The traditional news media has a track record that includes a ton of errors, but it is still far better than everything else. You open social media, and its a flood of content that does not accurately reflect the world.
Yet more evidence that venture capital is basically incompatible with open source software. It's just a matter of time before any VC-backed open source company betrays its users.
n8n was never open source. They started out using Apache with a non-free clause added, but they called themselves open-source incorrectly. Then when this became more widely known, they stopped calling themselves open-source.
Why is it okay to just accept that the hyperscalers are 100% closed, but the minute a smaller player tries to play "open-ish" with "fair source" we crucify them?
Fair source is amazing. You get the code. You can modify the code. You can redistribute the code. You just can't take their business from them and compete with them head-to-head with their product. You can reformulate it into something else, but you can't take their labor and cut their knees off with it. You have literally every other freedom.
Why in the hell are so many people against that?
Fair source is sustainable and equitable. You get everything except for that one little right with which you could compete with them.
Everyone gushes over Obsidian - that's not even "source available" or "fair source". It's completely closed.
I bet if Obsidian went "fair source", and you could download the code and compile it yourself, there would be hundreds of voices crawling out of the woodwork to call them the devil for not being pure OSI-approved open. How dare they keep one little freedom to themselves for all the hard work they've done?
I'm half convinced the anti-"fair source" voices are deep industry folks who want big tech to own the OSI definition. Who can use it strategically as they sit atop hundreds of billions of dollars in cash flows. Open source to the FAANGMAGMA Gods is just a way of outsourcing labor and dangling trinkets in front of underpaid labor.
n8n isn't doing a "VC rug pull." They're trying to be sustainable. The only thing that's been "pulled" is the wool over the eyes of every engineer satisfied with FAANG OSI-approved serfdom. Some of the pieces are "open" all right, but they own pretty much everything the sunlight touches.
If n8n can't build a business then it just becomes some side project hobby. What exactly do we think every other company is doing?
Please be more pragmatic and realize that "fair source" is sustainable. It rewards the innovators and you get almost everything for free. You just can't shoot them with their own gun.
Do you not want the ability to download the source and potentially tweak the software? To have a copy you can hold onto forever? To be able to analyze it for telemetry. To be able to potentially submit patches (if you're feeling generous)?
Don't you want them to make money? Rather than beg for Github donation scraps?
Be especially mindful if you're typing a retort on a Macbook Pro or iPhone and deploying software to GKE or AWS.
I care that software I depend upon survives long term. In consequence, I care to some extent that the principal company or organization building that software also survives... But that finite concern is balanced against the simultaneous concern that the software itself can survive the organization's potential dissolution. I don't want to have to make a sudden, stressful, expensive migration because corporate buy-outs, bankruptcies, or mergers result in rug-pulls for software I use.
"Fair" source does absolutely nothing to allievate those concerns. The four software freedoms do.
It is true that for a quarter century software developers have naively licensed their projects under MIT and BSD style permissive licenses, and have then felt robbed when big companies come in and eat their lunch. Except it was never their lunch because they didn't actually use licenses that would have asserted their rights to that lunch.
Thankfully, that naivete is finally, slowly dying but, rather than use robust solutions that have been around for decades (e.g. GPL-or-AGPL/proprietary dual license), some developers have invented a new, largely untested concept and named it by dressing up their own sour grapes and spite as "fairness".
"Fair" source software is a non-solution in search of a problem.
Free software and strong copyleft licenses already exist. Dual-licensing already exists. Viable, profitable, healthy, ethical companies built on these strategies already exist.
I used to think Stallman was a crank and a fundamentalist, and he absolutely is, and thank goodness for that. I now think "open-source" is exactly as diluted as free software advocates initially pointed out, and the emergence of "fair" source is part of the damage it has done.
Authors using Fair want to share their code while getting protections for themselves. Strong copyleft doesn't care about authors and is all about protecting the end users.
So Fair fullfills an actual need or desire not covered elsewhere, thus is not a non-solution.
It might be not the appropriate or the best solution to solve the exact concerns of people using it, that's debatable and a different topic, akin to using the wrong tool for the job. Strong copyleft is the wrong tool, too; obviously competitors can just deploy without modifications and offer it as a service.
> Authors using Fair want to share their code while getting protections for themselves. Strong copyleft doesn't care about authors and is all about protecting the end users.
This is a one-sided assertion of fairness, and therefore an abuse of the concept. Free software offers the same rights to both authors and users. That is fairness.
If you want to reserve rights to yourself that are withheld from end-users, that's fine. Arguably even still within a broader conceptual realm of fairness. But naming your personally preferred arrangement of rights "fair" and in so doing implying most or all other arrangements are unfair is just plain arrogant.
Strong copyleft cares equally about authors and end-users. It doesn't disregard authors. Some authors just want to co-opt the general notion of fairness to mean their own licensing preferences.
You and sfRattan rightfully pointing to a disease (large cloud providers using true free software to make money without contributing back). But "fair source" cure is a new, unproven drug with serious side effects, all while ignoring the established, effective vaccine (strong copyleft GPL/AGPL and dual-licensing), that has been available for decades. The rise of "fair source" is both as sign of "market panic" and just "marketing". It does not seem to be necessary or good evolution for software freedom.
That was HIGHLY abstract... So much so that I am not sure it maps onto reality, but I at least think this is a valid concern.
(A)GPL + Dual licensing is totally insufficient to fullfill the needs, or at the very least the wants, of people using things like "Fair source" licenses (regardless of the naming): to share their code as a sign of goodwill, without that becoming a risk for their survival.
Amazon offers lots of AGPL software, and they fully respect the license in all cases. Ultimately the GPL is about protecting users' rights at the expense of developers' rights. So as long as AWS can offer a better/cheaper managed version of a software service, while still giving the users all details on how to run the same service if they chose to, then the AGPL is completely achieving its aims, even if the original company goes out of business.
> Ultimately the GPL is about protecting users' rights at the expense of developers' rights.
No. The GPL is about giving developers and users the same rights. Some developers want more rights than users, and engage in special pleading to call that "fairness".
> So as long as AWS can offer a better/cheaper managed version of a software service, while still giving the users all details on how to run the same service if they chose to, then the AGPL is completely achieving its aims, even if the original company goes out of business.
The truth many developers don't want to face is that, if you write a program or tool that can be easily deployed by the behemoths of tech on infrastructure and at scale you cannot match, then you do not have a licensing problem... You have an architecture problem.
A company big enough to take your code and deploy it at overmatched scale and efficiency is also big enough to study your publicly accessible code, however it is licensed, and write new code that achieves the same outcome, maybe even implements nearly the same API, and then deploy that at scale. Actually competing with them involves pursuing fundamentally different architectures and value propositions which they cannot imitate, not writing some new license and trying to pitch it to customers/clients as "fair".
The above reverse engineering and reimplementation already happen in the other direction (e.g. Docker vs. Podman). There's no reason to think a motivated behemoth couldn't do exactly the same to your "fair" source software. On the other hand, Google is constitutionally unable to ever make or deploy at scale something like, for example, Ente Photos, because Google desparately wants all the photos people upload to be legible to Google forever and for whatever new purposes Google's executives might dream up in the future.
> But "fair source" cure is a new, unproven drug with serious side effects, all while ignoring the established, effective vaccine (strong copyleft GPL/AGPL and dual-licensing)
Can you explain this a bit more? I don't understand how this is true.
AFAIK AGPL only prevents someone from modifying your AGPL codebase without sharing that in turn, but if they're content to offer exactly the service you're offering without modification it's not an issue.
See for example Grafana, which is distributed under the AGPL but still has to handle competition from AWS and Azure that have managed Grafana offerings.
> I care that software I depend upon survives long term.
> "Fair" source does absolutely nothing to allievate those concerns.
Of course it does !
Git clone, problem solved.
I'm all in favor of free software, but it sounds a bit disingenuous to pretend that the GPL or even, to a lesser extent, the Affero variant, are providing a safe haven for sustainable software. The reality is, sadly, that free software depends on the good will of very few idealistic people who manage to somehow make a living while spending a lot of time on working for free ; and i must know since I've been lucky to be able to do this most of my life. This is no guaranteed survival or innovation.
While I believe it's very useful to remind users of the freedom they should ask for, I don't think it's useful to oppose free software with fair source, exactly like in the past it was important to remind users of the differences between free software and open source, yet it was counter productive to oppose them.
What a myopic assumption. Availability of source code doesn't solve the legal problems that can arise in the wake corporate restructuring, as new owners work to impede forking and continuing a project outside their control.
Continuing a project in the wake of total organizational failure or capture means setting up legal entities to replace the broken/subverted ones. That's a problem separate from "is the code out there on the Internet for me to download?"
In comparison to the GPL and AGPL, "fair" source licenses are at best hastily drawn. They certainly do not have decades of accrued favorable legal precedent. They are often short and ambiguous because their authors have not imagined half the use cases they might potentially forbid in the name of "fairness". All these qualities are miasmal to long term project stability.
In practice, what matters is that indeed the code is available in a form that makes it modifiable and that machines are available to run it on. Oracle and its hordes of malignant lawyers tried, and almost succeeded, to make this illegal with Java but thanksfully failed.
Why would I need to set up "legal entities" to enjoy my freedom as a user of open source software, unless I'm trying to start a competing business? It's unclear to me what you have in mind. Please explain like I'm a myopic person.
The people promoting "fair" source are specifically doing so to set up legal entities---companies---in order to run a business. That's fine, but it means users of their software should include the potential endgames of those legal entities in their assessment of the software's long term viability. That frame was implicit in my original point.
Any sufficiently large and complex piece of software (free, nonfree, or proprietary) will eventually need some kind of inter-human organization and governance. It won't matter for a small program with complexity that can be managed inside the head of one person but, again, "fair" source as advocated by its own proponents is about software of sufficient complexity to justify legal entities owning, stewarding, guiding, and managing it.
And, IIRC, Oracle and its lawyers, when trying to digest Sun Microsystems, choked on the GPL specifically at least twice: with both MySQL and OpenOffice. The GPL's well thought out protections enabled independent institutions to form around successor forks to those projects. Would the same have been possible with a relatively new, less well thought out "fair" source license? I don't think so.
I don't know what exemple you have in mind, but we were discussing n8n, redis, elastic search... Probably you have much more complex projects in mind?
If I go tu use, say, redis, in a way that the license permit, I don't give a single dime about the legal entity behind it. I just `apt-get install redis`. If I want to modify it for my need, I can `apt-get source redis`. When the next version of redis comes with a more restrictive license, or if features are removed, I just stick to a previous one. Maybe I fork it myself if it's really important for me. Probably, we will be many doing so, we will regroup, share our modifications and improvements. I've experienced this kind of colaborative maintenance of some dead project a couple of times in the past, and all te governance that was ever needed was a mailing list.
Now, sure, some project are more complicated. If, god forbid, postgresql or gcc were to disapear I would not trust myself, or any single individual, to maintain a private fork for long withough the quality deteriorating. But again, people would regroup, cooperate, and we will be able to figure it out.
Compare this with proprietary software, were you truly have no recourse. I've seen wonderful pieces of software in the past, that I loved an used daily, disaprear entirely because the company that produced it went belly up, leaving no alternative than to desperately run the old versions on an emulator still years after because nobody ever managed to redo something as good. And now they are gone, for good, with few people ever remembering them.
So, these are the exemples I have in mind, this is why I don't understand how one could equate fair-source with proprietary -- assuming that the restrictions tainting the "fair" software just prevent the user from competing with the software producer. The user has a ton of power with fair source compared to proprietary.
> When the next version of redis comes with a more restrictive license, or if features are removed, I just stick to a previous one. Maybe I fork it myself if it's really important for me. Probably, we will be many doing so, we will regroup, share our modifications and improvements. I've experienced this kind of colaborative maintenance of some dead project a couple of times in the past, and all te governance that was ever needed was a mailing list.
This situation is a one kind of sudden, unplanned migration. You seem to assess it as less stressful than I would. I'd also be concerned about security generally, duplication of effort to maintain the private fork, and potential retaliation if total secrecy isn't kept by the fork's maintainers.
Your reasoning makes sense for choosing software to use as an individual, but not when choosing software as an organization or when choosing software to integrate into software you distribute for others to use.
Your reasoning also makes sense for maintaining software that has a relaxed threat model (i.e. typically runs or can be made to run in isolation from any network). But the examples you pick (n8n, redis, elastic search) are most often used on perpetually networked computers where security a larger concern and I don't know that I'd trust a private, ad hoc group to keep a secret fork (in potential violation of a "fair" source license) up to snuff.
Oh I see. Sure I trust individual maintainers at least as much as large organisations. Part of my first gig included running debian potato's postgresql on a PC with an oracle sticker on it...
Are you me? That was so scarily close to how I think about this that I could have thought I wrote it myself. Except you know a more about licenses :P
Well written. Thanks.
Edit: I would also add that, based on the specific software/business, the problem with "rug-pulling," as described by another user here, is a real thing. I think that the reason Obsidian doesn't get hate, while being closed source, is that they are at least predictable and honest about their strategy. Their pricing is fair, and development and business plans are openly communicated. It's silly to be angry at a firm for wanting to be closed source, but if they start out pretending to be fully open source and community-motivated, while receiving lots of coding contributions, then suddenly do a rug-pull by removing features from the community edition and paywalling all important features, that is something a lot of us are going to be annoyed by.
> It's silly to be angry at a firm for wanting to be closed source, but if they start out pretending to be fully open source and community-motivated, while receiving lots of coding contributions, then suddenly do a rug-pull by removing features from the community edition and paywalling all important features, that is something a lot of us are going to be annoyed by.
Indeed, and that is why assessing the long term viability of an open-source or free software project means looking at multiple variables. This thread has mostly been about licenses, but there's also literal distribution of ownership... Both ownership of copyright and of corporation.
Is the code's copyright owned by the company and does the company only accept contributions with a contributor license agreement that transfers copyright to itself? Potential red flag. They're keeping the door open for an attempt to rug-pull, but they also might just be trying to do business via dual licensing.
Is the code's copyright owned by too many people to ever feasibly relicense? Green flag, as long as a healthy foundation exists to keep things on track (e.g. Blender Foundation or The Document Foundation).
Is the company publicly traded or has it accepted large amounts of investment? Red flag. Those investors will demand a rug-pull the moment the lines on their sacred monthly and quarterly graphs stop going up.
Is the company closely held by a few people? Potential green flag, depending on the people.
I don't know/care about "fair source," but the "open source" label in particular has ALWAYS had a well-known and specific meaning in the software world. Attaching it to a proprietary product for the marketing and social media good feels is actively deceitful, no matter if the company is USA trillion-dollar Big Tech or a single developer from a marginalized demographic in a developing country.
Software authors have the right to choose whatever license they wish for the project/product, just don't try to lie to users about what it really is.
The person I was replying to seemed to be under the impression that n8n used to be open source and now is not. This is not the case, so I pointed that out.
Did you have anything to say about my actual comment, or are you just attaching your rant to a random part of the thread?
No, what I linked to does not show that they used to be open source. It shows that they used to call themselves open source, despite never having been so.
> Why is it okay to just accept that the hyperscalers are 100% closed, but the minute a smaller player tries to play "open-ish" with "fair source" we crucify them?
besides morale, from pure business point of view, hyperscalers will likely last, so that's Ok to rely on them, small OSS projects can be supported/modified by community or business itself, but when some small closed source service is gone, it is compete shutdown, you need to migrate to something else in a very big hurry.
that list is catchy, but if you dig into details, there are many caveats, for example many product were not killed, but replaced with low friction, for example hangout, many products were created at period of time when there was that google labs which launched many strange low quality products which never gained traction.
If you check some core business products (ads, cloud), google usually provides reasonable deprecation timeframe (years).
True that google never depleted us from messaging apps; at some point they had 3 different in operation, with contradictory statements about which one was made obsolete by some other.
Which also illustrate that a stable business does not imply a stable product.
> Which also illustrate that a stable business does not imply a stable product.
there is no absolutely stable product, some weird stuff can happen to everything, its question of probabilities, what the chance that some underfunded startup with negative cash flow will shut down some product, and what is the chance that google will shut down AdWords API?
this is a solid argument against the open-source purists that I've never heard before and really appreciate. Many people would like to make money on the things they spend their time building. Some percentage of those people also love FOSS. Fair source is the middle ground where they can share their work, open it up for criticism, issues, and fixes, but ensure that their business is secure. It's a solid middle ground that shouldn't be demonized just because it isn't open source.
I think because providing commercial support for such a software is not allowed by the license, there is a strong vendor lock-in. That‘s a big drawback for users.
Aren't Japanese homes super tiny? Even smaller than the already small homes and apartments in Europe? That's one reason. In the US, it seems that people live in bigger places, with higher ceilings.
My understanding was that Japanese housing costs are only good in USD because the yen is devalued. I had the impression that housing is expensive relative to local wages. Is that not true?
It's not true. Here is an apples-to-apples comparison of the price of residential property between the US and Japan in real (inflation adjusted) terms.
There are very few recently launched pure open source projects these days (most are at least running donation-ware models or funded by corporate backers), none in the AI space that I'm aware of.
Well the real open source project is llama.cpp which Ollama basically wrapped and made a nice interface on top of. Now they do more things as they want to be a real business, but llama.cpp is now doing most things people wanted from something like ollama, like serving a REST API compatible with OpenAPI, downloading and managing local LLMs… while remaining an actual open source project without VC money as far as I know.
This is a new umbrella project for llama.cpp and whisper.cpp. The author, Georgi Gerganov, also announced he’s forming a company for the project as he raised money from Nat Friedman (CEO GitHub) and Daniel Gross (ex-YC AI, ex-Apple ML).
If any ollama folks are reading, it was a nice grift while it lasted, but as someone who actually cares about local-first, it is clear that these values were only ever a path to adoption and then monitization. Great job letting people think you were an actual community project and not a VC trying to recoup investment.
Ollama is a ycombinator startup, so I guess they have to find some roi at some point.[1]
I personally found Ollama to be an easy way to try out local LLMs and appreciate them for that (and I still use it to download small models on my laptop and phone (via termux)), but I've long switched to llama.cpp + llama-swap[2] on my dev desktop. I download whatever ggufs I want from hugging face and just do `git pull` and `cmake --build build --config Release` from my llama.cpp directory whenever I want to update.
Big tech companies today are fighting over your attention and consumers are the losers.
I hate this feature and I'm sure it will soon be serving up content that is as engaging as the stuff the comes out of the big tech feed algorithms: politically divisive issues, violent and titillating news stories and misinformation.
You should sell this to Lawyers and other professionals who bill per hour to reconstruct their billables for the day without missing anything. They would pay big money for something that recovered forgotten(unbilled) work throughout the day.
One of my first ever bug reports, was a submission to a company that made legal software.
In particular, it was a document management system built as a plugin for MS Outlook. (ew)
Most users, had no issue. However for one user, a lawyer, in particular, she would open and close a bunch of documents (using the built in pdf viewer) and then the application would crash, taking outlook with it, often requiring a restart.
I went over to view the behavior, and she was some kind of robot. Unlike her peers, she had 12 documents open at once, and she could update and bill (in minimum 6 or 7 minute increments) 12 customers cases in 15 minutes. It was like meeting the Usain Bolt of law practitioners. My back of the napkin math is that she billed like 3-4 hours for every hour she was online.
Open Email
Load Attachment
Review Attachment
Reply to email
Assign Email thread to case number
Close attachment.
12 times in 15 minutes.
The bug was that, after loading ~6 pdfs, the application would back off and wait to deallocate the memory. It would then later, randomly decide to write to that memory when another pdf was loaded, and go kaput.
Just to replicate the issue, I had to close and reopen pdfs so quickly my hands hurt.
It took 3 revisions of the bug report to get the software company to accept it and resolve it. And even then I think the pdf limit just increased, before we submitted another report and had it resolved permanently.
On that note, the principal of another law firm I supported would require us to cleanse his personal laptop of porn themed golf games he had downloaded on a regular basis.
The impression I get is that, lawyers work but the work is just unevenly distributed.
Digging deep in to my memory, I recall that the user had at least one instance of Strip Putt Putt. I cant conceive of how that answers your question but its the best I can do.
I get the sentiment behind your comment but I have a few lawyers in the family and they work round the clock. They might be in meetings or pouring over documents all day that might not look like work to the average software engineer but trust me, they do work hard. And it's true for everyone - from junior interns to senior partners.
> They might be in meetings or pouring over documents all day
FWIW it’s “poring over” when reading carefully.
From Merriam-Webster
“As a verb, pore means "to gaze intently" or "to reflect or meditate steadily." The verb pour has meanings referring to the falling or streaming of liquid (or things that move like liquid).”
Wouldn’t you? If I switch context and interrupt my flow to answer a question I’m losing at least 20 mins to regaining focus, why shouldn’t that be reflected in billing?
Knowledge work is knowledge work, no point belittling colleagues in a different profession.
Thats how MSPs operate too. At least the good ones. Billing increments are sometimes as low as 6 minutes, or as high as 30. 15 minutes is average in my experience.
Yeah, but it's written in a modular way and extending it is not as painful as one would expect. I actually went that way and wrote a couple of custom watchers for things like that.
I'm a litigation legal admin - I have been for 25-30 years. I instantly brought this up to an associate, telling them, "Maybe not now, but before you retire, this'll be the norm in the industry."
She had been complaining the day before about having to reconstruct a huge bunch of little 0.1 entries involving e-mails to various individuals in cases. If it could be done automatically, through a local LLM? chef's kiss
Trust me, law is definitely where you want to land this thing.
In all honesty, I have absolutely no negotiating power or decision-making authority for my firm, but it's a big one -- if that's a direction you want to go, can't guaranty I can swing enough weight, but I probably could find you the right people to talk to, give you an introduction.
I'll also have to add, though, that you'd have to figure out a way for it to be cross-platform or live outside just macOS. Unfortunately, that's a very uncommon choice in the legal world (or anywhere else).
Every lawyer in the USA that I've ever worked with also bills in 6 minute increments. Which means every email is 6 minutes. Every phone call is at least 6 minutes. etc.
Isn't this better though? The alternative being that every email or phone call is an hour, or that they batch it up based on gut feel. If I get a phone call that could easily steal 6 minutes of focus time (note that I specify focus time, even if the call is only 30 seconds you'd have to mentally switch tasks back and forth).
I’m not sure that 6 minutes is a useful denomination of focus time. Maybe legal work is too different from IT and it makes sense there, but when I need to focus on something, 15 minutes is the smallest amount I would allocate for a task.
You forgot the main source of pressure: you sell off equity in your company in exchange for cash. The buyers are buying the promise of future profits. At first, you still hold the vast majority of the voting rights, but over time you sell more and more and expectations rise and rise.
Eventually you are an organization whose purpose is to return cash to shareholders in the near term.
Hence a page full of ads, and no reason to think things will ever change.
I think the fact that Valve is still a private corp is a big part of it, yes. It allows for continued ownership by people who have meaningful beliefs of what it means to do something the Right Way and who run the business accordingly. This isn't to say that private corps are always "good" like that - the temptation to go for easy pickings and enshittify is always there. But some owners at least won't do that for various reasons, while a public company seems to always end up chasing short-term profits above everything else.
Google's original founders still hold the majority of votes.
> Eventually you are an organization whose purpose is to return cash to shareholders in the near term.
Amazon's history shows that public shareholders can be very patient with cash being returned to them, or the company ever showing a profit at all. Tesla used to be in the same boat.
Shareholders are very forward looking. They just don't necessarily trust 'visionary managers' not be full of bullshit. Probably rightly so.
>purpose is to return cash to shareholders in the near term.
I see this constantly repeated in anti-capitalist/anti-corporate rhetoric, but on the other side, shareholder meetings, finance conferences, financial service talks, no one ever wants this. Maybe the 20 year old stock bros on discord pumping penny stocks, but no serious shareholder of any company with a name you might recognize.
It happens, there are cases of it, but overwhelmingly the vibe is "long term stable profit generation".
If shareholders didn't want it, then they wouldn't appoint (or keep in place) the top management that repeatedly and consistently makes those choices.
Look at the recent Microsoft layoffs. They purged the company of so much tech talent, and tanked morale for basically all the remaining workers. From any kind of long term perspective this is madness. Yet they were rewarded for it by the stock market.
Rails would have become irrelevant long ago if it wasnt for DHH. Especially in recent years he has been doing an enormous amount of stuff to keep Rails relevant and still the top choice for rapidly building businesses with a small team.
I don't agree with him on political matters but that is irrelevant. He's not my senator, he runs an open source project (and does it really well).
He doesn't run an open source project well when there's a substantial brain drain from the ecosystem due to his loudly-expressed worldview being deplorable.
This is like the fallacy of marketers who only measure slight short-term increases in engagement. It's not success if you get a temporary bump of 5% if you also end up pissing off a ton of people who will never come back. Eventually the whole thing craters.
Cline gives you the ability to jump back to any point in the task. The three options are "Restore task", "restore files" and "restore task and files"
A common experience with these tools is that if you realize you want to change the direction you're heading, it's better to jump back to that point in the work and redo it than it is to try to redirect the tool from where you are. Here's a great post about it on the Cline blog
