4 ms·

> NixOS is awful except for everything else out there. Except Qubes OS that allows using original GNU/Linux distributions virtualized with a convenient interfa

> NixOS is awful except for everything else out there. Except Qubes OS that allows using original GNU/Linux distributions virtualized with a convenient interface.

processunknown 3y ago
I don’t associate convenience and QubesOS. Maybe convenient security, but thats about it.
- fsflover 3y ago
  Security is just one feature of Qubes OS. Another one is convenient separation of contexts. Works well for me: you do not see VMs but colorful windows with simple exchange of clipboard and files whenever needed. I am curious, what is inconvenient in it for you?
kaba0 3y ago
And what exactly do you run as those distributions? They will have all the same problems. That’s the same idea that Docker has — containers don’t solve packaging, they only push the problem down a layer.
- fsflover 3y ago
  Which the same problems? For example I do not worry that something can be broken, because I have, e.g., automatic system snapshots and dedicated VMs for testing. I run Fedora and Debian, but you can run many other distros: https://www.qubes-os.org/doc/#operating-system-guides https://www.qubes-os.org/doc/#operating-system-guides. > they only push the problem down a layer This is an interesting interpretation. For me Qubes fully solves, e.g., both the problems of system stability and flexibility.
__MatrixMan__ 3y ago
I have enjoyed using Qubes in the past, it's definitely a cool feeling having everything controllable via an abstraction that its author probably wasn't designing for. Feels powerful. But at the end of the day, those VM images, and any snapshots made, are opaque blobs of bits. Whatever shape they're in, you have nowhere to look to determine why they are the way they are--no recipe for recreating that state and sharing it with others (unless you want to share it ALL with others, and then only with others on the same architecture). You've got a lot of control, but only over these chunks of whatever happened to be there at that time. You're sort of trapped in one dimension. You can use snapshots to move backwards and forwards in time, but if the following paths don't lead to the same system state in some subtle way you're not going to know about the difference: path one: > add foo | add bar | remove foo path two: > add bar
- fsflover 3y ago
  > no recipe for recreating that state and sharing it with others Did you consider to use the Salt Stack, which is integrated into Qubes? https://forum.qubes-os.org/t/saltstack-challenges-and-experiences/3749 https://forum.qubes-os.org/t/saltstack-challenges-and-experi...
  - __MatrixMan__ 3y ago
    No, I was using Qubes in 2019 before that integration occurred. That does seem like it would scratch the itch. Do Qubes users treat Salt Stack formulae as packages these days?
    - fsflover 3y ago
      Not precisely, but a lot is going on in this direction: https://github.com/QubesOS/qubes-issues/issues/1939 https://github.com/QubesOS/qubes-issues/issues/1939.

> NixOS is awful except for everything else out there. Except Qubes OS that allows using original GNU/Linux distributions virtualized with a convenient interface.

processunknown 3y ago

I don’t associate convenience and QubesOS. Maybe convenient security, but thats about it.

fsflover 3y ago
Security is just one feature of Qubes OS. Another one is convenient separation of contexts. Works well for me: you do not see VMs but colorful windows with simple exchange of clipboard and files whenever needed. I am curious, what is inconvenient in it for you?

kaba0 3y ago

And what exactly do you run as those distributions? They will have all the same problems. That’s the same idea that Docker has — containers don’t solve packaging, they only push the problem down a layer.

fsflover 3y ago
Which the same problems? For example I do not worry that something can be broken, because I have, e.g., automatic system snapshots and dedicated VMs for testing. I run Fedora and Debian, but you can run many other distros: https://www.qubes-os.org/doc/#operating-system-guides https://www.qubes-os.org/doc/#operating-system-guides. > they only push the problem down a layer This is an interesting interpretation. For me Qubes fully solves, e.g., both the problems of system stability and flexibility.

__MatrixMan__ 3y ago

I have enjoyed using Qubes in the past, it's definitely a cool feeling having everything controllable via an abstraction that its author probably wasn't designing for. Feels powerful. But at the end of the day, those VM images, and any snapshots made, are opaque blobs of bits. Whatever shape they're in, you have nowhere to look to determine why they are the way they are--no recipe for recreating that state and sharing it with others (unless you want to share it ALL with others, and then only with others on the same architecture). You've got a lot of control, but only over these chunks of whatever happened to be there at that time. You're sort of trapped in one dimension. You can use snapshots to move backwards and forwards in time, but if the following paths don't lead to the same system state in some subtle way you're not going to know about the difference: path one: > add foo | add bar | remove foo path two: > add bar

fsflover 3y ago
> no recipe for recreating that state and sharing it with others Did you consider to use the Salt Stack, which is integrated into Qubes? https://forum.qubes-os.org/t/saltstack-challenges-and-experiences/3749 https://forum.qubes-os.org/t/saltstack-challenges-and-experi...
- __MatrixMan__ 3y ago
  No, I was using Qubes in 2019 before that integration occurred. That does seem like it would scratch the itch. Do Qubes users treat Salt Stack formulae as packages these days?
  - fsflover 3y ago
    Not precisely, but a lot is going on in this direction: https://github.com/QubesOS/qubes-issues/issues/1939 https://github.com/QubesOS/qubes-issues/issues/1939.