3 ms·

>Nix gives you a similar system from a given config, when it works Not going to lie, I either don't understand what you're saying, or don't understand the shad

>Nix gives you a similar system from a given config, when it works Not going to lie, I either don't understand what you're saying, or don't understand the shade you're trying to throw. Nix is going to do as good, or better a job, than any other solution other there. Probably with a lot less duck-tape. Not to mention that much of Nix packages are reliably bit-for-bit reproducible. Not to not to mention that bit-for-bit reproducability is really only beneficial for "trust", not reliability or re-playability. And no, comparing Nix to Gentoo in this case only very much confirms you don't understand Nix. Maybe you should check out the talk from a past NixCon where the speaker rebuilds Firefox from 10 years ago and boots up Flash swfs.

compiler-guy 2y ago
> Nix is going to do as good, or better a job, than any other solution other there. Bazel does this sort of thing remarkably well. Internal to google, it provides a multi-billion line monorepo with deterministic, highly-concurrent, bit-wise identical builds. I'm not as familiar with Nix, but knowing what it takes for Bazel to do it, I would be surprised if Nix is as good. > Probably with a lot less duck-tape. And that is probably true.
hansvm 2y ago
> shade There is none. Nix does lots of great things, like that Firefox demo you mentioned. TFA wants bitwise identical builds, and Nix isn't great at that in general, by their own admission. > various praises for Nix Yep, Nix is great. > downplaying TFA's wants That's worth writing somewhere probably, but not when arguing that Nix solves their problem. If their problem isn't real then potato peelers solve it just as well. Nix isn't really relevant at that point. > Nix compared to Gentoo The commonality is that neither solve TFA's problem, and neither try very hard to do so.
Foxboron 2y ago
> Not to mention that much of Nix packages are reliably bit-for-bit reproducible. We don't know that. Nobody has even attempted to build more then an incredibly small fraction of the packages `nixpkgs` provides.

compiler-guy 2y ago

> Nix is going to do as good, or better a job, than any other solution other there. Bazel does this sort of thing remarkably well. Internal to google, it provides a multi-billion line monorepo with deterministic, highly-concurrent, bit-wise identical builds. I'm not as familiar with Nix, but knowing what it takes for Bazel to do it, I would be surprised if Nix is as good. > Probably with a lot less duck-tape. And that is probably true.

hansvm 2y ago

> shade There is none. Nix does lots of great things, like that Firefox demo you mentioned. TFA wants bitwise identical builds, and Nix isn't great at that in general, by their own admission. > various praises for Nix Yep, Nix is great. > downplaying TFA's wants That's worth writing somewhere probably, but not when arguing that Nix solves their problem. If their problem isn't real then potato peelers solve it just as well. Nix isn't really relevant at that point. > Nix compared to Gentoo The commonality is that neither solve TFA's problem, and neither try very hard to do so.

Foxboron 2y ago

> Not to mention that much of Nix packages are reliably bit-for-bit reproducible. We don't know that. Nobody has even attempted to build more then an incredibly small fraction of the packages `nixpkgs` provides.