4 ms·

I am not particularly happy with Flatpak - I still think it mixes up two things (packaging, sandbox), and is not particularly good at the former. Nix actually s

by kaba0 3y ago

I am not particularly happy with Flatpak - I still think it mixes up two things (packaging, sandbox), and is not particularly good at the former. Nix actually solves the former issue, and does so splendidly. I would much rather see better sandboxes for linux.

pmoriarty 3y ago
Agreed, though I'd much rather see this done with Guix.
aseipp 3y ago
Well, Nix mostly solves that issue so well due to a continuous massive offering of blood and sweat though, let's not kid ourselves. It's a significant amount of work to package arbitrary software because arbitrary software does weird and bizarre things. But IMO the fundamental principles underlying the design are sound and granular compared to most of the alternatives, though, that's for sure.
- whateveracct 3y ago
  Luckily (at least for me) Nix makes building and packaging arbitrary software fun. There's something to hacking derivations together, reading documentation, seeing it build and work. At this point, there isn't a C project I can't package in fewer than a handful of sittings. Even when patches are involved!
jahewson 3y ago
Nix is great conceptually but after 20 years of boiling the ocean, I would call the experience difficult and erratic, not “splendid”.
- lostmsu 3y ago
  Dang, I was about to turn my considering trying Nix into practice.
jzb 3y ago
I really don’t see how this comment is relevant to the conversation at hand. None of this is about sandboxing libreoffice. It’s simply about a delivery method of getting a libreoffice on a system. Nix is absolutely 1000% not a mainstream solution that’s better than Flatpak for this. If your hobby is tinkering with Nix and marveling at its supposed technical superiority, more power to you. It is absolutely not relevant to this conversation.
- kaba0 3y ago
  If I start up a nix shell with libreoffice installed within it, I will reliably get the same configuration the packager intended — so it is as relevant as it gets: if packaged correctly it will work on every system where tool X is installed. I just replaced X=flatpak with nix.
  - jzb 3y ago
    I see the goalposts have moved again, now we're on "reliably get the same configuration...." The conversation is about Red Hat not packaging LibreOffice for RHEL. The options in scope here are RPM or Flatpak. Nix isn't even under consideration. You jumped in to complain about not being happy with Flatpak because it's not good at sandboxing. Nobody brought up sandboxing until you waded in about Nix. It's tedious how any conversation about anything remotely related to packaging or pretty much anything, somebody has to show up stanning for Nix.

by kaba0 3y ago

pmoriarty 3y ago

Agreed, though I'd much rather see this done with Guix.

aseipp 3y ago

Well, Nix mostly solves that issue so well due to a continuous massive offering of blood and sweat though, let's not kid ourselves. It's a significant amount of work to package arbitrary software because arbitrary software does weird and bizarre things. But IMO the fundamental principles underlying the design are sound and granular compared to most of the alternatives, though, that's for sure.

whateveracct 3y ago
Luckily (at least for me) Nix makes building and packaging arbitrary software fun. There's something to hacking derivations together, reading documentation, seeing it build and work. At this point, there isn't a C project I can't package in fewer than a handful of sittings. Even when patches are involved!

jahewson 3y ago

Nix is great conceptually but after 20 years of boiling the ocean, I would call the experience difficult and erratic, not “splendid”.

lostmsu 3y ago
Dang, I was about to turn my considering trying Nix into practice.

jzb 3y ago

I really don’t see how this comment is relevant to the conversation at hand. None of this is about sandboxing libreoffice. It’s simply about a delivery method of getting a libreoffice on a system. Nix is absolutely 1000% not a mainstream solution that’s better than Flatpak for this. If your hobby is tinkering with Nix and marveling at its supposed technical superiority, more power to you. It is absolutely not relevant to this conversation.

kaba0 3y ago
If I start up a nix shell with libreoffice installed within it, I will reliably get the same configuration the packager intended — so it is as relevant as it gets: if packaged correctly it will work on every system where tool X is installed. I just replaced X=flatpak with nix.
- jzb 3y ago
  I see the goalposts have moved again, now we're on "reliably get the same configuration...." The conversation is about Red Hat not packaging LibreOffice for RHEL. The options in scope here are RPM or Flatpak. Nix isn't even under consideration. You jumped in to complain about not being happy with Flatpak because it's not good at sandboxing. Nobody brought up sandboxing until you waded in about Nix. It's tedious how any conversation about anything remotely related to packaging or pretty much anything, somebody has to show up stanning for Nix.