Open Source Isn't Dead. Cal.com Just Learned the Wrong Lesson

Re:Open Source Isn't Dead. Cal.com Just Learned the Wrong Le... by bluebarbet on Wednesday April 15, 2026 @04:23PM (#47784738)

The point being that there are always going to be more eyes, and more knowledge of available tools (i.e. including "D, E and F"), and more experience using them, with open source than with a single in-house dev team.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Open Source Isn't Dead. Cal.com Just Learned the Wrong Le... by lelanthran on Wednesday April 15, 2026 @05:02PM (#47785172)

There's no more "eyes" though, it's all models, and they are all converging pretty damn fast.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Open Source Isn't Dead. Cal.com Just Learned the Wrong Le... by bluebarbet on Wednesday April 15, 2026 @06:56PM (#47786407)

If true then logically it will be sufficient to run this "master model" once before any code release for the level playing field to be restored. After all, even open-source software is private until it is released.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Open Source Isn't Dead. Cal.com Just Learned the Wrong Le... by lelanthran on Thursday April 16, 2026 @02:59AM (#47789586)

> If true then logically it will be sufficient to run this "master model" once before any code release for the level playing field to be restored.

I'm struggling to see how it is a level playing field:

1. Closed-source: defender runs llms to check the sources for vulns, runs llms on each PR, runs llm on deployment of the compiled output. Attacker runs llm only on compiled output.

2. Open-source: both attacker and defender runs llms on source, on PRs and on compiled output.

[ Parent | on HN ]