4 ms·

There is some somewhat confusing naming here, and I believe it is the cause of your confusion. There is a operating system named Nixos. It uses a package manag

There is some somewhat confusing naming here, and I believe it is the cause of your confusion. There is a operating system named Nixos. It uses a package manager called Nix. The package manager can be installed in other operating systems. The package manager is configured using a functional language also called Nix. What you installed was either the package manager, or a interpreter for the language. They could've named these things better IMO

bogwog 5y ago
Guix (https://guix.gnu.org/ https://guix.gnu.org/) is a similar project, and it has the same issue regarding confusing terminology. I wonder if adoption of these otherwise awesome projects would improve if they did a better job with communication?
trenchgun 5y ago
I don't think it is confusing. There is a package manager Nix, and a distro built around it, NixOS. And the package repository Nixpkgs. What is confusing however, is that the configuration language and the package manager have the same name, Nix.
- zzzeek 5y ago
  in my experience (writing SQLAlchemy) it's good to give all of the "<Brandname>" titles a suffix. That is, instead of having "Nix" and "Nix OS", you would have, "Nix Package Manager" and "Nix OS". I had *exactly* the same experience with SQLAlchemy. for years and years, it was, "SQLAlchemy" and "SQLAlchemy ORM". The online discussion was always the same: "ORMs, I like ORMs, I dont like ORMs, blah blah blah" and constantly trying to say, "SQLAlchemy has a whole non-ORM part too!" and this was only vaguely received. Problem was 90% solved by *changing the name*, introducing the new term "SQLAlchemy Core": SQLAlchemy Core SQLAlchemy ORM now when people talk about SQLAlchemy, you will regularly see discussions with "I only use Core, not ORM" or "did you try that with Core?" There are still people who think SQLAlchemy is in its entirety an ORM but it's a vastly thinner slice of less engaged users -the path to understanding the different components is helped enormously by qualifying them all.

bogwog 5y ago

Guix (https://guix.gnu.org/ https://guix.gnu.org/) is a similar project, and it has the same issue regarding confusing terminology. I wonder if adoption of these otherwise awesome projects would improve if they did a better job with communication?

trenchgun 5y ago

I don't think it is confusing. There is a package manager Nix, and a distro built around it, NixOS. And the package repository Nixpkgs. What is confusing however, is that the configuration language and the package manager have the same name, Nix.

zzzeek 5y ago
in my experience (writing SQLAlchemy) it's good to give all of the "<Brandname>" titles a suffix. That is, instead of having "Nix" and "Nix OS", you would have, "Nix Package Manager" and "Nix OS". I had *exactly* the same experience with SQLAlchemy. for years and years, it was, "SQLAlchemy" and "SQLAlchemy ORM". The online discussion was always the same: "ORMs, I like ORMs, I dont like ORMs, blah blah blah" and constantly trying to say, "SQLAlchemy has a whole non-ORM part too!" and this was only vaguely received. Problem was 90% solved by *changing the name*, introducing the new term "SQLAlchemy Core": SQLAlchemy Core SQLAlchemy ORM now when people talk about SQLAlchemy, you will regularly see discussions with "I only use Core, not ORM" or "did you try that with Core?" There are still people who think SQLAlchemy is in its entirety an ORM but it's a vastly thinner slice of less engaged users -the path to understanding the different components is helped enormously by qualifying them all.