4 ms·

Just an anecdote: Since I started using Slackware Linux, I have never had any problem with my system. I like the idea of functional package managers, Guix espe

Just an anecdote: Since I started using Slackware Linux, I have never had any problem with my system. I like the idea of functional package managers, Guix especially. But for me personally the problem they are trying to solve does not exist.

vezzy-fnord 11y ago
I too am a diehard Slackware user (I would say "Slack" like J.R. Dobbs intended it, but people would confuse it for the chat) and I'll echo your sentiment. Guix and Nix are the only ones in the field which deeply identify and solve issues in package management, and are the solutions I'd be most open to using. For personal usage, the Slackware tarball format without dependency resolution has never failed me. (I also have an affinity for Portage, but it's a delicate thing to use.)
- ics 11y ago
  Bob be with you.
1_player 11y ago
Functional package managers (FPM) to me are a viable solution to (cloud) deployment: what is the difference between a FPM controlling the totality of inputs and outputs of an application, and modern containerization solutions such as Docker, really? I've played with Docker (and rkt) and there's something off putting about using this stuff in production, to me at least, while I'm itching to see how Nix and Guix grow; waiting for someone with more free time than me to really cultivate this potential. Nix is more mature, but I dislike the Haskell syntax. I love Scheme, but I hate the free-software-only-religion around GNU Guix: I appreciate what GNU does, I'm a regular GNU/Linux user, but at this stage of development religious beliefs are just a hindrance to adoption and it makes me sad. EDIT: and let's not forget about node provisioning, something you can already do with NixOS (no idea about GuixSD): forget Ansible and its declarative configuration, but define the totality of the system state and configuration in a single file. Tell the machine "OK configure yourself like this", and voilà, you have a node which is (formally?) proven to be exactly like you've described. That's the future.
- rando3826 11y ago
  Among functional languages, I wouldn't call nix anywhere close to haskell. As for the free software, sounds like a typical baseless meme I've heard many times.
  - 1_player 11y ago
    > sounds like a typical baseless meme I've heard many times Is it though? I'd probably install GuixSD on a virtual machine if I knew most of the non-free software are used are packaged or at least accepted [1]. This means more users, which means more contributions and it's realistic for the project to go somewhere. I can give you a baseless opinion I don't have any fact to show for but I don't think it's so hard to see: many GNU projects are very cool but for some reason they fail to reach critical mass and they just seem to grow very slowly (or die a slow death, depending on the point of view.) 1: > [...] the GNU distribution follow the free software distribution guidelines. Among other things, these guidelines reject non-free firmware, recommendations of non-free software, and discuss ways to deal with trademarks and patents. http://www.gnu.org/software/guix/manual/html_node/Software-Freedom.html#Software-Freedom http://www.gnu.org/software/guix/manual/html_node/Software-F...
    - rando3826 11y ago
      There is adoption & attraction of development because software has freedom. There is adoption & attraction of development because software does not have freedom. They are not mutually exclusive. gnu, debian, etc are fundamentally driven by the goal of making a completely free operating system, and they would have much much less adoption and development if they weren't. We now have and are gaining more hardware which is completely free. If we don't make software distributions which are completely free, we will never have completely free operating systems, and we won't be encouraging people to use completely free operating systems.

vezzy-fnord 11y ago

I too am a diehard Slackware user (I would say "Slack" like J.R. Dobbs intended it, but people would confuse it for the chat) and I'll echo your sentiment. Guix and Nix are the only ones in the field which deeply identify and solve issues in package management, and are the solutions I'd be most open to using. For personal usage, the Slackware tarball format without dependency resolution has never failed me. (I also have an affinity for Portage, but it's a delicate thing to use.)

ics 11y ago
Bob be with you.

1_player 11y ago

Functional package managers (FPM) to me are a viable solution to (cloud) deployment: what is the difference between a FPM controlling the totality of inputs and outputs of an application, and modern containerization solutions such as Docker, really? I've played with Docker (and rkt) and there's something off putting about using this stuff in production, to me at least, while I'm itching to see how Nix and Guix grow; waiting for someone with more free time than me to really cultivate this potential. Nix is more mature, but I dislike the Haskell syntax. I love Scheme, but I hate the free-software-only-religion around GNU Guix: I appreciate what GNU does, I'm a regular GNU/Linux user, but at this stage of development religious beliefs are just a hindrance to adoption and it makes me sad. EDIT: and let's not forget about node provisioning, something you can already do with NixOS (no idea about GuixSD): forget Ansible and its declarative configuration, but define the totality of the system state and configuration in a single file. Tell the machine "OK configure yourself like this", and voilà, you have a node which is (formally?) proven to be exactly like you've described. That's the future.

rando3826 11y ago
Among functional languages, I wouldn't call nix anywhere close to haskell. As for the free software, sounds like a typical baseless meme I've heard many times.
- 1_player 11y ago
  > sounds like a typical baseless meme I've heard many times Is it though? I'd probably install GuixSD on a virtual machine if I knew most of the non-free software are used are packaged or at least accepted [1]. This means more users, which means more contributions and it's realistic for the project to go somewhere. I can give you a baseless opinion I don't have any fact to show for but I don't think it's so hard to see: many GNU projects are very cool but for some reason they fail to reach critical mass and they just seem to grow very slowly (or die a slow death, depending on the point of view.) 1: > [...] the GNU distribution follow the free software distribution guidelines. Among other things, these guidelines reject non-free firmware, recommendations of non-free software, and discuss ways to deal with trademarks and patents. http://www.gnu.org/software/guix/manual/html_node/Software-Freedom.html#Software-Freedom http://www.gnu.org/software/guix/manual/html_node/Software-F...
  - rando3826 11y ago
    There is adoption & attraction of development because software has freedom. There is adoption & attraction of development because software does not have freedom. They are not mutually exclusive. gnu, debian, etc are fundamentally driven by the goal of making a completely free operating system, and they would have much much less adoption and development if they weren't. We now have and are gaining more hardware which is completely free. If we don't make software distributions which are completely free, we will never have completely free operating systems, and we won't be encouraging people to use completely free operating systems.