3 ms·

> One docker file and a poetry file works just as well. And is simpler. It's literally the same thing but using os primitives to manage the environment rather t

> One docker file and a poetry file works just as well. And is simpler. It's literally the same thing but using os primitives to manage the environment rather then shell tricks. Makes more sense to me to use a dedicated os primitive for the task it was designed to be used for. 1) not just as well because docker is repeatable, not reproducible 2) not if you need GPU acceleration which is a headache in docker, but not Nix shells > Additionally docker-compose allows you to manage a constellation of environments simultaneously. This is nowhere near as straightforward with nix. - devenv.sh - arion - https://flakular.in/intro https://flakular.in/intro > Most people won't know what to do with a shell.nix The same was once true for Dockerfile

corethree 3y ago
>1) not just as well because docker is repeatable, not reproducible Not sure what you're saying here but most likely you're referring to some obscure pedantic difference. Effectively speaking docker and nix shell achieve similar objectives. >2) not if you need GPU acceleration which is a headache in docker, but not Nix shells This is true. But this is the only clear benefit I see. >- devenv.sh - arion - https://flakular.in/intro https://flakular.in/intro right. So? I said nowhere near as straightforward. This isn't straightforward. It's an obscure solution. >The same was once true for Dockerfile False. DockerFiles are much more intuitive because it's just a declarative config. With Nix shell it's mostly people who like haskell or OCaml who are into that style of syntax. I like it but clearly that syntax has not caught on for years and years and years. Quite likely Nix will never catch on to that level too.
- ElectricalUnion 3y ago
  https://martinfowler.com/bliki/ReproducibleBuild.html https://martinfowler.com/bliki/ReproducibleBuild.html and https://wiki.debian.org/ReproducibleBuilds https://wiki.debian.org/ReproducibleBuilds and https://reproducible-builds.org/ https://reproducible-builds.org/ says just because something is "repeatable", doesn't mean it is "reproducible".
  - corethree 3y ago
    byte for byte builds? I knew it was some pedantic thing. I'm sorry if some timestamp changes one byte of the build.
    - ParetoOptimal 3y ago
      No, the biggest issue is you rebuild an image that has apt-update and 20 dependencies break.
- bigstrat2003 3y ago
  I assume what they're getting at is that when you download a Docker image it'll always be the same (repeatable), but the image which is built from a Dockerfile may change even if the file does not (not reproducible).
  - ParetoOptimal 3y ago
    Yes, exactly.

corethree 3y ago

>1) not just as well because docker is repeatable, not reproducible Not sure what you're saying here but most likely you're referring to some obscure pedantic difference. Effectively speaking docker and nix shell achieve similar objectives. >2) not if you need GPU acceleration which is a headache in docker, but not Nix shells This is true. But this is the only clear benefit I see. >- devenv.sh - arion - https://flakular.in/intro https://flakular.in/intro right. So? I said nowhere near as straightforward. This isn't straightforward. It's an obscure solution. >The same was once true for Dockerfile False. DockerFiles are much more intuitive because it's just a declarative config. With Nix shell it's mostly people who like haskell or OCaml who are into that style of syntax. I like it but clearly that syntax has not caught on for years and years and years. Quite likely Nix will never catch on to that level too.

ElectricalUnion 3y ago
https://martinfowler.com/bliki/ReproducibleBuild.html https://martinfowler.com/bliki/ReproducibleBuild.html and https://wiki.debian.org/ReproducibleBuilds https://wiki.debian.org/ReproducibleBuilds and https://reproducible-builds.org/ https://reproducible-builds.org/ says just because something is "repeatable", doesn't mean it is "reproducible".
- corethree 3y ago
  byte for byte builds? I knew it was some pedantic thing. I'm sorry if some timestamp changes one byte of the build.
  - ParetoOptimal 3y ago
    No, the biggest issue is you rebuild an image that has apt-update and 20 dependencies break.
bigstrat2003 3y ago
I assume what they're getting at is that when you download a Docker image it'll always be the same (repeatable), but the image which is built from a Dockerfile may change even if the file does not (not reproducible).
- ParetoOptimal 3y ago
  Yes, exactly.