What you've said is all true, but most users today don't use computers like that. Arguably developers already do if they have SSH access somewhere, but if repl.it brings that experience to a general audience via a web browser then it's already valuable.
If the Chrome cloud VM idea[1] can raise millions in funding, so can a web timesharing system. ;)
No, no; for that it absolutely doesn't. People pay for all sorts of goods that are not original, like loaves of bread, pairs of sneakers or T-shirts.
It had better be original if you're going to harass former interns that they're ripping off some intellectual property, and threaten them with lawyers.
That's all.
You're right, though I still think repl.it has some right to be protective of their IP here. The originality of the service is in the ease of use and modernizing the old timesharing idea, so while they were quick to mention legal action and acted obnoxiously to their former intern, they're right to be weary of something that looks so similar to their product and judging from the emails even in the implementation details.
The context of this HN post is about originality itself.
in general yes, but in this case the criticism is warranted when Replit is claiming that that the open-source toy project somehow stole their idea