This AI policy is so utterly backwards and stupid I don't even have a nicer way of saying it.

After reading the web page, I am left with some questions unanswered,

* Is it a goal for AlpineBSD to run on native hardware, or is it intended for containers (a major use-case for Alpine itself)?

* For users who want to avoid AI-generated code, why run this rather than netbsd itself?

If the team want to attract interest, they should give more context.

The mission is unclear. The team could address this by stating goals and milestones on the front page.

There is a link to a tool s6 on the page. The description of that tool opens with a circular definition. It would be clearer if it stated why it exists in the opening paragraph. Near the bottom it talks about "One of the design goals of s6-frontend". It would be better to state all of the design goals.

The whole "as little AI code as possible" is tribalism.

I want software that is brilliant and well audited, no matter who or what produced it.

No AI guarantees nothing, especially if it's a C codebase like netbsd, why not also join the rust tribe then?

Neat project. One thing I don't see covered: is everything going to be statically linked like it is on Alpine Linux? Is statically linking libc advisable on a NetBSD kernel? I know (unlike Linux) the FreeBSD kernel ABI can change every major release, but I'm not familiar with NetBSD's approach.

  $ podman run -it --rm alpine

  / # apk add cmd:ldd
  / # ldd $(which ash)
          /lib/ld-musl-x86_64.so.1 (0x7f4cb4d1d000)
          libc.musl-x86_64.so.1 => /lib/ld-musl-x86_64.so.1 (0x7f4cb4d1d000)

  / # apk add cmd:python3
  / # ldd $(which python3)
          /lib/ld-musl-x86_64.so.1 (0x7fd630cab000)
          libpython3.12.so.1.0 => /usr/lib/libpython3.12.so.1.0 (0x7fd63069a000)
          libc.musl-x86_64.so.1 => /lib/ld-musl-x86_64.so.1 (0x7fd630cab000)

Great website, great AI policy. The two are probably related.

Ok so it's "AI free". But why? It doesn't justify the decision but just assumes you will understand the reasoning. I have to say: I don't. For example they are pinning binutils, gcc, and gdb to the last version they know does not have LLM generated code. I assume this means they will not be able to accept any upstream patches, but instead have to take over maintenance of those packages themselves for the forseeable future, effectively meaning development on those will stop for the purposes of AlpineBSD. Seems stupid, to me.

Interesting to watch the rapid fragmentation of FOSS into “hard” anti-AI, AI-neutral-to-discouraged, AI-supplemented, and AI-driven camps, akin to the early GPL vs BSD wars. Suddenly I don’t see as many complaints about licensing, and some of the die-hard GPL stans are silently dropping that position as Linux adopts AI-supplemented development.

On one hand it’s unfortunate, because it hypothetically dilutes developer efforts, but on the other hand the most extreme groups already had incompatible personalities and weren’t working well together. This self-sorting may actually result in a better cadence and less energy wasted on arguing.

The downside is that a lot of loud and annoying people seem to be converging on BSD land. I am AI-nonaligned (I just care about Quality) but I’m very much in favor of OpenBSD’s heads-down focused dev culture. I hope that doesn’t change.

> NOTICE: The NetBSD kernel has spotty hardware support, much less so than Linux. You cannot necessarily expect AlpineBSD to work on any random computer you have lying around.

Huh. I feel like the author has their BSDs mixed up! NetBSD's main claim to fame is that it runs on practically everything, even lots of platforms no longer supported by mainstream Linux distributions. The page links to the laptop wiki, which is about AMD64 laptops and their finicky peripherals and driver support. A better place to start for hardware support is https://wiki.netbsd.org/ports/.

I can respect this. Looks like AI auditing code is fine and I can't imagine why auditing would ever be a con. As for the lack of reasons given I guess they leave that for the users which seems completely fine to me. If you are chimping out over not getting a justification then you should probably do some soul-searching.

>A small amount of essential software is pinned to the last version which is not tainted. We pin software as a last resort, preferring to find alternatives or move the package into the tainted repository. The current list of pinned software in “base” and “main” is:

>binutils gcc gdb libffi perl xorriso

Good luck replacing those ...