3 ms·

Nix & Guix both implement the functional deployment model pioneered by Nix, but I do not see Guix as a "fork" of Nix. It's also much more than a matter of synt

• georgyo 7y ago
  I have read that comment and such before. However it is still a fork. It started off with the same code base, and is being rewritten in guile from the top down. That rewrite is bring new features, differences, and makes them not compatible with each other. However, as they started off with the same code to me they will always be a fork. While something can evolve to something that is fully independent, it doesn't change it's origin. Also a fork is not bad word. Many successful "forks" become more popular than the original. To this day guix still uses the nix-daemon code, which is written in C. And they build system they used was hydra, written in perl. In fact http://hydra.gnu.org http://hydra.gnu.org used to say "download nix package". for everything. Cuirass is very recent, but you can still see that it still looks extremely similar to Nix's hydra. I think guix still has better porcelain (cli). Nix has much better discoverability and readability. I was going to show different files, however gnu.org NS servers seem to be down. Most importantly it isn't a competition. These two products existing only benefit each other as new ideas between them flow both ways.