I had a high-end webcam that flickered. There should be switch in the software to switch from 50hz to 60hz that'd fix it but it was nowhere to be found. After digging deeper I found that it was only available in English version of software. It was before macOS had Setting to set language per app, so I had to manually replace Polish bundle with English one through binary.
Another one: Has K810 keyboard that started in "FN-by-default" mode. K811, Mac version of said keyboard allowed for changing default setting just as K810 on Windows, but K810 on Mac - no dice. Support told me to shell out 200€ on Mac keyboard so I ended up writing small binary switcher [0] that would run after keyboard got connected [0].
But on another note, the genai content on the website is just so distracting and such a bummer. It sticks out like sore thumb.
That's harsh. Consider English might not be the author's first language (I see Chinese on the screenshots). Just opening the site I get all the info I need from the text (local first, no account, no telemetry, that's great), install instructions are immediately visible, there are screenshots, even the config file format is one scroll away. This is a great landing page for an open source tool.
This is clearly LLM-written text, not something that the author asked an LLM to translate from a different language. Not sure how the author's first language is relevant.
They didn't, so the reason isn't that English isn't their first language, it's that they didn't want to spend time writing text. In which case I don't understand how this is different from a native English speaker doing the same thing.
> the genai content on the website is just so distracting and such a bummer. It sticks out like sore thumb.
The comment is fair and accurate. The vacuous marketing speak is tedious, unpleasant and risks undermining the technology it makes a flailing attempt to describe.
Your non-native English speaker excuse is neither fair nor accurate since an AI translation of a human-written Mandarin language text does not introduce the style of writing being criticised.
Not every open source project requires a grandiose marketing site littered with manipulative, cloying language. Let the project speak for itself.
As far as the page body content goes it seems like LLMs have taken a little bit too enthusiastically to an Apple style presentation of product features.
It's fairly obvious that an LLM has been used to design the site, but it does the job and the site isn't the focus of the product.
And that's what I see first thing on the repo. Lots of LLM-style writing in the README, which makes me think if this is a vibecoded app, which looks like it.
If it were an overly elaborate human creation I'd agree that criticism was unnecessary and perhaps even insensitive.
Between no website and shiny but crappy LLM website, I’ll take the latter, and I wouldn’t wish another 2 weeks of unpaid copy writing on any open source dev.
Thank you Lordy for LLMs because I am going to hurt myself if I ever have to design and wire another contact form.
Depends on the project.
According to wordcounter.net, this landing page has 850 words. Most of that is just LLM fluff that could easily be removed, but even if you want to keep the original size, to spend two months on this you have to be writing less than 15 words a day.
What the h... I mean, it's an opensource software to make Logitech's users life less miserable, and you are comparing that to the effort of a student writing an essay, where their only or main job during those days is writing the essay?
The average person cannot write good documentation (or website copy). It's an actual skill to learn how to phrase things, ensure that the documentation delivers the right level of detail to the different reader types etc.
As English writers, software developers make great programmers, not authors.
> A background watcher reads the foreground app's identifier once per second; when it changes, the overlay you authored for that app is layered on top of the device's global bindings, with per-app entries winning and any unlisted button falling through to the global map.
as is in the documentation right now could have just read
> Your device will automatically use app-specific keybinds when a given app is in focus.
So much of the documentation copy especially is typical of the ways LLMs leak implementation instructions into their written copy.
Now, I often find Claude's idea of idiomatic prose to be a bit load-bearingly seam-hitting as it lands not this point, but THAT one, but it is probably better than something hacked out by a person who confuses tenses, cases, pronouns and when they can enverb a noun. So I tend towards giving people the benefit of the doubt on this.
Lastly, if you think LLM-written software is full of security vulnerabilities and bugs, I have terrible news for you about the state of human-written code. The fact that what we do is often better than nothing at all, is no big recommendation.
What about people with fine English and terrible coding skills?
What about people with both terrible English and terrible coding skills?
> Now, I often find Claude's idea of idiomatic prose to be a bit load-bearingly seam-hitting as it lands not this point, but THAT one, but it is probably better than something hacked out by a person who confuses tenses, cases, pronouns and when they can enverb a noun. So I tend towards giving people the benefit of the doubt on this.
Personally, I find AI writing as insufferable as anyone else (though Anthropic's is particularly bad, maybe just due to my familiarity with it), but I wouldn't judge individuals for using it to make communication more readable, rephrase what they mean etc. If anything, any difficulty in reading my prose would support that.
> Lastly, if you think LLM-written software is full of security vulnerabilities and bugs, I have terrible news for you about the state of human-written code. The fact that what we do is often better than nothing at all, is no big recommendation.
I guess a lot depends on how you use the LLMs (I bet horrible coding skills coincide with horribly lazy and problematic usage of LLMs for development too), but I wonder how humans actually stack up to the slop-machine when it comes to how good or bad the code they produce is on average, since I'm sure that SOTA model code by now tends towards the upper end of that.
In other words, if a person wants to limit themselves to avoiding LLM code over fears of it being bad, they would also have to avoid any any all code written by people that essentially produced the problematic training dataset, as well as any programmers with the same capabilities (or lack thereof). You'd basically have to avoid using a lot/most of the software out there if that's your quality standard.
See the recent hack on CPU-Z: https://gist.github.com/N3mes1s/b5b0b96782b9f832819d2db7c668...
Given this is open-source, have you considered contributing a more expensive-feeling landing page? Or, donating to finance the project?
How so?
Nothing wrong with AI code either but it suggests the project may have been built in 2 weeks, has no community and low likelihood of ongoing maintenance.
So now overall instead of a flashy website I think the best signal of quality is a boring GitHub README and several months of commit activity, lots of merged PRs.
Still, I see that page and I think 'Logitech Corporate driver software'. Maybe that's the intention? But it makes me start slightly suspicious.
bellard.org style text-only, get-to-the-point-please content will the way forwards. "browsers" can then style and rewrite it till the cows come home - with fancy slideshows, LLMisms, carrousels, the works - or not and nobody will be worse off.
The way we structure content these days is insane. Separate content from presentation, please.
> Quit Logi Options+ before launching: the two fight over HID++ access, and only one app can own a receiver at a time. On Linux, the same applies to Solaar.
While it does look extremely likely that AI is used for the copy writing, and probably for some of the code maintenance, I'm not convinced that this is being vibe coded.
But do we still trust the open source software that is created now everything is vibe coded?
Recently there was a thread about Chatto [1], a Slack replacement completely vibe coded by one person. It works and looks nice. But looking at the code, I wouldn’t trust any of my personal information to it. It’s just tousands of lines of skills and vague instructions. It seems that trust in OSS is eroding and big SaaS might win here because they have the reputation.
Now if only there was one for Razer.
Running code is dangerous. I don't really see how its provenance matters: you should not run code you don't trust, period.
This reduces to "you should not use a computer, period." No-one can audit all the code they run daily.
Not sure if you're being manipulative on purpose or if you genuinely did not understand my point. I was talking about "trust", which is a whole concept in itself.
That being said: I wouldn't really trust SaaS to not be vibe-coded either. The only difference there is that SaaS likely has a financial incentive to stay maintainable so you could argue that helps.
Whether it's vibe-coded or not doesn't change that. If it is vibe-coded and unreadable, how is it different from manually-written and unreadable? If it is vibe-coded and readable, how is it different from manually-written and readable?
Judge the code by its quality, not by its provenance.
I hate Options+ as much as the next guy - but don't have the time / technical knowledge to audit thoroughly enough to establish trust in this.
I'm nearing the replacement point on my current MX Master - so is there a better alternative to Logitech?
Be careful of prompt injection. Some people think nothing of adding harmful instructions to their repositories. Sol and Opus seem to be smart enough not to fall for it, but I don't know about other models.
reputation of what? sucking your soul dry?
If I think tool/software would be useful I throw GLM 5.2 (now 5.3) at it and ask to do an audit ;-)
Do you trust all OSS repos coded before 2024? AI-generated code is no different than code written by a human with different levels of seniority, different levels of focus, or different levels of discipline. A human is perfectly capable of generating spaghetti code too.
Or make a fork with only the minimim set of parts that your agent cherry picks.
I guess my question is, why would you trust it when it is not vibe coded?
My suggestion is, have an AI review the code for you.
Or don't. It's up to you. You're as free to walk away as you are to embrace what's been made here.
“Is math” and “Either works or not” is only true with formal specifications and formal verification, which dwarfs the cost of producing said software.
It also matters how it works.
Of course producers like Logitech want you to install their own thing, so as to make it harder for you to switch to other brands of hardware, but an open system like Linux should not play along with that.
Another alternative is a utility called xmouse.
That'll work with Logitech mice too. It's only for all the extra buttons and functions that you need their software.
https://support.logi.com/hc/change_language/en-in?return_to=...
Or, a webcam for example, or other peripherals.
The tap includes a GH action to track upstream releases (as long as I notice the PR!). Also, the offline version only compensates for some of the issues with Options+.
I can’t wait until Qwen 4.5 27B or Gemma 5.
If you didn't even spend a minute writing a couple sentences about your own project, how much effort did you put into actually building and testing it? Or are you just letting others do the hard parts: Review and verification that your vibe-slop actually works as claimed, and then feed their feedback back into an LLM?
This kind of tool doesn’t need a whole Apple style marketing page to sell you on it.
It also signals effort to me, when I see vibeslop text I know the project most likely is a one shot weekend project full of issues which won’t be resolved. I’ve seen good examples of AI use in open source, and those projects write the readme and website copy without AI.
I think it depends a bit what's meant by "poorly" but I don't think I share that preference at all.
I would 100% rather read a developers copy explaining why they wanted to build something and what they think is useful about it, even if it isn't particularly polished.
As a comparison, LLM generated "marketing schlock" is polished, but it's normally pretty empty and doesn't convey much of it's value.
As an example, I use lazygit (a TUI git interface) - at least at the time I looked at it, the main intro was a youtube video of the developer talking through the features. It wasn't polished at all, but it did a great job of convincing me that lazygit was a project with a lot of love and thought put into it.
I read plenty of not-obviously-AI-generated text and I much prefer doing that, even if it’s not from a professional.
It’s not about the quality of the text itself. If Claude was one person with a human level of output, Claude would probably be considered decent at writing.
But when I have to read the same genre of slop on 1 million different sites it gets really really annoying imo.
I could not disagree more.
But if you don't want to and still want to use an LLM, there are low-bar choices you can make (using a technical writing skill, using ASD-STE100 Simplified Technical English, choosing your audience, proofreading at the end with human eyes to make sure it makes sense and doesn't repeat itself uselessly).
I think it shows either a) low respect or consideration for your audience or yourself, or b) laziness.
Trust yourself to write even if it's bad. At least it's human.
Hard things are hard. They’re not easy. But they’re worth it.
- The DPI slider did nothing most of the time, but sometimes the cursor movement changed when clicking a button or switching windows.
- No matter what I chose, the scroll wheel was stuck at absolute maximum sensitivity setting scrolling about a thousand lines per ratchet click. There was also no way to disable the "smart" switch to freewheel spinning.
- For some reason, tapping the thumb wheel triggered Task View. Tapping the thumb wheel isn't even listed as an interaction so no way to change or disable this.
Love the idea of an "open" version of Logi options, but this is just terribly executed. Can't state anything about the code but the bewildering behavior and weird bugs definitely smelled like vibe slop.
See you all tomorrow when we do it all over again.
The thing is not about code or solving a problem, and we also shouldn't be pretending that it is, because that is what slop, grifters and businesspeople bank on.
Also, you can be sure that the features that do exist are half-baked at best, given that any person with eyes can see that the priorities lie elsewhere.
Go use echo to write your code, otherwise you're not a real coder.
Agentic coding will do for indie software what dating apps did for human relationships. Animal brains are not equipped to deal with having this much choice.
Open<Brand> + SEO on Steroids webpage is usually misaligned with the user. That didn't really change. The only thing that did change is that producing this slop has gotten much much cheaper.
What is true though is that eventually, even the most gullible person will have been exposed to this so much, even they will finally manage to stop their hijacked justice reflex from twitching and defending garbage against their own best interest.
So that's a positive.
What really took it to the next level for me were adding chord mappings. For example I can hold right mouse button + scroll the thumb wheel to adjust volume. So convenient!