4 ms·
> It’s too bad guix went full hardcore FOSS and refuses to support macs, This is either a misunderstanding or misrepresentation of the issue. We don't refuse
by rekado 4y ago
> It’s too bad guix went full hardcore FOSS and refuses to support macs,
This is either a misunderstanding or misrepresentation of the issue. We don't refuse to support Macs. Consider this:
- the value of Guix is in building up a package graph all the way from the very bottom (a tiny binary seed without parallel in other distros); this uses glibc.
- glibc doesn't support Darwin
- the only way to build software on a mac is to sign an EULA and use proprietary software (Xcode and the SDK).
It's easier to build software for Windows than for a Mac. If it was about "full hardcore FOSS" (what a weirdly judgmental term!) then we wouldn't support building for WSL or cross-compilation to mingw64, but we do.
Personally, I have no interest in working my ass off to get a subpar implementation of the package graph grafted on top of a huge binary blob (Xcode and the SDK) just to elevate a highly restrictive proprietary platform.
Until Apple commissions this kind of work it is still preferable to just use Guix in a virtualized GNU system.
- tsuujin 4y ago> … just to elevate a highly restrictive proprietary platform. This is the attitude I’m referring to when I say “hardcore FOSS”. You can choose to see it as a judgement if you want, but I view it as an implementation detail precluding my use of Guix. “It’s hard and it’s not worth my time” is totally fine, I don’t expect projects to cater to my needs; but it’s worth calling out that it really seems like your chief complaint is that Apple is not FOSS (aka: proprietary).
- rekado 4y agoI can't build any software for macos without signing a contract and buying their hardware. The fact that it is proprietary is the obstacle here.