IP addresses
185.199.108.133
Hostname: cdn-185-199-111-133.github.com.
---
Virus Total: Activity related to AMADEY - according to source Cluster25 - 6 months ago This DOMAIN is used by AMADEY. Amadey is a botnet agent that appeared around October 2018 sold on Russian-speaking hacking forums. It periodically sends information about the system and installed AV software to its C2 server. It can also load other payloads to the victims' devices.
macOS download url after downloading with librewolf and rightclicking "copy downoload url": https://www.virustotal.com/gui/url/f1e08a34d17fd85cd8896ba86...
Edit: i dont get this when copying direct links from the readme.md. Its just when i click them and copy the url it used to download.
Edit2: i get this too when i download the x64 exe and copy the download link from the librewolf (firefox fork) download manager https://www.virustotal.com/gui/url-analysis/u-6a55e124c22f9b...
Edit3: maybe false alarm and the botnet used the github url https://release-assets.githubusercontent.com/ to spread malware?
Edit: One criticism of Darktable is that it emphasizes its "scene-referred workflow" as opposed to a "display-referred workflow" like Lightroom does, making it not a true Lightroom alternative. Seems like this also happens to be written in C++ and also uses a scene-referred workflow? Quite the coincidence. How much of the important design decisions (or implementation) are just copied from Darktable?
I built Rembrandt because darktable’s learning curve kept me from using it, not because it’s worse; it has far more control. The goal here is approachability: fewer, broader controls, on-device AI for masks and denoise, and Lightroom catalog import.
Stack: the engine is JavaScript with WebGL/WebGPU shaders, in a small Rust (Tauri) desktop shell. LibRaw (C++) decodes RAW files.
Edit: corrected my earlier reply. I wrongly said it was written in C++, and I overstated the darktable answer.
I mean really, you had to ask Claude whether the workflow was Darktable-inspired. The people in this thread who read Claude's README probably know more about how "your" software works than you do.
You don't even need to know what that means for it to be useful. In practice, it just means less artifacts, less weird stuff that happens with color near clipping highlights, etc. You use the software in exactly the same way you'd use the display-referred workflow, except that under the hood, the modules are working with the linear Raw data.
Supposedly clean-room implementations are legal. But they're so easy with AI - it seems like that will need to change. Or the world will come crashing down. Hard to say which is more likely right now.
Not that Adobe's getting my money either.
This compares more closely with Darktable, RawTherapee, ART etc.
This excites them and they share it under the assumption someone else has their exact needs but lacks the inclination to have AI make one of their own.
The real question is why does HN keep upvoting them?
Because a significantly large demographic of HN is aggressively pro-AI to the point of cultishness and the mere existence of such applications, to them, is a vindication of all of their beliefs and an expression of triumph over all of the critics and doubters.
Note that it doesn't actually matter how well they work, or whether they work at all. Many people will assume by default that they do, and that anyone claiming otherwise is just a deluded, bitter Luddite, and will praise and defend them regardless of quality. The rules and standards that apply to human written software don't apply to AI generated software.
They definitely work but...
Unlike Lightroom or Darktable (an open source Raw editor that took years to get to a sophisticated level), they are all rough around the edges. Maybe in the future they'll get better in terms of being really refined to handle advanced photography, but right now they're hobby applications.
To me this highlights the absurdity of AI, because enormous amounts of energy is wasted on duplicating stuff and making something new.
I won't try and argue that nothing nice can come out of it, but it seems absurd to me to waste so much energy as a species this way. I wouldn't be surprised if there were a hundred more of these apps in another year.
Where that's good, I don't know..nobody seems to care telling.
> Clean-room.
> * Never read, disassemble or copy anything inside the Acrobat bundle (names and listings only). Never open Contents/Resources/JavaScripts/.
> * Behaviour comes from public docs, specs (ISO 32000-2, the Arlington model) and black-box observation (plan/acrobat/).
> * Never copy GPL/AGPL code. MuPDF, Ghostscript, Poppler, veraPDF and DSS run only as external oracle processes.
> * See plan/README.md §Clean-room and plan/adr/0001.
It really looks like they have AI running Adobe (and other apps) as sources of truth and have rules against disassembly or including source from GPL projects which left me pondering the ethics of it.
[1] https://github.com/storytold/pdfcraft/blob/main/CLAUDE.md
No excuses this time.
I only came across it recently as it's trending. I had no idea they had already started developing adobe apps clones for so many years
I think it's asinine that HN of all places upvotes every vibe coded bespoke app and with a straight face compares it to decades old projects whether open or closed source.
I could have my own version of this app for the effort I've put into writing comments about it.