Congrats to Can on the pre-seed funding. genuinely wishing you all the best.
The terminal multiplexer / multi-agent coding space is getting very crowded. YC alone has funded many competing startups in this space: herdr, Superset, cmux, Emdash, Orca, Bullet, Conductor (Conductor was in YC before pivoting from chat->coding). I’m probably missing a few, and that’s before counting companies outside YC such as Superlogical and Agentastic.dev (by yours truly).
One thing I find particularly interesting is the role of open source in this market.
A lot of these products started open source (i assume as a tactical way to gain traction and build a community). But after the early traction phase or raise funding, the incentives seem to change.
Being open source by itself is not a product differentiator in this market. The features required for string positioning (orchestration, cloud, custom agents, enterprise features, hosted infrastructure, etc.) often end up either closed source or available only through the hosted product.
That makes me wonder how much developers actually value OSS for this category. How much does it matter to you whether your IDE or coding environment is open source?
Is OSS important because you want to inspect the code, fork it, self-host it, avoid vendor lock-in, or simply because you trust open-source developer tools more? Or, for desktop software like IDEs is open source mostly a nice-to-have rather than a requirement? So I’m curious where HN lands on this
It's super important to me. I use Herdr every day and I maintain a whole stack of changes. From minor comfort tweaks that are just preference, to several larger changes like add jj workspace support and a WIP web based view (powered by xterm.js).
This is not the only project like this too. Many of my devtools are piling up changes. I try to upstream changes where it makes sense, but many times they are either very bespoke, or I can't be bothered to do them "right" (for example for the jj workspace change, I just ripped out git support, so I didn't have to futz with syncing the symantics up between the two and config and whatnot).
LLMs have made making personal changes to devtools so effortless that I am now extremely hesitant to use any non source available software at all.
I have been thinking about a possibly expanded market for source available software. I don't really care what the license of the software is, I'm not sharing it at all or using it commercially, so it's kinda a moot point. If someone made some amazing software and sold the source I'd definitely consider it. I know there are all sorts of practical business problems with that, but that aside I'm curious if others feel the same?
I also don't think closed source is going to work for any software where you can't aggressively prevent the user from introspecting a large chunk of the software, because it's so easy to point an agent at the tool and tell it to copy the functionality you actually care about and/or wrap it.
It's not anywhere near making PR ready (and never will be) but here is the branch [1]. I make no promises on it's functionality, and I only periodically rebase Herdr's latest over it. I have been using the jj change for awhile though with no issues. So YMMV.
You can also see the combined output of all my changes at [2], which Jujutsu makes so damn easy via megamerges.
i see your point, in that light what herdr is doing here make sense. keep some part open (e.g. runtime or whatever that means, or the front-end, or the user-facing logic, etc) and move the business-logic/etc to proprietary. So you get to customize the software to meet your needs, and at the same time to create some revenue incentive to grow the company.
alternative is to collect/sell usage data, which is icky, or provide something as a service (token usage, infra, plugins, etc)
Ya, I'm not sure even that would be enough though to be honest.
I am kinda imagining a structure for a theoretical dev tooling business that might be OSS Core, and Source Available additional features. I'm not sure if there is a generally accepted definition of Source Available, but I don't necessarily mean that the source is just out in public on the web. It could be sent to you when you purchase the product, and could maybe even be sold on an upgrade sort of model, where you pay again for the next "big version" of the software, like the good old days of desktop software.
> Is OSS important because you want to inspect the code, fork it, self-host it, avoid vendor lock-in, or simply because you trust open-source developer tools more? Or, for desktop software like IDEs is open source mostly a nice-to-have rather than a requirement? So I’m curious where HN lands on this
I frankly do not understand the question, and it reads like one you'd find in a survey written by somebody who does not understand the question themselves.
I do not need to preach to the choir, so I will use an awkward analogy for the people treating this like a survey:
OSS is like cash, and closed source is investing in PE (and in this case historically very underwhelming returns).
Cash gives opportunity in every dimension you mention, including the option to jump into a PE. There is no need to worry or monitor its value beyond depreciation.
OSS provides me every opportunity I want, at no recurring overhead costs, and only drawing on my attention when I want it.
Beyond that: buying into an ecosystem has a network-effect value, and the ability for any 1 person to add value to the ecosystem is dependent by how easy it is to add value to it - and here OSS has some natural pros.
But i do not think these things matter. These are considerations for people looking to build near the edge of whats possible, and those are a niche. If you're looking for what you can sell, for any problem there are several orders of magnitude more people that dont know whats already possible and just want things made 'easy'.
For me, Open Source is extremely important because the tools are rapidly changing, and for reasons unrelated to my productivity. I use Copilot CLI at work, but now have a daemon that monitors it for updates and monkeypatches in my own custom hook framework.
This came about after 3 separate incidents where I went to use the harness and found it now provided a degraded experience because Microsoft unanimously decided to change some part of it without my consent.
I am a staunch believer that the most important thing a tool can do, other than its job, is provide a static experience until the user opts to change it. I use AI like a tool, because it is. I need it to behave the way I expect, or it's not actually useful to me.
> Is OSS important because you want to inspect the code, fork it, self-host it, avoid vendor lock-in, or simply because you trust open-source developer tools more? Or, for desktop software like IDEs is open source mostly a nice-to-have rather than a requirement? So I’m curious where HN lands on this
Are you doing a survey for customer discovery purposes? This sure sounds like it… but if you are why not just disclose that and be open about it? I don’t like the ethical leap that you made to do this. Why should I trust your product if you don’t care enough to tell the truth about your questions?
There exist also competitors not funded by YC, like me. I won't be on any of the lists because I'm not courting agents, I'm courting humans.
For me OSS is a weapon to be wielded. By making perfect software that cannot be improved upon, and making known my ownership of it, I'm am defending "embrace extend extinguish" attacks that would otherwise be damaging to me. Those attacks rely on being able to undercut a product's position in the market with a similarly positioned product that can be just slightly better and/or cheaper.
Indeed and once the funding comes in with more chefs in the kitchen the startups start losing touch and focus on funneling users to a platform instead of just improving the core product.
I’m the founder of scape.work - and it’s precisely why we’re not free, not open source. I want to build something with a mission of helping people own their infrastructure around AI tooling locally. If I raise money I am legally bound to my shareholders to create value, as opposed to my customers and my mission. Bootstrapping has never made more sense, when code is so cheap.
In practice, I suspect the entire category will be folded into Claude Code and Codex (Anthropic is already trying with Claude Agents), and that will do 80% of the job at 0% of the cost and configuration effort.
External programs will still be useful for the tiny minority who wants different harnesses for different projects, but yeah, tiny minority.
in my experience, tools usually have a longer shelf-life than models/labs.
e.g. terminals and IDEs have been around for much longer, and people tend to stick around with their preferred IDEs for much longer (years/decades).
One bad cycle and the next Opus 6 or GPT 7 might flop (think what happend to LLama4 or Gemini), and the user quickly switch to the next best thing. So it make sense to build your tooling to be model-agnostic.
frankly with the level of complexity of IDEs, I just need a working product. In my mind it is closer to "photoshop" now than vim. I would probably pay for VSCode. I can't believe its free.
> Why is every company seemingly trying to re-implement agents themselves rather than making their product work with the existing ones?
Well, i'm trying to do the later, and it is very hard to position the product and differentiate without vertical integration. When Warp owns both agent and the terminal, they can a) give terminal for free and charge on the agent, and b) lock the user in, so it is a good business but poor user experience.
on the other hand, i have to make sure every agent is working which more surface area to maintain, and i'm also limited to the common subset of features. Also it is much harder to convince folks to switch.
Lets try: I support Wezterm (and ghostty, and others) with 40+ different agents (Claude, Codex, etc) in agentastic.dev, would you give it a try?
OpenAI did not launch any hardware (yet), and I don't think their IPO pricing hinges on them launching an iPhone competitor. To me, it looks like Apple wants to launch a similar AI hardware and is slowing-down the competition to be the first-to-market.
Funny thing: they are barking at the wrong tree here.
The risk is not hardware launch per se. It's the unresolved lawsuit from a powerful company that's hanging over OpenAI and what may be revealed if the case goes to trial and discovery. All that will get priced in by institutional investors. If OpenAI is shopping the IPO, it's likely among the first questions large investors performing due diligence will ask.
The worst scenario is OpenAI tells investors that the risks are low, there's nothing damaging, the costs are immaterial, and tries to push forward. Then the case goes to trial and emails, Slack messages, documents are revealed in discovery that run counter to everything OpenAI told investors. Court issues an injunction, awards damages, OpenAI has to dismiss execs, secondary lawsuits are filed, existing investors release letters they had no idea, underwriter backs out, etc. That outcome could crush an IPO.
We used to call b the Disney/LEGO clause. Disney was famous for litigating any GenAI product for copyright infringement if it was able to recognize or god-forbid generate any of their IPs.
So the lawyer cats would slip that clause into all licenses.
Personally i think it's fair. You get to use this model as long as you don't sue Meta because of the model's weights or outputs.
Nicely done Geoffrey, I think we are coming full circle, instead of porting projects to different languages (for whatever) like going from zig -> rust -> zig, now we can also add additional hops like zig -> rust -> curse -> ts -> ocaml -> english -> zig.
git worktrees are managed by git, not the IDEs.
e.g. at agentastic.dev, we use git's worktree command to create them, and they should be portable to any other IDE or app.
Also Unreal Engine is not free, it cost 5% of revenue, or $3 per game sold (assume $59.99 msrp). for small studio, ok, but for Microsoft's Scale? i don't know.
IIRC Doom Dark Age sold 3m? copies, so it would cost $10m in Unreal Engine fees. Doom Engine team likely cost more.
Microsoft problem is it is giving away games for free on gamepass, so it sees its engineers as cost center.
The likelihood that MSFT wouldn't have a specific deal for UE is super low. But even in that case, I would imagine that costs for hiring a team to maintain an engine for the minimal games using IDTech's engine (Wolfenstein & Doom), in which they probably plan to reduce development of those games with recent news, makes this a 'not unreasonable' decision.
Framework, weirdly, overcharges considerably for their SSDs. You can currently get a Samsung 990 Pro 2TB on Amazon for $390; Framework charges $625 for the Sandisk 850x 2TB, which has similar performance (and is being sold on Amazon for $530).
If you DIY your own SSD, you can spec a Framework Desktop for below $4k; but not much below. Roughly the same price.
You're the one making things up. An M3 Ultra with 128GB RAM doesn't exist, the M3 Max has 410GB/s bandwidth [0]. I was of course talking about the M4 Max with 546GB/s, which was closer to twice the price of a Strix Halo mini PC in a typical configuration when it was still available. And memory bandwidth isn't everything, NVidia's lead in software is substantial, look up any tests comparing them side-by-side.
reply