| ▲ | duskdozer 3 hours ago |
| I was really pleased finding this last year, but I guess it's time to look for an alternative. I don't get why everything has to have AI shoved into it |
|
| ▲ | wswope 27 minutes ago | parent | next [-] |
| Not to detract from your point, but I decided Atuin was feature complete enough for my liking over two years ago, and have been running the last v17 release ever since with zero problems. You can still keep everything you like about the tool without issue, and to the devs’ credit, the sync server is some of the easiest software to self-host possible. |
|
| ▲ | Bnjoroge 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| It’s optional- you can choose to opt in or not. |
| |
| ▲ | imiric 29 minutes ago | parent | next [-] | | That's a poor argument that doesn't change the fact that any feature requires maintenance time and effort which for some users could be better invested in features they actually use, in improving overall stability, reliability, performance, etc. The more such unused features a product has, the less relevant it is for those users. The question is, was adding "AI" to this product requested by most users, or was it done to tick off a marketing checkbox and capitalize on the hype? | | |
| ▲ | wswope 22 minutes ago | parent [-] | | What stability, reliability, and performance problems are you hitting with Atuin? I posted a longer comment upthread, but I’ve been self-hosting and running an old version for over two years now, and haven’t had any recurring problems on those fronts. It’s pretty damn stable software and everything they’ve been doing lately has just been extra features and gloss. |
| |
| ▲ | ramon156 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Its also the Repo. There's a lot of AI-guided commits. I'm all for using AI in a reliable and safe environment, but letting Claude steer just leads to garbage | | |
| ▲ | stingraycharles 2 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | I took a look at the repo, but i didn’t see any garbage commits / evidence of sloppy vibe coding. Care to elaborate? Also, don’t you trust that an author knows what they’re doing with AI in the same way as trusting them with their regular code writing skills? | |
| ▲ | quanwinn 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Using AI to code doesn't automatically mean bad code. Although I suspect the majority of AI code will be subpar. | |
| ▲ | TechSquidTV 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | So to be clear. You have no tangible complaints about the software or its quality, but you are dismissing it because of the potential for poor quality, because AI was assisting? | |
| ▲ | Bnjoroge 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | I’ve read and used some of the author’s software. I trust them to make good judgement of using AI. |
|
|
|
| ▲ | arcadianalpaca 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-] |
| Right, though looking at the release notes it seems like the AI part at least is opt-in... for now. |
| |
| ▲ | duskdozer 3 hours ago | parent [-] | | For now. But looking at the repo, they're already having commits done by claude. | | |
| ▲ | dcre 2 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | I looked at the repo and couldn’t even find an example, so it can’t be that many of their commits. But also: this is ridiculous. Whether the commit appears as done by Claude or not is a setting you can change. If they turned it off, you’d never even notice. These are great developers and they’ve built an incredible tool. I use it a hundred times a day. It is very odd and dogmatic to think that because you saw a commit authored by Claude, whatever skills and qualities let them build something so good are now being thrown out. Edit: I found one: https://github.com/atuinsh/atuin/pull/3231 Please, tell me where the bad code is in that PR. I see 200 lines of extremely straightforward Rust and 500 lines of tests for it. | |
| ▲ | baq an hour ago | parent | prev [-] | | And this is bad why? | | |
|
|
