davidpolberger

I've been using LLM code agents since the Gemini CLI announcement seven months ago (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44376919). My workflow is centered around Emacs and the terminal, so I skipped Cursor and other GUI-based tools. I'm not sure I would've taken the time to try agents at all if Gemini CLI hadn't been free initially.

While Gemini was a good start, subscribing to Claude Code completely changed how I work.

However, I was surprised to find that the new Codex CLI works incredibly well. It offers a terminal interface that doesn't make my fans spin up or render at single-digit FPS, unlike Claude Code. It also supports other TUIs like OpenCode.

So far, I'm pleasantly surprised, and you may be too.

Obviously, Firefox's market share isn't what it used to be. However, Stripe has always cultivated an image of being developer-friendly, and Firefox remains popular with developers. Is not supporting Firefox a reasonable position for Stripe (and other sites popular with developers) to take?

Discuss.

* As a matter of principle, I like to err on the side of openness.

* We have great code, fully documented and with lots of unit tests, and I'm hoping that others could learn from it.

* It might help with recruitment, if we can talk publicly about our code and about interesting problems we are solving.

Support libraries could be licensed under a permissive license, such as MIT or Apache, while our core user-facing products could either be kept proprietary ("source available"), or be licensed under terms businesses tend to dislike -- the AGPL3 comes to mind. (If doing so could spur discussions about licensing our products under a different license, that would be a nice bonus.)

Are there any downsides to doing what I describe above?