Comment by KronisLV
3 days ago
What the person above is suggesting:
(no personal opinions of either, links might be useful)
I think that OpenCode is nice, their CLI version is enjoyable and their desktop/web version is okay:
I also quite like driving OpenCode through something like Kepler / Paseo and tools like that (with those I can still use my Anthropic Condition by Claude Code being treated similarly - as something that gets tasks dispatched to it, while the GUI I see is Kepler / Paseo).
On the desktop side, ZCode was surprisingly usable for something that came out of nowhere (I wasn't aware of it at all before trying out the GLM Coding Plan): https://zcode.z.ai/en
Last time I tried some of these, none of them had the "manual mode" that CC has, where it shows you change by change as diffs and you can edit them before accepting and moving on to the next change. I like that because if it's going off pattern I can spot it early on and guide it correctly, instead of having to review the whole completed diff at the end when it's too late. I should spend the weekend checking them out again to see if they added that but I assume with everyone going full agent mode they probably didn't.
Both Pi and OpenCode let you customize them. You tell the AI you want "something like claude code manual mode", and they'll modify your configs to do the same thing, or build an extension for you
(however, it's much faster to use Plan Mode to build a plan of what it will do, and then execute the plan in Build Mode. you can also have the AI make a script that will be executed deterministically)
The philosophy with Pi is it is minimal (but functional) out of the box and easily extensible. I'm not familiar with that feature but I would not at all be surprised if someone already coded a Pi extension that does it.
The out of box experience of omp.sh is wow imo so much nicer than Claude. Claude spends too much time being nice and gassing me Up and omp just gets to work. It’s idk smarter like a far better system prompt and all around loop.
Gonna try to find a way to use this at work.
No one in their right mind would install software using `curl | bash`
Why not? The web uses TLS, how's it different security-wise compared to a package download?
It's less about malicious intent and more about predictability.
When I install software on my computer with apt, I trust that all the files will go to the right place and install scripts are going to do sane things relative to the rest of the system. And I can just uninstall the whole thing with one command later if I so choose.
If I curlpipe a script, I get none of those guarantees. I have seen curlpipes that put files in weird places, guess the wrong OS, and mess with config files that I didn't want them to touch. When they break or I want to uninstall, I have to sit down and understand a (possibly minified) script to clean things up manually.
Yes containers are a half solution to this, no I don't want to use containers 100% of the time.
I feel the same, which is why I only use these tools in a docker container. Because life is compromise.
its a good way to check if people are insane though. would be a cool tactic for new hire evaluation, monitor them setting up dev environment. do the curl | bash, and its instafail
In countless corporate environments (including in highly regulated industries), far from being a firable offense, piping curl to bash is often a prescribed step in setting up the standard dev env. The cognitive dissonance is soul crushing. Maybe they're testing for one's ability to tolerate it.