6 ms·

Naive question: Isn't all that also true for Guix? If so, why do your prefer Nix over Guix?

• ben0x539 9y ago
  Why shouldn't one prefer the original over some rando's weakly motivated, niche NIH rehash, unless you're already victim to lisp-induced Stockholm syndrome?
  • roblabla 9y ago
    > some rando's This is a GNU-approved fork > weakly motivated Has lots of strong motivation, like a stricter stance on non-free software, the usage of a "real", more expressive language (Guile) instead of a niche, poorly undocumented DSL (Nix), use of GNU Shepherd instead of SystemD for the init system, among other > niche NIH rehash It shares most of the codebase with Nix, so to say it's NIH is missing the point. Nix improvements are shared with Guix, and Guix improvements are shared with Nix > unless you're already victim to lisp-induced stockholm syndrome Different lisp offer different syntaxes, features, and use-cases. That you cannot see it makes me think you didn't try too much, and are probably just trolling.
    • lfam 9y ago
      > It shares most of the codebase with Nix, so to say it's NIH is missing the point. Nix improvements are shared with Guix, and Guix improvements are shared with Nix. In Guix, the only code from Nix is the Nix daemon. There is not really much code going back and forth, mostly just bug fixes.
    • davexunit 9y ago
      Guix doesn't really share any of the codebase with Nix. Guix uses a modified version of the Nix daemon, but that is a tiny fraction of the total source code. Guix is an alternative implementation of the packaging model pioneered by Nix, plus additional features not found in Nix.
    • dikaiosune 9y ago
      I’d just like to interject for a moment. What you’re refering to as Guix, is in fact, Nix/Guile, or as I’ve recently taken to calling it, Nix plus Guile.
      • deleted 9y ago
        [deleted]
    • ben0x539 9y ago
      I'm curious if you'd like to elaborate on what makes Guile more expressive than Nix for writing package definitions.
• majewsky 9y ago
  Not the grandparent, but from what i can see, grandparent compares Nix with traditional package managers like dpkg or RPM, rather than Guix. I cannot answer your question, but I think Nix has (for some reason) a lot more publicity than Guix at the moment.
  • joepie91_ 9y ago
    Guix is derived from Nix, so that might be why.
    • rekado 9y ago
      If by "derived" you mean that it is another implementation of functional package management, then you are right. But if "derived" implies that Guix is a fork, then you are mistaken. Guix is not a fork of Nix.
      • xwvvvvwx 9y ago
        Guix is built on top of the nix daemon, so while it's not strictly a fork, derived seems fair.
• thomastjeffery 9y ago
  Guix explicitly rejects non-free software. Unfortunately, that isn't workable for most of us.
  • nejenendn 9y ago
    Ouch. Is this at a legal or community level?
    • thomastjeffery 9y ago
      Community. There may even be community-based sources for non-free packages, but they are explicitly ignored by the Guix project.
      • hackermailman 9y ago
        Anybody can run guix publish however and self publish their own non-free substitutes if they wanted, plus there's all the existing non-free substitute servers around, and you can try your luck with guix import from nixpkgs. The community won't help anybody if they ask for help with non-free software though. I haven't missed any non-free packages since switching to Guix surprisingly, I always seem to find a free alternative though my daily req are pretty basic.
        • thomastjeffery 9y ago
          > plus there's all the existing non-free substitute servers around Where? > The community won't help anybody if they ask for help with non-free software though. This, specifically, is where Nix has the advantage.
  • nextos 9y ago
    Note you can use any Nix package in Guix...