SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Vibe Coding Is Killing Open Source Software, Researchers Argue:
According to a new study from a team of researchers in Europe, vibe coding is killing open-source software (OSS) and it's happening faster than anyone predicted.
Thanks to vibe coding, a colloquialism for the practice of quickly writing code with the assistance of an LLM, anyone with a small amount of technical knowledge can churn out computer code and deploy software, even if they don't fully review or understand all the code they churn out. But there's a hidden cost. Vibe coding relies on vast amounts of open-source software, a trove of libraries, databases, and user knowledge that's been built up over decades.
Open-source projects rely on community support to survive. They're collaborative projects where the people who use them give back, either in time, money, or knowledge, to help maintain the projects. Humans have to come in and fix bugs and maintain libraries.
Vibe coders, according to these researchers, don't give back.
The study Vibe Coding Kills Open Source, takes an economic view of the problem and asks the question: is vibe coding economically sustainable? Can OSS survive when so many of its users are takers and not givers? According to the study, no.
"Our main result is that under traditional OSS business models, where maintainers primarily monetize direct user engagement...higher adoption of vibe coding reduces OSS provision and lowers welfare," the study said. "In the long-run equilibrium, mediated usage erodes the revenue base that sustains OSS, raises the quality threshold for sharing, and reduces the mass of shared packages...the decline can be rapid because the same magnification mechanism that amplifies positive shocks to software demand also amplifies negative shocks to monetizable engagement. In other words, feedback loops that once accelerated growth now accelerate contraction."
[...] According to Koren, vibe-coders simply don't give back to the OSS communities they're taking from. "The convenience of delegating your work to the AI agent is too strong. There are some superstar projects like Openclaw that generate a lot of community interest but I suspect the majority of vibe coders do not keep OSS developers in their minds," he said. "I am guilty of this myself. Initially I limited my vibe coding to languages I can read if not write, like TypeScript. But for my personal projects I also vibe code in Go, and I don't even know what its package manager is called, let alone be familiar with its libraries."
The study said that vibe coding is reducing the cost of software development, but that there are other costs people aren't considering. "The interaction with human users is collapsing faster than development costs are falling," Koren told 404 Media. "The key insight is that vibe coding is very easy to adopt. Even for a small increase in capability, a lot of people would switch. And recent coding models are very capable. AI companies have also begun targeting business users and other knowledge workers, which further eats into the potential 'deep-pocket' user base of OSS."
This won't end well. "Vibe coding is not sustainable without open source," Koren said. "You cannot just freeze the current state of OSS and live off of that. Projects need to be maintained, bugs fixed, security vulnerabilities patched. If OSS collapses, vibe coding will go down with it. I think we have to speak up and act now to stop that from happening."
He said that major AI firms like Anthropic and OpenAI can't continue to free ride on OSS or the whole system will collapse. "We propose a revenue sharing model based on actual usage data," he said. "The details would have to be worked out, but the technology is there to make such a business model feasible for OSS."
[...] "Popular libraries will keep finding sponsors," Koren said. "Smaller, niche projects are more likely to suffer. But many currently successful projects, like Linux, git, TeX, or grep, started out with one person trying to scratch their own itch. If the maintainers of small projects give up, who will produce the next Linux?"
arXiv link: https://arxiv.org/abs/2601.15494
(Score: 5, Touché) by driverless on Monday February 09, @12:35PM (33 children)
How much value is an AI slopper really going to provide to an OSS project? Would anyone actually want them contributing?
(Score: 5, Touché) by turgid on Monday February 09, @12:42PM
The world is soon going to run out of popcorn.
I refuse to engage in a battle of wits with an unarmed opponent [wikipedia.org].
(Score: 1) by khallow on Monday February 09, @12:50PM (13 children)
Sounds to me a little like complaining that one isn't getting more money for this additional set of extremely low value customers. I feel it's a bit like someone invents a machine that does the work of 100 people. Ok. So I start a business where I have that one button masher doing the work of 100 people. Should I be paying the button masher 100 times as much? What if the work is worth only a little more than the button masher makes?
Or maybe it's like a car. I "take" the car for a spin (rather than "give" to the car) and put some wear on the tires and engine?
(Score: 3, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 09, @02:23PM
More car analogies, please.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by JoeMerchant on Monday February 09, @03:38PM (11 children)
> Should I be paying the button masher 100 times as much?
George Jetson had a 3 day work week, 2 hour workday, just mashing a button, and he could afford a flying car...
🌻🌻🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 3, Touché) by khallow on Monday February 09, @04:40PM (1 child)
(Score: 4, Touché) by JoeMerchant on Monday February 09, @05:08PM
Big Macs weren't a part of the Jetson universe, with Rosie the Robot to do the cooking...
🌻🌻🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 3, Insightful) by turgid on Monday February 09, @04:53PM (8 children)
There was obviously significant wealth redistribution in that society. Currently, we have huge inequality, because we try to force everyone to work as many hours as possible while letting a few hoard as much as possible. In fact, we try to make people who really shouldn't have to, work. We're going backwards.
I refuse to engage in a battle of wits with an unarmed opponent [wikipedia.org].
(Score: 5, Touché) by JoeMerchant on Monday February 09, @05:04PM (2 children)
Even the Flintstones were more communist than today - working man knocks off at the whistle, commutes home to a single-family dwelling with a nice yard, his wife, child and pets which he provides for doing rock-digging equipment operator work, plenty of leisure time... Both were written to be "relatable" to suburban Americans of the 1960s. These days we get Squid Game, and the Mad Max series...
🌻🌻🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 4, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 10, @01:17AM (1 child)
Whereas if the Chinese Government takes some of the wealth and gives it to the people, millions will praise it as Communism. 🤣
The US people don't even want to give free/subsidized healthcare to the poor (even though they already pay for it to be more inefficiently, more expensively and less effectively delivered via ERs 🤣)...
(Score: 5, Insightful) by JoeMerchant on Tuesday February 10, @01:44AM
>The US people don't even want to give free/subsidized healthcare to the poor (even though they already pay for it to be more inefficiently, more expensively and less effectively delivered via ERs 🤣)...
Yeah, there's another thread about the lead leaving the air (and people's hair) around the time it was banned in gasoline... If they nerf the EPA so thoroughly that they start putting lead back into the gasoline, it's time to leave the country.
🌻🌻🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 1) by khallow on Monday February 09, @07:00PM (4 children)
I can see how a total hive like Scotland would have huge inequality. /sarc
My view is that we should think about why labor protections backfire and why so many people have the mindset that "hoarding" - in other words, investment is something that only the "few" do. There's plenty of signs of broken labor and investment systems in the developed world if one chooses to pay attention.
My view is that work is how most people generate wealth in the world and it works really well. But huge parts of the world deliberately interfere with work in feeble attempts to make it better for the worker. What is missed is that this interference decreases the value of that labor to the employer. Employment is a two-way trade. And if you make the supply of labor more expensive then you get less demand.
Similarly, investment is a huge way to accumulate wealth without having to grind for it. When you only view it as a privilege of others, then you're short changing yourself.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by turgid on Monday February 09, @07:40PM (3 children)
What I'm trying to say is that in many of today's societies, including the UK, George Jetson would be working a busy 40-50 hour week for much less money, struggling to pay his mortgage, Mrs Jetson would be working too, similar hours meanwhile that society would be full of the sick, old, disabled and refugees being denied the pittance they need to get by all while being villified by the very wealthy who don't want to help and the not-quite-getting-by workers who are looking for scapegoats.
I refuse to engage in a battle of wits with an unarmed opponent [wikipedia.org].
(Score: 3, Touché) by khallow on Tuesday February 10, @12:59PM (2 children)
They aren't so denied, of course. And that "pittance" costs a lot of money. It's a luxury you can afford because your society is wealthy. My take: prioritize the economy that can generate those "pittances" or you won't be able to afford them in the long run.
(Score: 2) by turgid on Tuesday February 10, @06:37PM (1 child)
My take: prioritize the economy that can generate those "pittances" or you won't be able to afford them in the long run.
That's a no-brainer and has been the prevailing economic and political wisdom most places outside of the USSR since forever. The problem is that the next part gets forgotten, overlooked or simply ignored in an effort to ensure that more and more wealth keeps heading upward.
There's plenty of evidence which shows that more equal societies with good (but not total) wealth redistribution and fairer taxes [taxjustice.uk] work better overall.
The greedy like to ignore the fact that some social security is necessary, that society costs money. It means they don't get to hoard as much as they would otherwise. And they work tirelessly [reformparty.uk] to try to convince us that we should vote against our own interests.
I refuse to engage in a battle of wits with an unarmed opponent [wikipedia.org].
(Score: 1) by khallow on Friday February 13, @12:07AM
It's been outside of a lot more than just the USSR. Like outside of most human history.
As to the second paragraph, I already wrote my opinion on the "evidence" - "It's a luxury you can afford because your society is wealthy." This is like peacock feathers or rutting deer. The peacock with the more brilliant feathers or the buck with the best rack and jousting gets the girls. That's because they exhibit fitness. The same goes for societies. Welfare is something that strong, wealthy societies can do. And sure, I can see some value in that. But I also see a number of societies running up large debt bills because they can't really afford the virtue displays - including the UK and the US.
As to fairness? That's a well abused term like "free" or "love". When I see something like (in your link):
I interpret that "take" as "steal". And "super-rich" as "anyone and anything that isn't nailed down". Trickle down theory really works well to describe taxation. The super-rich didn't get that way by failing to avoid taxes. They're pretty mobile and they'll figure a way to escape the tax hammer. The UK is particularly notorious for its history of tax exiles. The lower and middle class doesn't have those advantages or expert help. They'll be the natural next step to cover spending that the "fair" taxes on the wealthy will fail to do.
And I long ago ceased to be impressed by taxes that are applied in themselves as a punitive or society-changing thing rather than as a means to pay for public goods and services that the society needs (welfare can be a need).
(Score: 3, Insightful) by looorg on Monday February 09, @07:31PM
Isn't it that which is the problem? You are creating less and less what we could call "real programmers" and more and more "AI sloppers". The "AI sloppers" won't contribute hardly anything of worth and value, after all they don't really know how the machines work or how to program. They just give instructions to the AI and it slops it together for them. That probably doesn't count as a contribution. If it did someone more competent would slop it together better. Just not enough "real programmers" to go around.
The amount of people that actually learns to code is staggeringly small, and probably shrinking. As the workforce is slowly being filled with more and more sloppers instead of actual coders. After all coding was hard cause we had so little information, now there is to much information which makes it overwhelming and hard plus people just got lazy and now the machines "code" for them.
Most universities or schools hardly teach or put much time into actual real programming anymore and it's probably going to be even less of it in the future. It will be the "it" language for the moment -- for a long time that have been some version of C (C, C++ or C#) and Java. But these days it seems to be more and more Python and such things. One can just watch the TIOBE index. It's all Python, now more then twice as popular and common as C. ASM? Nope. So you kind of get out of it what you put into it. Slop in, Slop out.
(Score: 4, Touché) by c0lo on Monday February 09, @09:31PM (13 children)
How much effort is required to reject AI slop from hitting the main branch of an OSS project?
(no, it's a serious consideration, don't reply with "just use vibe code reviews", it's wouldn't be even funny)
https://www.youtube.com/@ProfSteveKeen https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Bentonite on Tuesday February 10, @12:20AM (2 children)
It would take a lot of effort to reject copyright infringing slop from the master branch of a free software project, because at first glance the commit usually will look plausible - only on closer inspection will it be noticeable that it is random code, that looks right, but is wrong.
(Score: 4, Touché) by c0lo on Tuesday February 10, @12:52AM (1 child)
Oh, the irony for being sued for infringing the copyright of a bad code would be something special.
https://www.youtube.com/@ProfSteveKeen https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 2) by Bentonite on Tuesday February 10, @02:10AM
Even if code is terrible, you can still get sued if you infringe copyright by distributing it in a way that does not follow the license (for example, MIT expat requires including a copy of the license and retaining the copyright information of the copyright holders and copyright year(s)).
Sometimes the copyright holder does nothing, as saying that terrible code was from you would be an embarrassment - for example it is claimed that the developer of the Dirty Operating System copied from some other OS (which was later licensed to Microsoft, who renamed it to MS-DOS - provided the copying happened, the license document would have falsely stated that all copyright was in order).
What's most likely to happen is for a few LLM slop commits to slip through and proceed to cause bugs and only then will the main developers realize that such submitter is maliciously submitting proprietary software and they have to waste their time cleaning out the commits and barring the submitter (the only thing that you can get banned for in a real free software project is intentionally submitting proprietary software).
(Score: 4, Interesting) by JoeMerchant on Tuesday February 10, @02:04AM (9 children)
> "just use vibe code reviews", it's wouldn't be even funny)
It's not funny, but it's part of the answer.
In my recent experience, you can trust the content of a "vibe code review" even less than vibe code, but... it is a worthwhile exercise (I'm going to do one tomorrow morning on a colleague's PR) - the vibe code review says some outright stupid stuff, strike that and move on, then it says some things you actually want to know about - and if you look at what it's pointing at, those are usually correct. Would you have found all that on your own? In the 30 seconds it took to skim through the vibe code review output? That's useful. Do you rely on it 100%? Hell no, but it does produce helpful output that results in a higher quality end product, if you know how to use it.
On the vibe code end of things, how much testing, review, refinement, refactoring needs to be done before it's ready to show to another human? Usually a lot. Are we saving time overall? Depends. In my wheelhouse of the stuff I've done daily for the last 20 years, hell no - I can do that quicker myself, maybe calling on AI for the occasional API call structure I don't know off the top of my head (like reading a paper manual used to suffice for), but overall: when I'm in charge it goes faster. Something weird (to me) like having Rust generate an .svg based website with server sent evnets keeping the display updated in realtime? Uh, yeah, I _could_ do that by hand, but I can direct an AI agent to do (a simple one) about 10x faster than I can look up all that twisted syntax that I haven't spent any significant hands-on time with, ever.
I call AI agents: power tools. Like chain saws. With great power comes great responsibility - if you give the Phoenix AZ High School JV football squad each a chainsaw and tell them to clear 40 trees from around a cabin in Yosemite, without any instruction or oversight? You're going to have some problems with misuse of power tools. Give those same chainsaws to people who know what they're doing and the chainsaws will be very helpful.
AI everything is new, nobody is an expert (and these days I haven't seen any "Wanted: AI programmer with 15 years experience" ads like we used to get for the old new tech of the day). Our company is encouraging us to step up and "share our AI expertise" - I can't imagine that anyone has any. What I, and my colleagues, have are a few months of AI experience - and that's worth sharing, but what worked last November (when I was last doing daily AI programming work) and what works now (I just dove back in yesterday) are somewhat different things - to call it a rapidly evolving field is to underplay the speed with which it is changing, and the changes of the past 6 months applying LLMs to programming tasks have been consistently toward more power, fewer miscues. It's still far from perfect, but the progress is palpable.
🌻🌻🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 4, Insightful) by c0lo on Tuesday February 10, @02:56AM (8 children)
What is the rest?
There's a technique of ensuring a 1/10000 accuracy of a transcription by using transcribers with a 1% accuracy - just give the same task (w/ the same input) to two different/independent transcribers and reconcile the results (the chance of both making an transcription error in the same place is 1%*1%).
I can't quantify how worthwhile the exercise is for the "vibe code review" on a "vibe coded source", the two exercises are not independent.
I was saved by code-linting more times that I like to admit, but it was a deterministic linter (one of the most insidious case is "unused variable", when you want to use the unused object but end up using a different one). Are there cases in which an AI reviewer offers more than a deterministic linter?
While the wood they cut may not be, chain saws are deterministic. Cutting wood of variable quality with an nondeterministic chainsaw is not an an experience I'd dare to acquire, given the risk to life and limb.
"A computer lets you make more mistakes faster than any invention in human history - with the possible exceptions of handguns and tequila" (and chainsaws before the computers)
There have to be early adopters, but I grew old enough to no longer enjoy being among them.
One on top of the other, I'm not against AI in programming, I just don't have an incentive or motivation to try it, my plate is full with things where vibe coding can't help (architecture/integration)
https://www.youtube.com/@ProfSteveKeen https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday February 10, @01:03PM (3 children)
That approach relies on the transcription processes being independent. That's a poor assumption to make for AI. There will be a lot of overlap in algorithms and data sets. They might even be using each others' output as training material.
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Tuesday February 10, @01:58PM (2 children)
Only one para down from the quoted one reads
https://www.youtube.com/@ProfSteveKeen https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday February 10, @07:17PM (1 child)
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Tuesday February 10, @09:31PM
I'm not proposing anything, I set a context to contrast with the "vibe review a vibed code", to support why I can't trust the resulted code as being better.
https://www.youtube.com/@ProfSteveKeen https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 3, Interesting) by JoeMerchant on Tuesday February 10, @03:43PM (3 children)
>>It's not funny, but it's part of the answer.
>What is the rest?
Business as usual - but that's going to groan under the load of excessive detail that AI seems to put in everything it creates, at least by default. You can always ask it for a shorter summary, but at this stage I don't have confidence that it will not leave out important details while summarizing... Still, these aren't really new problems at all - people also give too much detail and leave important items out of summaries...
>I can't quantify how worthwhile the exercise is for the "vibe code review" on a "vibe coded source", the two exercises are not independent.
Neither can I. I can say that the exact same model will find faults when it reviews its own output, at least for the first several iterations. Eventually it settles down and "gets happy" with its own work, at least for things I have taken that far. I haven't set two independent models (like Opus 4.6 vs GPT 5.3 codex) against each other reviewing and revising each others' work - would be interesting to see where that process lands after N iterations, does it approach a stable result or does it oscillate? I am fairly certain that would vary from trial to trial.
>chain saws are deterministic. Cutting wood of variable quality with an nondeterministic chainsaw is not an an experience I'd dare to acquire, given the risk to life and limb.
It's not a perfect analogy. Part of why I "got into" computers in the first place (in the 1980s) was because you could experiment more or less endlessly and the worst "damage" you would (typically) do would be a full system crash / reboot, then try again. No missing fingers or limbs, no incurable diseases... of course, when you let your software out into the wild it takes on additional risk (thus the MIT license standard disclaimer...) but that's what I and my colleagues are paid for: to take the company's software "to the next level" where it's not a teenager's toy anymore, but rather something you can rely on. Is AI ready to sign off on software as "ready to use"? No, HELL NO, and anybody who tries an excuse along the lines of "the AI said it was good enough" should lose whatever license and job they had that people trusted them to make the "ready to use" assurance.
>a deterministic linter
An interesting (to me) aspect of all this is: AI is pretty good at writing deterministic parsers, probably linters and similar stuff. If you let the non-deterministic LLM review some code, then score its responses: helpful, pedantic, irrelevant, wrong/harmful - eventually the helpful range results should be able to be defined and added as modules to deterministic linters... This morning's review by Opus contained 15 observations - two were redundant-ish, and potentially valid, another for a potential race condition was also good, one pointed out a potential UI/UX enhancement opportunity, and the other 11 were of limited to zero value; about 6 limited value things were stale comments / dead code which admittedly should be corrected in best practices, and the others are basically due to Cursor's inexperience with our larger project build system - though it intuits pretty well how it works in principle, it's missing some of the actual usage practice (like default values that are overwritten before actual use) that resulted in those zero value observations.
>There have to be early adopters, but I grew old enough to no longer enjoy being among them.
At one time, I had the title Vice President, in a small company, but nonetheless there's an expectation of leadership / management / mentoring that goes with the title. Through the years I backed away from the management roles, not because I didn't like having minions do my bidding, but because people management is inherently messy and absolutely unforgiving of mistakes, in contrast with software "experiments." To an extent, AI agents behave like minions, and they absolutely do suck up to you - too much at times. It's quite a bit of fun when they "get it right" in many ways more satisfying than building the thing for myself - being able to delagate and still have it built successfully is fun, for me.
🌻🌻🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Tuesday February 10, @10:03PM (2 children)
Thank you. The discussion slightly adjusted my position from "as of today, a waste of time" into "I may give it a try, no high expectations of practicality".
The "AI is pretty good at writing deterministic parsers" and "being able to delagate and still have it built successfully" were the points.
https://www.youtube.com/@ProfSteveKeen https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Wednesday February 11, @12:13AM (1 child)
>"I may give it a try, no high expectations of practicality"
That's where I started last April or so, and I'm not convinced I have found dependable practicality yet. I have found some things it is good at (like simple parsers) - so I guess that's practical when the needs arise. But... upper management really really wants to hear how we're working with it, so I take the opportunity to use it when I can. The 2 month hiatus from early Dec to early Feb was only 3 weeks of vacation, the other 5 I was too busy catching up from 3 weeks off to really play much with the AI tools.
🌻🌻🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Wednesday February 11, @10:50AM
If you have 20 mins to spare, how accurate it this guy describing [youtube.com] the current status of vibing?
https://www.youtube.com/@ProfSteveKeen https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 10, @01:23AM (2 children)
For now not enough. If AI could write good enough software, Windows 11 updates would have been getting significantly better. They're not, some might say they've got even worse. 🤣
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Bentonite on Tuesday February 10, @02:16AM (1 child)
A LLM cannot write anything - all it can do is copy existing code and combinations of such and most code that exists is wrong and full of logic errors.
As a result, 99% of LLM outputs of code that isn't something as trivial as a hello world, will be code that is wrong and full of logic errors.
There have been many, many severe bugs and breakages resulting from windows 11 updates, due to how such updates were developed by using a LLM to copy random code;
https://www.businessinsider.com/microsoft-internal-memo-using-ai-no-longer-optional-github-copilot-2025-6 [businessinsider.com]
https://wccftech.com/windows-11-latest-update-is-reportedly-causing-widespread-ssd-failures/ [wccftech.com]
https://www.theregister.com/2026/01/16/patch_tuesday_secure_launch_bug_no_shutdown/ [theregister.com]
https://www.theregister.com/2025/10/13/windows_11_media_creation/ [theregister.com]
https://www.theregister.com/2025/10/16/windows_11_update_localhost/ [theregister.com]
https://windowsreport.com/windows-11-24h2-and-25h2-updates-break-iis-websites-after-patch-tuesday/ [windowsreport.com]
https://windowsreport.com/microsoft-confirms-directory-sync-failure-on-windows-server-2025-for-large-ad-security-groups/ [windowsreport.com]
https://support.microsoft.com/en-us/topic/kb5072911-multiple-symptoms-occur-after-provisioning-a-pc-with-a-windows-11-version-24h2-update-d2d30684-4e2b-47f5-9899-a00a8e0acb09 [microsoft.com]
https://www.theregister.com/2025/10/31/microsoft_has_managed_to_break/ [theregister.com] task manager launches too many processes, sucking resources
https://www.guru3d.com/story/windows-11-25h2-update-causes-unexpected-bitlocker-recovery-prompts/ [guru3d.com]
https://www.theregister.com/2025/11/20/nvidia_windows_11_hotfix [theregister.com] "Lower performance may be observed in some games after updating to Windows 11 October 2025 KB5066835"
https://www.neowin.net/editorials/microsoft-365-more-like-microsoft-404/ [neowin.net]
https://www.neowin.net/news/microsoft-finally-admits-almost-all-major-windows-11-core-features-are-broken/ [neowin.net]
https://www.theregister.com/2025/12/04/windows_11_start_explorer/ [theregister.com]
https://techcommunity.microsoft.com/blog/windowsservernewsandbestpractices/announcing-native-nvme-in-windows-server-2025-ushering-in-a-new-era-of-storage-p/4477353 [microsoft.com] windows didn't even suppo>
https://www.windowslatest.com/2025/12/19/why-you-cant-move-windows-11-taskbar-like-windows-10/ [windowslatest.com]
https://techcommunity.microsoft.com/discussions/windows11/microsoft-finally-admits-almost-all-major-windows-11-core-features-are-broken/4475930 [microsoft.com]
https://www.theregister.com/2026/01/21/outlook_freeze_onedrive/ [theregister.com]
https://www.windowscentral.com/microsoft/windows-11/windows-11-apps-like-notepad-arent-loading-what-is-error-code-0x803f8001-and-how-d [windowscentral.com]
https://www.windowscentral.com/microsoft/windows-11/how-to-fix-boot-issues-after-installing-the-january-2026-update-for-windows-11 [windowscentral.com]
https://www.techradar.com/computing/windows/microsoft-admits-windows-11-update-is-nuking-system-drives-albeit-theres-a-limited-number-of-reports-of-these-disasters [techradar.com]
https://www.theregister.com/2026/02/02/windows_hibernation_bug/ [theregister.com]
(Score: 3, Insightful) by khallow on Tuesday February 10, @01:05PM
In other words, write.