the international community is clear:" — "international community" is overbearing. "is clear" is LLM throat-clearing. - "That's the beauty of open-source licensing by design" — "That's the beauty of" is a hallmark LLM filler phrase.

*Grandiose one-liners that try too hard:* - "git clone is the most powerful spell in open source." - "a digital tombstone" - "If December was the clinical death, this February commit was the death certificate." — the metaphor was already established in the heading; extending it here is overworked.

*LLM vagueness / filler:* - "Things are different now." — says nothing. - "Consider:" as a standalone transition into the Elon/Twitter example. - "I believe the maintenance workload is manageable." — the hedging "I believe" adds nothing; just say it's manageable.

*Cliché deployment:* - "the dragon-slayer has become the dragon" (in the related-article blurb) - "Eating your own dog food is the best QA." — explaining the idiom ("dogfooding") one sentence before, then restating it as a maxim, is the LLM pattern of using a phrase and then making sure you understood it.

*The AI-hype paragraph is the worst offender:* > "With tools like Claude Code, the cost of locating and fixing bugs in a complex Go project has dropped by *more than an order of magnitude*. What used to require a dedicated team to maintain a complex infrastructure project can now be handled by *one experienced engineer with an AI copilot*."

This reads like an LLM writing about itself — vague quantification ("order of magnitude"), the buzzword "copilot," and the utopian framing are all telltale. The Elon/Twitter analogy that follows ("Consider:") makes it worse, not better.

*Overall pattern:* The technical/factual sections (the timeline table, the build instructions, the console revert explanation) read like a real person. The editorializing and rhetorical flourishes — especially the intro, the "But Open Source Endures" section, and the "AI Changed the Game" section — are where the LLM voice creeps in most heavily.