Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit | dada216's commentslogin

Bedsides coding agents, which only work extremely well if you are a developers or you train a person with the right inclination I have plenty running that work quite well, they do data extraction and data entry from emails and documents. I run them with Chinese and other open models on a bunch of H100, they cover tens of thousands of emails per month and as many documents.

My 2 cents: it would be beneficial to involve companies like RH and the teams behind many distros to work through those, it's not just about validating and patching but also about delivering them to the systems involved, a lot of people need to be involved, hence collaboration is required

only if it's enabled at the kernel level? I have this, and it's the defaults, on my RHELs:

sysctl -a | grep net.mptcp.enabled net.mptcp.enabled = 0

and found not MPTCP listeners anywhere, including where I have caddy.


to be fair their storage, and I mean their SANs, is still the best (excluding very expensive alternatives that are only really beating IBM in few limited scenarios).

I still like DB2, but only for banking/finance core stuff, and their mainframes are just unique machines, I'm very fond of them.


the default in RHEL/CoreOS is:

sysctl -a | grep net.mptcp.enabled net.mptcp.enabled = 0


the default on all of my RHEL is to have it disabled, I believe it's the same on Debian based

sysctl -a | grep net.mptcp.enabled net.mptcp.enabled = 0

and golang apps would just gracefully downgrade to non mptcp in that case.


> I believe it's the same on Debian based

"sysctl -a | grep net.mptcp.enabled" gives "net.mptcp.enabled = 1" on Debian 13 (Trixie). That's a non-server desktop install fwiw.

Edit - security advisory is here: (dated Oct 16) https://lists.debian.org/debian-security-announce/2026/msg00...


but the opencode go subscription is not, and this fosters the business of all the companies doing inference only

I actually find opencode to be the best harness, and Claude Code to work decently only because they do a lot of RL around the model+the harness itself.

just like with open source the only thing that would give us the certainty to keep getting the weights is if the incentives to do so materialize. how many of the linux kernel contributions and heavy weight opensource projects have important contributions from big business? a lot.

this came to be because the ecosystem around software and the business around it made it so, I believe eventually it will be the same for LLMs.


which kind of works exactly?

there is a huge difference between open models/other models/opus5.5 performance on, say, enterprise CRUD vs one shotting games vs embedded development vs pure algorithmic complex stuff vs cybersecurity stuff.

In my case "real work" is enterprise programming, while side projects are gaming stuff, so I'm better served by chinese open models on real work and opus for non-real work.

In my experience GLM5.3-4 are perfectly en par with opus 5.5 on pure enterprise CRUDs (basically 95% of enterprise programming) while GLM seriously lacks on game development.

the other aspect of real work is cybersecurity to me, and Opus5.5 and other models are very limited by their own safety, I have digital twins of our infra and I want LLMs to actually write full exploits on it, opus and openai just refuse to do it, GLM more than once got it there and showed me how it chained everything to actually break in the system and I could go around and fix stuff at all levels.

I'm also dabbing in training LORAs for smaller open models to do data entry and little more (RAG and the likes of it), because that costs a lot of tokens when you pay for them and it makes sense for a company to flat out buy a server with a few H100/200 to do it when you look at the TCO, I've already hit safety limitations when using Opus5.5 to help me through this.


Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: