3 ms·
1. Not sure how AppFS could have lower overhead than Nix in terms of removing the install step. 2. AppFS appears to be written by a user named rkeene, and I am
by one-punch 4y ago
1. Not sure how AppFS could have lower overhead than Nix in terms of removing the install step.
2. AppFS appears to be written by a user named rkeene, and I am replying to a comment by rkeene2. I think a disclosure would be helpful when comparing AppFS with other tools.
- rkeene2 4y agoNix has an install step to use a package, AppFS does not -- not having a step is easier than having one. If you want to use a package, you just use it. Additionally, I'm the author of AppFS.net just redirects you to AppFS.rkeene.org -- I'm not sure what kind of disclosure is needed when discussing it in this context though.
- one-punch 4y ago> Nix has an install step to use a package Not true. See "Using Nix to run software with no installation steps" https://determinate.systems/posts/nix-run https://determinate.systems/posts/nix-run for example. This feature has been one of the main use cases of Nix. > Nix has an install step ... AppFS does not... I'm the author of AppFS.net... I appreciate the disclosure, as it helps readers (like me) to judge the merits of your claims, especially regarding AppFS vs other options, and whether those claims could be biased (due to differences in familiarity, for example). > I'm not sure what kind of disclosure is needed... Over Hacker News and other forums, when the author of a tool wants to promote their work (nothing wrong with this, I learnt a lot with such promotions) in the context of competing tools, the following disclosures are common: 1. Disclosure: I wrote AppFS. 2. Author of AppFS here. (Just like what you did.) 3. Shameless plug. (Note: I personally do not see this as a shame, but I just want to give examples of common disclosure styles in such contexsts.)