Posts from March 10, 2026

While the additions have, for sure, slowed down, I'm still tinkering away with BlogMore. Recent changes stem from the fact that someone else has been mad enough to want to experiment with rebuilding their blog with it too, which, if I'm honest, is massively helpful with the ongoing GitHub Copilot experiment. Somehow it feels a little different, ganging up with the agent to implement changes for someone else's benefit.

Recent changes include:

• Tweaking the size and layout of the "social" icons that appear in the sidebar (this one was for my benefit)
• Making it possible to customise the title for the socials section in the sidebar (also for my benefit)
• Providing control over the path used for posts -- this one was a request that made a ton of sense, it's at this point it stops being a tool for me and starts being a more general tool

Next up is the first breaking change where I'm going to remove a feature. This came from my very initial experiment last month, where I was concentrating purely on building a tool for my blog and my blog alone. I'd made it such that the /attachments directory in the content directory had special status, and it would be copied over to the output directory in full. Oddly, however, this never made it into the documentation.

Meanwhile, the /extras directory also had special status with its content, full hierarchy included, being copied over but moved up one level in the output. So, for example, extras/humans.txt became /humans.txt in the resulting site, etc.

Presumably, at this point, you can see where this is going. Why the heck did I have a special attachments folder being copied over, when a folder of any name could live below extras and also get copied over?

So, now, my blog, which uses /attachments for all inline images and covers, has been updated so that the attachments live under extras and it all works as it did before; no special messing with a special folder name.

Given all this, the next release of BlogMore will remove treating /attachments as a special case, making it less hard-coded for my habits and more of a general tool that could be useful for others.

Mildly related to this: I did a lunchtime talk at work today, having turned Five days with Copilot into a 20-25 minute presentation. It was fun to do. I've not written or given a talk or presentation in a long time -- probably the last time was when I helped run Newton's Astronomical Society in the early 2000s -- so the preparation for this was a little daunting to start with.

While doing this, not wanting to break a long streak of never having used PowerPoint, I discovered and gave sli.dev a go. Writing a single Markdown file to power the talk was exactly my kind of approach. I don't have any experience with any other such tools, but if you're ever looking for something like this I recommend giving it a try.

I'm also open to suggestions of other options, given I might end up doing this some more.

Just recently I saw a post go past on Mastodon, complaining about the author's perception that there was a breakdown of trust in the FOSS world, in respect to the use of AI to work on FOSS projects, or at least the willingness to accept AI-assisted contributions. The post also highlighted the author's reliance on FOSS projects and how they're driven by ethical and financial motivations (some emphasis was placed on how they had no money to spend on these things so it wasn't even necessarily a choice to FOSS up their environment).

This was, of course, in response to the current fuss about how Vim is being developed these days.

I don't want to comment on the Vim stuff -- I've got no dog in that fight -- but something about the post I mention above got me thinking, and troubled me.

Back when I first ran into the concept of Free Software, before the concept of Open Source had ever been thought of, I can remember reading stuff opposed to the idea that mostly worked along the lines of "you get what you pay for" -- the implication being that Free Software would be bad software. I think it's fair to say that history has now shown that this isn't the case.

But... I think it's fair to say that you do get what you pay for, but in a different sense.

If your computing environment is fully reliant on the time, money and effort of others; reliant on people who are willing to give all of that without the realistic expectation of any contribution back from you; I feel it's safe to say that you are getting a bloody good deal. To then question the motivations and abilities of those people, because they are exploring and embracing other methods of working, is at best a bad-faith argument and at worst betrays a deep sense of entitlement.

What I also found wild was, the post went on to document the author's concerns that they now have to worry about the ability of FOSS project maintainers to detect bad contributions. This for me suggests a lack of understanding of how non-trivial FOSS projects have worked ever since it was a thing.

I mean, sure, there are some projects that are incredibly useful and which have a solo developer working away (sometimes because nobody else wants to contribute, but also sometimes because that solo developer doesn't play well with others -- you pick which scenario you think is more healthy), but for the most part the "important" projects have multitudes working on them, with contributions coming from many people of varying levels of ability. The point here being that, all along, you've been relying on the discernment and mentoring abilities of those maintainers.

To suggest they're suddenly unworthy of your trust because they might be "using the AIs" is... well, it feels driven by dogma and it reads like a disingenuous take.

Don't get me wrong though: you are right to be suspicious, you are right to want to question the trust you place in those who donate so much to you; almost always this is made explicit in the licence they extended to you in the first place. But to suggest that suddenly they're unworthy of your trust because they're donating so much value to you in a way you don't approve of...

...well, perhaps it's time for you to pay it back?