foofloobar

I've read your twitter post. That makes sense. I've read a blog post or some kind forum thread in which it was said that the maintenance of Obsidian as an open source project would be an issue and some other similar statements. This was a while ago.

Some are OK with the use of a closed source note taking app. Perhaps an enterprise version with a different feature set might be useful to companies.

For notes written on my own computer, I use open source software to write and handle the sync myself.

You've got it backwards. It's the fact that long arguments were written against making it open source that have determined me to make that statement. You don't have to provide an argument for not making it open source. It's the fact that arguments were made against making it open source or at least source available.

The business model is obvious. Sell the sync service.

Either way, that's your opinion.

That's your opinion. I respect your choices and your opinions. I speak for myself. This is the first time I've seen this company's CEO post somewhere. I really couldn't trust this software less.

To be fair, when someone comes up with excuses for not making something open source, it comes off as dishonest. Be honest. Say that you want to keep it closed to keep control and make money. There's no need to say otherwise. I do the same. I keep code private to make money. I don't say more than that.

You'll see a plethora of such apps made with LLMs. People will write something custom to meet their own needs and to have the features they need.

I've installed Obsidian a while ago to play with it. This is a reminder that this thing is still on my devices. I'm getting rid of it now. I recall reading the forum posts and all the excuses for not making it open source. Oh, please, say you want to keep it closed source because you're afraid you'll lose money and control. Leave it at that. Don't make up excuses.

I've been using open source alternatives for different purposes for some time.

Obsidian would've been a great choice as open source note taking software. As it is now, it's just one sale, one exploit or one corporate rug pull away from being turned into something else.

Third party audits are meaningless. They were done for one specific version of the code at one point in time. There's literally nothing preventing a malicious version of the software from being shipped. The same goes for plausible deniability on security vulnerabilities in the context of plugins (even with these alleged prompts that the user has to skip on purpose).

To be fair, my comment was a bit harsher before the update. The way they handle the development, communication and how they treat customers isn't fine. I've seen some angry people post and comment in manners which truly deserved the label hostile.

The whole product with the infrastructure and Claude Code's code appear to be vibe coded.

They appear to take issues seriously mostly when they become posts on hacker news and when articles are published online by major news sites. Customer support is mostly a bot. I don't even know how to reach some actual humans to get support.

I'm sorry if you and others are offended. They've had these issues for several weeks now. I haven't seen any real improvements during this time. I see more features and more bugs.

There have been several releases made over the last few days without any changelogs. The quotas are still as opaque as they've been. This company has some extremely shady business practices.

Do you people even read the source code written by Claude Code? Do you even test the same system prompts used by your product? Do you use Claude Code to find bugs and to come up with improvements?

Why are the models quantized or dumbed down? How can you possibly expect to reduce the load on your infrastructure when 5-20x more turns are required to get the same results or even worse results than a single turn used to? It currently fails to reason about very basic things even when they're explained to it and it's told what to do.

There's a silver lining: your heavy load problems will go away as you lose more customers. You'll barely have any load in the near future.

Here are a few ideas for you to try: make CLAUDE_CODE_DISABLE_GIT_INSTRUCTIONS=1 the default, improve the system prompt to make it better, improve the prompts for the agents, stop serving quantized models. Put in place comprehensive test suites for Claude Code, for the infrastructure involved in serving the code and for the models themselves. Have the extremely hyped Mythos analyze your code base to fix more bugs. Stop shipping so many new features. Stop shipping releases without changelogs. Make it possible to delete all the connectors from the dashboard and to disable all connectors. Make it possible to disable/enable MCP tools with dots in them (claude.ai MCP tools can't be disabled by denying them). Do research to improve the performance of your platform.

Drop the ridiculous requirement to use the subscription only with Claude Code. Restrict it instead to coding and related tasks (no personal agents like Claw and related) if you want to get rid of the high load caused by autonomous or scheduled jobs.

Make the quotas transparent with actual numbers, not percentages.

Communicate proactively. Fix bugs. Improve the product. Stop degrading the service provided to customers.

I wouldn't trust another company either. Some people have reported some issues with Cursor. The solution is probably not a cloud API with unknown quotas or pay as you go pricing.

Claude Code and the subscription are now less useful than a few months ago. Claude Code and the service seem to pick up more and more issues as time goes by: more bugs, fast quota drain, reduced quota, poor model performance, cache invalidation problems, MCP related bugs, potential model quantization and other problems.

Claude Code was able to implement something in one shot. It was decent for a proof of concept initial implementation. It's barely able to do work now with full specs and detailed plans.

ChatGPT is also being watered down.

It seems obvious that Anthropic and OpenAI aren't the solution to any problem.

How much money goes into the pocket of the Mozilla CEO? How much is used to actually pay the people and to cover infrastructure costs?

Claude Code and Opus used to do a great job a few months ago. It seemed to get it right more often than not. It seemed to be far better at figuring out what has to be done and getting it right on the first attempt. This is likely model related since Claude Code has received some bug fixes since.

The list of bugs and performance problems appears to keep growing: reduced usage quotas, poor performance with numerous attempts at getting things right, cache invalidation bugs, background requests which have to be disabled explicitly to avoid consuming the quota too fast, Opus appears to be quantized even with high thinking mode, poor tool use with tool search disabled, broken tool search with tool search enabled, laziness, poor planning, poor execution, gets stuck when debugging simple code issues, writes code which isn't required, starts making changes and executing whatever it wants when told to simply prepare a plan for something, it doesn't follow instructions to use agents as told and numerous other issues with following the instructions.

The quota story is atrocious. It's difficult to get anything done with Claude Code due to the quota reduction. The cache invalidation bugs don't help either.

The tool use is also a pain to deal with. It appears to choose tools randomly with or without tool search. It keeps running custom CLI commands when it has instructions to use Makefile targets. It often ingests the output of some command with hundreds of lines of output without discrimination. It often uses lots of bash grep and find commands when it has better tools available to search across files and to use MCP tools which are far more efficient. It ignores MCP tools most of the time.

This doesn't appear to be an issue with the prompt itself. I'll try to fix the system prompt next to work around some of the issues. It seems to not follow instructions and to do whatever it feels like doing. It comes off as one of those Q2-Q3 quantized models from huggingface.

The impact of the cache invalidation issue, reduced quota, poor model performance and Claude Code bugs together have rendered this service almost entirely useless for me. The poor model performance means that many more attempts are required and more requests are made to the Anthropic API. The Claude Code bugs and design lead to cache invalidation more often. This makes the impact of the reduced quota even worse. It makes a lot more API requests because the model doesn't get it right on the first 1-2 attempts or because it chooses less than optimal strategies to find what it's looking for.

The communication and Anthropic's overall handling of the reported bugs and problems hasn't been that good either.

As for the session ID and other things you might request for debugging, there's nothing special here that's not reported widely on every Reddit thread from several subreddits. I use 200k context with Opus and Sonnet. I use high thinking mode because anything less appears to be complete garbage with extremely poor results. I avoid compact in favor of knowledge transfer markdown files.

It'd be great to see Anthropic fix the caching issues, to improve the quality of the model, to address the Claude Code bugs, to sort out the quota fiasco, to improve their communication skills, to communicate more with their customers and to be more proactive overall. I'll take my money elsewhere otherwise.

They don't ship to most countries from the European Union. What makes it so difficult to ship to all countries from the EU? They don't even ship from the EU. They ship from China, Taiwan or some other country from Asia.

They now have notices for using forwarding services on their site. Why would anyone bother to spend so much time and money to be able to give them money? It doesn't make sense.

I'm sure they're reasonable, talented and intelligent people. I'm not going to take their company seriously until they start shipping to the entire EU and to more countries.

This isn't the case. I see segfaults in multiple tests with Ryzen and none of them are conftest related. The CPU is broken.

I don't have Threadripper or Epyc to test.

Here are more links to other discussions:

https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=219399

https://www.phoronix.com/forums/forum/hardware/processors-me...

https://lkml.org/lkml/2017/7/25/1295