I have been using Linux for over 8 months now, and my primary distribution of choice was Debian.
Debian recently conducted a community vote on allowing AI contributions, and it ended up allowing responsible AI contributions.
What is this responsible? How can AI commits be responsible? There are thousands of reasons to not use AI, and the primary reason is AI is a thief.
How did you react to Debian’s decision? Did you switch distros? Which one was your option, and why?
Also, when the Linux kernel itself allows AI commits, is there any practicality in a Linux distribution strictly limiting or restricting AI commits?
I have no serious usability issue with Debian now but am concerned about the use of AI even in my Linux distribution. Should I keep going with Debian or consider any other distribution, as I only have 8+ months of experience as a daily Linux user? I tried almost all Linux distros and am comfortable with everything except Void Linux and highly complex ones like Gentoo.
I’ve always said this, don’t switch to a different flavor of Linux because the developers are starting to use LLMs to code it. I would also say don’t jump into a distro that is completely vibe codes.
Quality Information, contrary to popular belief, is becoming more and more scarce; what you could search early 2000s - 2010s you can’t really do now, there’s advertisements now, there’s LLM prompts at the top result, and you have to dig through pages of search results before finding a golden website. Information is being controlled and funneled by google and there is a price associated with that (your data).
I think if a linux distro regulates its AI usage (IE not entirely vibecoded and pushed to the repository ) I don’t see a reason to be switching distros. Again the primary reason why developers are using LLMs to code has to do with the clusterfuck that is of attaining information.
Are Anti-AI Linux distributions practical?
No, because there’s no such thing as “AI”. It’s irrational to try to remove something that doesn’t exist. People will continue using computers to compute regardless.
On the other hand I don’t think developers should accept generated slop. I guess that’s what “responsible” means.
There will never be an AI free Linux distro again since it’s allowed in the kernel. I would certainly prefer to use a distro that doesn’t allow vibe coded programs though. That junk is unmaintainable and will be abandoned when the creator can no longer afford the tokens.
Most slopcode projects are abandoned and deleted within months of release – “Of the 120 unique repos, 32 were maintained and 88 were abandoned.”
maybe that could be because people do a small project then get bored and doesn’t apply to something like kernels?
Let’s see if the Kernel is abandoned in a few months, seems likely
thief
If you advocate for further expansion of “copyright” oppression, you deserve microsoft windows.
This. So much.
I am old enough to remember many people on the Internet questioning the entire concept of copyright and reacting to it with free licensing, defense of torrent sites, founding Pirate Parties.
Now I read that the primary reason to reject AI is that it is a “thief”??? In the era I described above, someone wrote a song with the lyrics: copying is not theft, stealing a thing leaves one less left, copying it makes one thing more, that’s what copying’s for…
Copying… is fuuuuuuuuun 🎶🎵
Copyleft is a hack of copyright that ensures rights to users of software that you wouldn’t have if there was no copyright. Software is different from other creative works like music and books in that it does computing. Sharing a binary file freely isn’t enough - you need the source code to keep it maintained or change it to your will (through collaborative efforts). You prevent others withholding the source code via that copyrighted license.
You can reject the unreasonable sentences of copyright infringement, the illegality of breaking locks on your own hardware, or the long copyright terms while still promoting copyright for copyleft’s sake. Companies lobbies for those laws to prevent "stealing’. throwing people in jail or fining them into oblivion - are they going to undo all that? Can I share Disney films without going to jail now?
while still promoting copyright for copyleft’s sake.
What the hell.
Copyleft means “the absence of copyright”, not “copyright wielded by radlibs”.
I don’t think “the absence of copyright” is the best description of copyleft. I believe “the right to copy is left to the end user” better encapsulates the spirit.
Words have different usages among different groups of people. Wikipedia seems to support my use: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyleft
TIL radlibs’ holy scripture smears copyleft. The page reads like it was written by a bourgie copyright advocate.
I should have known, radlibs’ holy scripture was founded by ancaps after all.
That’s many new words for me, seems some groups of people also have no usage of words that others use!
I value software freedom; basically being in control of your own computing. I dislike others taking my code and then denying their users the same freedoms they enjoyed. If not for that I could do without most of Copyright as it is today.
You don’t get what copyright is at all. The bourgie propaganda seems to have convinced you that “copyright protects you from copyright and if it weren’t there nothing would protect you from copyright”
For some people, it’s easier to imagine the end of the world, than to imagine the end of
capitalismthe copyright system.
GPL may call itself “copyleft”, but legally it is dependent on copyright to be enforceable. In the first place, the whole point of licenses like GPL is to ensure that when people take from the commons, they also give back to the commons. The way AI gains its ability to generate shitty code undermines this, and so is ideologically very much at odds with Linux and the wider FOSS world.
Copyright is a deprivation of freedom, and the GPL comes using this rules to turn around them. I won’t defend copyright. AI comes with more important problems, such as ecology, and creating monster private companies that have far too much power.
The tool in itself can really be usefull when well used. Many people use it and get nice results. Many people abuse it, and many people abuse themselves with it. It is true with a hammer too. I don’t think “hammer-free” is a feature, even if their are many domain in which I don’t see the point of using a hammer (and so “made with a hammer” isn’t a feature either).
Also, I can’t find any example in history of a technology that was successfully banned despite being usefull. Some have been regulated, such as nuclear industries, but that was not perfect and needed a continuous and hard strugle. The strict “no-AI” movement has already lost its battle, at most we could get regulations, maybe…
The thing is, if all other things remain the same, an absence of copyright will also be used by the wealthy and powerful to further enrich and empower themselves and as a tool of oppression.
From the Ferengi Rules of Acquisition:
#34 War is good for business.
#35 Peace is good for business.
You cannot have internally consistent, principled view on copyright without also having a compatible view on the economy. And even then, the economy needs to come first; you cannot start destroying load-bearing pillars, no matter how ugly, without first getting everyone out of the house.
The tool in itself can really be usefull when well used. Many people use it and get nice results.
The way I see it, there are two kinds of people: those to whom AI is utterly useless because it just ends up taking more time and have them burn through their cognitive endurance faster, and those to whom it would be irresponsible to let them use it, because it would prevent them from finding better solutions for the busywork they’re letting the AI do, and they just end up creating a lot of needless maintenance overhead.
But more importantly, being “useful” to certain individuals is not the same as being good for society. Which brings us back to it undermining licenses like the GPL, which would further enrich and empower the already advantaged.
Also, I can’t find any example in history of a technology that was successfully banned despite being usefull.
CFCs? Asbestos? The bans on them aren’t perfectly enforced, but nevertheless, the hole in the ozone layer is shrinking and the number of people dying of asbestos-related lung cancer is reducing, so they do have value.
The strict “no-AI” movement has already lost its battle
Even if it were true, that would be no reason to stop trying or to stop saying the truth: No matter useful you experience it as being, you are causing harm. To yourself, to the field, to society.
You can call it “the truth”, but I will call it “the dogma”.
It only appears dogmatic to someone under the mistaken impression that technologies are value-neutral. Make no mistake: even if every generative AI model were open-source and you could run on your own hardware, it would still be a technology that empowers the already advantaged far more than anyone else.
How? If every model was open source and you could run on your own hardware?
GPL wields the copyright system against itself, like a virus. The goal is the complete destruction of the copyright system and the liberation of all software.
It won’t exactly be able to accomplish anything like that if it’s been undermined no matter what the mechanism of its enforcement is.
This is the GPL’s trap card. When it gets undermined, the “copyright” system loses its credibility.
That was the idea, at least. Seems like there’s people who double down on their belief in copyright in response. But that’s their own fault.
The usual saying applies: “It’s easier for them to imagine the end of the world, than the end of
capitalismthe copyright system.”
GPL (and copyleft generally) gets way more attention than it should. In the wild, MIT and similar permissive licenses are by far the most common. Linux is on GPL, but that may be a historical artifact as much as anything. I don’t know if Linus himself would choose it if he were making the choice today.
The wider FOSS community, in my experience, leans permissive rather than copyleft. The copyleft people are just loud.
EDIT: To be clear, when I say I don’t know what choice Linus would make today, I don’t mean that I’m skeptical he’d choose GPL. I literally just mean that I don’t know. He’s been quite clear that he’s not a principled believer in copyleft, but it does have real advantages for a project like the Linux kernel.
100%.
Are Anti-AI Linux distributions practical?
It’s not possible to have a 100% no-LLM-coding-involved Linux distro anymore now that the kernel itself is welcoming LLM-assisted contributions, but it’s still possible to say that everything which the distro produces itself will not use AI.
How can AI commits be responsible?
What Debian means is: by reading what it produces and not just blindly accepting it but having humans review it carefully. The quality of LLM-assisted software is highly variable. Experienced people like Debian and Linux kernel developers are much less likely to publish very bad slop than inexperienced developers who are newly able to make a thing work well enough to ship it.
I am concerned about the extent of Debian’s embrace of LLMs but I still have a lot more confidence in them than most other distros (especially small hardcore-anti-AI distro projects lacking sufficient developer capacity to even keep up with security updates).
I expect we’ll be seeing lots more things like this non-upstreamable-because-AI hardware enablement and distros like Nura (formerly postmarketOS) will either either adopt more nuanced LLM policies or be forked.
I am doubtful about if there will be any serious distros with hard LLM bans in a few years from now. But also, perhaps the bubble will have burst by then, so hosted inference won’t be so cheap and the use of LLMs will probably be quite different.
the primary reason is AI is a thief
This is not the primary reason for most people, I don’t think. I think the fact that it increases complexity while reducing human understanding is the biggest problem; it’s possible (easy even) now to produce mountains of good-enough-by-many-metrics source code which the person doing the prompting has very little comprehension of. The fact that it is also a plagiarism machine is far less of a problem than this. (There are a litany of other problems too of course, several others of which I would also rate as worse than the plagiarism aspect.)
Yeah the Debian Project’s position makes a lot of sense to me. They’re basically saying that they won’t be wasting a bunch of resources trying to seek out LLM generated code and purge it and will instead just focus on making sure ALL the code is up to their quality standards. This will likely mean they spend a lot of time sifting out slop anyway, and will allow them to keep just focusing on making the project do what it’s always done. Ship a stable, usable, and free distro.
Unless you literally programmed every component yourself, you can’t get away from some level of LLM involvement, even if the distro itself bans it. There is no 100% certain way to check code for LLM use. So if a developer doesn’t disclose it, and the maintainers accept the code, it’s in the official codebase now.
There’s a deeper problem though, which is a problem of demarcation. What counts as an “AI contribution” to you? Obviously vibe-coding is. But what about more subtle uses?
What if a developer uses an LLM to read the code and suggest a way to make a certain contribution, but it never actually generates any code, the developer implements the LLM’s suggestion completely by hand. Does that count?
What about if a developer hand writes 95% of the code themselves, but that last 5% they aren’t as confident in, so they have the LLM generate it. Does that count?
What if an extremely experienced developer uses an LLM to generate 100% of the code, but spends hours going over every single line making sure it is correct and making little tweaks before submitting the code?
What if a developer writes the initial code 100% by hand, and only uses an LLM to go through and optimize the formatting and performance before submitting it?
What if a developer writes 100% of the code by hand, but uses an LLM to generate a bunch of unit tests and documentation?
These are just some of the ways that LLMs can be involved in the process of software development, and most of these wouldn’t have any real chance of being caught by a maintainer doing some sort of scan to detect LLM usage.
I’m not saying these uses are or aren’t justifiable/acceptable, but my point is it’s often not clear what people consider to be “over the line”. Almost no experienced devs in the FOSS world are advocating for the 100% vibe-code/token-maxing approach. But lots of them are comfortable with using LLMs in similar ways to what I listed earlier.
The tough truth is that you’re almost certainly already using software that has LLM involvement at some level. Short of going full Amish mode, or using completely pre-LLM software in some kind of air gapped setup, you’re not going to be able to avoid it.
Man, my friend said he made a web app. He asked me if it would be secure to deploy. I check the front end and immediately check if his formatting was readable.
Two javascript blocks embedded: one was beautified, normal, tabbed out.
The other block was debeautified, which JS developers do so people can’t steal their code (as if that works these days).
I said, “You didn’t make this.”
“Yeah I did!”
“You used AI.”
“But I wrote the prompts!”
"To prompt a computer to steal two separate snippets of javascript from actual developers to achieve the goal.
"Man, this is fine for prototyping, just to demo an idea. But I wouldn’t release this to the public, because if I saw that, I am going to use the tools I already have, and my LLM to speed up the actions, and I will show you how hackable the app actually is.
“You didn’t make a steak. You ordered a steak and got a McRib with carrots.”
He responds, “Does it look ok?”
“Yeah, we can use the css, and we can adjust that as needed, but if your frontend is this sloppy, I wouldn’t release the backend and take customer data. Hell no.”
What if someone does a copy/paste of a code snippet from a google search and then modified it for their own purposes?
According to the grifters, this is “AI” but it’s not and nobody cares. There is no boundary for something that doesn’t exist (“AI”). That’s fundamental to the grift.
Some links to anti-ai digital things:
https://noai.starlightnet.work/list.html
https://codeberg.org/brib/slopfree-software-index
https://www.newinlinux.com/ai-free-linux-distros-open-source-operating-systems/
f-droid repository: https://izzyondroid.org/docs/general/AppInclusionPolicy/#ai-policy
Also fuck_ai@lemmy.world
and antiaialliance@lemmy.blahaj.zone (maybe ignore this one though)
You have to format communities like this to get a link that gets you there on your local instance:
Handy tip, hopefully I remember that one
No. It’s not practical.
No matter how you feel about ai or how you think it is wrong, the increased tempo of bug fixes and security patches necessitates either manpower beyond what is feasible for volunteer projects or the use of ai tools.
It’s an arms race and you can’t opt out without just missing the patch schedule.
thanks, TrollAccount69, that’s genuinely what I thought too!
How about posting alongside a… friend?
Aye, I could do that
Yeah, all the FOSS communities have been starving for labor since they started. Likely the best we could hope for is that the true experts at the top are maintaining a critical eye on what makes it in.
Even in that case we need to hope they’re using ai tools because they’ll be seeing a volume of cases too high for their previous workflow.
It’s a mix right?
In some cases, you have absolute neophyte coders trying to shove unvetted vibe code in. There needs to be some bars on entry for what is submitted. I’d like to see at least mid level code in the same style and verbosity and not something that’s on the fringe of the vibe where it failed 15 times and ended up shoving some great atrocity in for a lack of context. As long as the person asking for a PR isn’t trying to insert horrors, inspecting the input using tools isn’t the worst thing either.
“How did you react to Debian’s decision?”
I deleted it, debian was thankfully not my main, just a backup/something of interest.
The ‘vote’ itself seemed dodgy, every option was going to ai in some form, or another.
I’ve been using Debian for a long time and honestly, I’m not going to worry about this too much as of today. We got that decision, yes. But I don’t think I’ve seen any consequences, yet. And I always try to judge people by what they actually do. Less so by what they say.
I say that the last word hasn’t been said yet. On this whole AI thing. We still got many Linux people who don’t really appreciate AI. The entire community isn’t really fond of it. We got people who say there isn’t a way to make use of it responsibly. I have a hunch there’s more to this story. But only time will tell. Until then I’m going to continue using Debian, just like I have for the past 10-15 years. I trust the community distributions, they faced other challenges before. And usually they’re not half bad at facing challenges and ultimately doing the right thing.
Doesn’t have to be easy. Sometimes we’re headed the wrong direction for a while. But what matters IMO is the result. And I’m positive they’ll find some way to deal with this. I don’t think AI fits Debian’s identity at all. Would be a big surprise to me if they don’t realize it as well.
What is this responsible? How can AI commits be responsible? There are thousands of reasons to not use AI, and the primary reason is AI is a thief.
I feel like you aren’t actually asking a legitimate question and are just trying to soapbox, but this is covered by Debian here: https://lists.debian.org/debian-devel-announce/2026/08/msg00005.html
As far as what the consequences of failing to follow that policy is, it would be covered under the Debian code of conduct: https://www.debian.org/code_of_conduct_interpretation.html
NOTE: I am not a Debian user. I just performed a basic search to find the answer to that question.
https://www.debian.org/vote/2026/vote_002#texte
The Debian Project nevertheless expects that all contributions submitted to Debian, regardless of how and with which tools they were produced, satisfy the same standards of quality, correctness, maintainability, and legal compliance. The use of a generative AI tool does not diminish the contributor’s responsibility for the work they submit. Contributors are expected to understand, review, test, and, where appropriate, modify AI-assisted output before incorporating it into Debian. Blindly accepting or uploading AI-generated material without appropriate human review is inconsistent with Debian’s established development practices. We enourage [sic] our contributors to disclose whether a contribution was made with AI assitance[sic], but do not require them to do so.
Most of it comes down to personally mitigating the damages:
- start with ElementaryOS and Pantheon/Gnome, then decide which path you want to follow
- if you’re hardcore, go for NetBSD or MirBSD or 9front/Plan9 instead of Linux
- on the Linux side: ElementaryOS, Gentoo, Chimera Linux, AerynOS, and Nura/PostmarketOS all have strong LLM policies
- along those lines: Gnome and Cosmic haven’t gone soft on AI the way KDE has
- Starlight Network No-AI List is one jumping off point, but there are several other lists including repo-slopscore and Weird Little Guys
Weird little guys is an interesting read, I was surprised to find Jeff Geerling there, I always thought he was just a really crappy youtuber, with really stupid fans. I was half expecting to find Linus SebastiDouche on the list afterwards.
I liked him a lot. I first learned about Jellyfin from his video just a few years ago. I would’ve bet money that Linus TT would be on such a list before Jeff Geerling. I don’t have a parasocial relationship or idolize YouTubers, but I’m definitely still disappointed. (Maybe I was a stupid fan, but now I’m just stupid 💀)
I do like Jeff’s videos, he comes across as a true engineering nerd. I find his SBC reviews to be pretty thorough and some of his other videos make for an interesting side quest on stuff he’s interested in.
I certainly don’t view DeVaults purity list as the authority on if I should watch someone’s videos or not.
Jeff never made sense to me, his videos seemed dodgy, the first one I saw he was jumping on the linus screwdriver silly hype train, but his fans just adored him, to the point I assumed some of them were drooling. I didn’t see much more of him over the years, so my view is definitely limited.
His video on the screwdriver was like the only one of it that (at least at the time) tried to actually compare it with others and not just say it’s amazing like all of the other YouTubers were doing at that time, but obviously, those ones were sponsored, jeffs wasn’t (iirc)
It was a successful/cheap way of attracting views/likes, that also increased ltt’s screwdriver sales. It was transparent, and lacked integrity. The screwdriver itself was just a lightly reworked screwdriver form a different brand, with ltt branding, and a $69 price tag. Tools for fools.
Project Farm did it worse (and more successfully), he reached a result that didn’t place the ltt screwdriver in 1st place, so he removed one of his own criteria to change the final ranking… and was applauded for doing so.
It’s been ages since i saw the video but didn’t Jeff bring that up? He said shivering along the lines of that the ltt screwdriver was good but it might not be that good given it’s price and the one it borrowed it’s design from being cheaper and probably more bang for your buck.
I might be misremembering though, it wouldn’t be the first time.
It’s a long time ago, I don’t remember the specifics of the video, and probably didn’t like his video (partially) due to it being just another one jumping on the ltt screwdriver bandwagon, that sh*t was everywhere, I tend to block channels that have linus’s munted head in their thumbnails these days.
I do remember jeff having a weird bunch of fans hanging off of his every word, I wondered who this guy was, and why he seemed so famous, but I had never heard of him. I have seen some of his videos since, he seems like a twat, unfortunately common in the pc tech space.
I recommend everybody read the 9front manual.
I haven’t managed to get past their home page yet, it just looks like an inside joke.
After glancing at the manual, I now know I was previously correct stopping at the home page
It’s OK, 9 front isn’t right for everybody.
For instance, it is not for me.
I enjoyed the manual though.
8 butt is probably more my style
The manual, section 1:
Why don’t kde? Are they also into AI slop? I didn’t used elementaryOS yet. Is elementaryOS a good daily driver? Also what about Arch?
Sure but why?
the primary reason is AI is a thief.
That’s the least important reason to not use AI. All property is theft, especially copyright!
There is a difference between people using AI to help write/maintain code that they understand, and slopcoding unmaintainable vibe projects.
I think it’s a bit the other way around. GNU, Linux and the Free Software community are very much about this copyright thing. We know it’s not right to do it like the other big companies so we try to make an effort here to make it not weigh down on the users or have the people steal, or abuse their power?!
Citations needed! The Free Software movement grew out of opposition to proprietary software, in a world where there was no copyright all software would be Free Software.
No, you miss the point. GPL is not a feelgood license. It is a license that tries to make the licensed piece of work better by exploiting the fact that the more it is used, the more it is likely that someone can improve it for everybody. So large corporations will contribute back their tweaks and everyone profits.
It is not some kind of utopic hack
I can’t tell whether that’s supposed to be opinion or a factual matter.
What I can say, though, is: it is some sort of utopia for me. It enables me as a user to run my own independant “cloud” services, my own social media. I get to use CAD software for free which my university used to pay some 5-digit sum for, I can have a random light show in my living room, “hack” all sorts of devices and command them to do whatever I like them to do. And a bunch of really useful stuff.
And then it also made me understand computers, learn programming… It’s transparent and I can look inside. And I’m fairly sure it’s part of who I am today, I probably wouldn’t have studied CS if it weren’t for Free Software and all the stuff it enabled me to do as a teenager.
And that wasn’t just to force big companies to do something… The community made a big effort to welcome me, gift me stuff, teach me stuff and we even had quite some parties and user meetings and those morals and the motivation to change the world really stuck with me.
So I got hacked and I believe in some utopia. I’m currently living it, at least for personal stuff, and to the extent we get to be free in the modern world with all its apps, spying, and tightening down things. And I’m probably not the only one.
That all is good and lovely. My point is that this is a side benefit of having an awesome community and most people when given the choice will help someone rather than gatekeep.
The main purpose of the license is exactly the one that is forcing facebook to contribute back to the kernel, because they want the enourmous firepower of all other competitors work, and would like that their own is easy to keep with future upgrades, so they contribute not only because they are forced, but because tit is the most efficient way for them to get what modifications they need integrated properly. 40 years of this gave us the current kernel.
So if ai tools help this process they will be used, regardless of how they work morally. Because most contributors to the code are developers payed by corporations.
I think I get what you’re saying. That is the purpose of the license text. I mean not just companies, everyone needs to abide by the rules. But yeah, that’s basically what that text does.
What I’m trying to say is: In my experience that’s not all there is to Free Software. I mean Linux famously started out “Just for Fun” and under a different (more restrictive) license. And it took a while before it got corporate attention. Before that it was used by individuals for their own individual benefit. And it still does both as of today.
And I tend to see that a lot. Software like the software I was talking about and a lot of stuff on my computer was started by individuals. They had an itch to scratch or whatever and just put it out there. Lots of projects I use don’t see any contributions by (other) companies and they don’t seem to care. They’re fine. There’s quite some nice large/high-profile projects out there which work the way you said. And that’s exactly how it should be like.
Guess there’s just a lot of reasons to publish Free Software. Some do it for profit. Some do it by themselves or in a small team. Some gets used by companies and companies contribute back. Some is done by students to learn, some because someone needed something to get a job done in their life and they’re a nice person… I also like the (A)GPL. I don’t expect my stuff to be picked up by anyone and that’s not why I write software as a hobby. But uploading it is mainly a gift to the world. Not for for-profit companies to capitalize on my work. That’s why I do copyleft.
So I think when I look at software like the one I mentioned, or the platform we’re currently using: Getting contributions back (by large corporations) might not be what the developers had in mind at all. It is however the purpose of the license text in the repository. That’s correct.
And regarding the AI tools: Yeah, I don’t think that’s noteworthy. AI is here to stay. It’s being used as of today and will be used in the future, the world doesn’t stop or turn back.
The linux kernel is compromised. Lets use NetBSD!
I hope this whole thing makes hurd grow.
Hurd’s tAInted too :/
Wait… WHAT!?
Yea, apparently AS is now being heavily used in its development. I need to look up the reference, but I read a while ago that AS-assisted ‘coding’ was used for making SMP work in Hurd.
I’ve spent quite some time pondering my options now that OpenBSD, my former OS of choice, has been slowly but surely giving in to the hype, and I can tell you that currently the most sensible option seems to be (I’m not joking) 9Front.
tf is “AS”?
also, how does 9Front compare to NetBSD?
Artificial Stupidity.
9front is not UNIX (but its predecessor was also created at Bell Labs). It is ‘many of the ideas surrounding UNIX, on steroids’. The user experience is waaaaaay more integrated because the whole system is developed by the same small team.
On the flip side: forget about browsers and many ‘modern’ programming languages.
Omg artifical stupidity is so fire!
Interesting… I’m tempted to try it out.
Are the BSDs any better in regard to browsers and stuff?
