alt Hacker NewsCongrats to Can on the pre-seed funding. genuinely wishing you all the best.
The terminal multiplexer / multi-agent coding space is getting very crowded. YC alone has funded many competing startups in this space: herdr, Superset, cmux, Emdash, Orca, Bullet, Conductor (Conductor was in YC before pivoting from chat->coding). I’m probably missing a few, and that’s before counting companies outside YC such as Superlogical and Agentastic.dev (by yours truly).
One thing I find particularly interesting is the role of open source in this market.
A lot of these products started open source (i assume as a tactical way to gain traction and build a community). But after the early traction phase or raise funding, the incentives seem to change.
Being open source by itself is not a product differentiator in this market. The features required for string positioning (orchestration, cloud, custom agents, enterprise features, hosted infrastructure, etc.) often end up either closed source or available only through the hosted product.
That makes me wonder how much developers actually value OSS for this category. How much does it matter to you whether your IDE or coding environment is open source?
Is OSS important because you want to inspect the code, fork it, self-host it, avoid vendor lock-in, or simply because you trust open-source developer tools more? Or, for desktop software like IDEs is open source mostly a nice-to-have rather than a requirement? So I’m curious where HN lands on this
Replies
I’m the founder of scape.work - and it’s precisely why we’re not free, not open source. I want to build something with a mission of helping people own their infrastructure around AI tooling locally. If I raise money I am legally bound to my shareholders to create value, as opposed to my customers and my mission. Bootstrapping has never made more sense, when code is so cheap.
In the case of my WIP Agent IDE, OSS is mandatory because the tool needs to be able to read its own source to improve itself.
They will all fail unless they’re acquired, which is its own kind of failure.
I avoid closed source software because it’s often a pain to use on Linux.
Indeed and once the funding comes in with more chefs in the kitchen the startups start losing touch and focus on funneling users to a platform instead of just improving the core product.
There exist also competitors not funded by YC, like me. I won't be on any of the lists because I'm not courting agents, I'm courting humans.
For me OSS is a weapon to be wielded. By making perfect software that cannot be improved upon, and making known my ownership of it, I'm am defending "embrace extend extinguish" attacks that would otherwise be damaging to me. Those attacks rely on being able to undercut a product's position in the market with a similarly positioned product that can be just slightly better and/or cheaper.
frankly with the level of complexity of IDEs, I just need a working product. In my mind it is closer to "photoshop" now than vim. I would probably pay for VSCode. I can't believe its free.
In practice, I suspect the entire category will be folded into Claude Code and Codex (Anthropic is already trying with Claude Agents), and that will do 80% of the job at 0% of the cost and configuration effort.
External programs will still be useful for the tiny minority who wants different harnesses for different projects, but yeah, tiny minority.
It's super important to me. I use Herdr every day and I maintain a whole stack of changes. From minor comfort tweaks that are just preference, to several larger changes like add jj workspace support and a WIP web based view (powered by xterm.js).
This is not the only project like this too. Many of my devtools are piling up changes. I try to upstream changes where it makes sense, but many times they are either very bespoke, or I can't be bothered to do them "right" (for example for the jj workspace change, I just ripped out git support, so I didn't have to futz with syncing the symantics up between the two and config and whatnot).
LLMs have made making personal changes to devtools so effortless that I am now extremely hesitant to use any non source available software at all.
I have been thinking about a possibly expanded market for source available software. I don't really care what the license of the software is, I'm not sharing it at all or using it commercially, so it's kinda a moot point. If someone made some amazing software and sold the source I'd definitely consider it. I know there are all sorts of practical business problems with that, but that aside I'm curious if others feel the same?