3 ms·

> Reproducible is key here. I like the terms this article used: Divergent, Convergent, Congruent. https://blog.flyingcircus.io/2016/05/06/thoughts-on-systems-

> Reproducible is key here. I like the terms this article used: Divergent, Convergent, Congruent. https://blog.flyingcircus.io/2016/05/06/thoughts-on-systems-management-methods/ https://blog.flyingcircus.io/2016/05/06/thoughts-on-systems-... In a 'divergent' system (e.g. managed by bash scripts), the resulting system state might diverge from what the bash scripts have, because of manually running commands on the system. In a 'convergent' system, the system tries to reach a target state by comparing what's there with what it's got. In a 'congruent' system, the system is forcibly built to equal the target state.

temptemptemp111 3y ago
You guys keep saying this word "reproducibility" but I don't think you know what it means. Debian and Arch are more reproducible than NixOS.
- klysm 3y ago
  In what sense? I don’t think you’ve helped clarify your definition at all
  - rgoulter 3y ago
    Probably "reproducible" as in "reproducible build" https://reproducible-builds.org/ https://reproducible-builds.org/
    - klysm 3y ago
      Yea but nixos has reproducible builds
      - temptemptemp111 3y ago
        [dead]
- rgoulter 3y ago
  The term 'reproducible' in 'reproducible build' (https://reproducible-builds.org/ https://reproducible-builds.org/) conveys "bit-for-bit identical output". -- The benefit of that is security; others can compile the same sources and check that they get the same binaries. But more generally, 'reproduce' just means 'create the same thing again'. Nix uses "reproducible" in a more general sense: you provide the same inputs, and you'll get a program which behaves the same way, regardless of whether you compiled from source or downloaded binaries from a cache. IMO, I think "reproducible build" is enough to unambiguously refer to the former. But, if you can think of a nicer word for "you get the same behavior from the same inputs" than "reproducible", it would be worth suggesting.
  - temptemptemp111 3y ago
    [dead]

temptemptemp111 3y ago

You guys keep saying this word "reproducibility" but I don't think you know what it means. Debian and Arch are more reproducible than NixOS.

klysm 3y ago
In what sense? I don’t think you’ve helped clarify your definition at all
- rgoulter 3y ago
  Probably "reproducible" as in "reproducible build" https://reproducible-builds.org/ https://reproducible-builds.org/
  - klysm 3y ago
    Yea but nixos has reproducible builds
    - temptemptemp111 3y ago
      [dead]
rgoulter 3y ago
The term 'reproducible' in 'reproducible build' (https://reproducible-builds.org/ https://reproducible-builds.org/) conveys "bit-for-bit identical output". -- The benefit of that is security; others can compile the same sources and check that they get the same binaries. But more generally, 'reproduce' just means 'create the same thing again'. Nix uses "reproducible" in a more general sense: you provide the same inputs, and you'll get a program which behaves the same way, regardless of whether you compiled from source or downloaded binaries from a cache. IMO, I think "reproducible build" is enough to unambiguously refer to the former. But, if you can think of a nicer word for "you get the same behavior from the same inputs" than "reproducible", it would be worth suggesting.
- temptemptemp111 3y ago
  [dead]