3 ms·

What about GUIX ? I tried using it, but the slow-repos, and weird bugs on my laptop (which needs proprietary blobs) put me off. I very much would prefer using

What about GUIX ? I tried using it, but the slow-repos, and weird bugs on my laptop (which needs proprietary blobs) put me off. I very much would prefer using scheme to Nix lang but the eco-system is far smaller.

mtndew4brkfst 2y ago
Yeap, proprietary software and firmware are dealbreakers for me too.
justahuman74 2y ago
Do we just need a compromise-happy downstream of guix, much like ubuntu of debian?
brabel 2y ago
I really like the idea and architecture of GUIX and I find it like a better design overall than Nix... but unfortunately, being under the GNU, support for proprietary firmware and Operating Systems (i.e. Mac and Windows) makes it really hard for most of us who are using those systems and don't really feel like running a VM just to use whatever software. I wish they had a separate spinoff that just made sure their software can run on Windows and MacOS, something like exists for emacs, but I think that the challenges are pretty big as they appear to rely on Linux-only APIs?
- KingMob 2y ago
  The challenges are more political than technological. They prefer not to compromise their choice to use only Free Software, which is their right, of course. However, I've run into a GUIX person or two who frame it as a technical issue because something like macOS lacks a completely verifiable build chain (i.e., needing to use XCode to bootstrap). This is a factual statement, but not the real reason why support for macos/windows is absent.
  - rekado 2y ago
    What is the real reason then? Please enlighten me, because I have been blocked by these technical issues in my past attempts to bring Guix to macOS. Guix is built around glibc and there is no glibc port for macOS. Using XCode for everything is like replacing a bicycle drive train with a steam engine; I guess it's still a vehicle of some sort, but Theseus is still unhappy with his new ship. You can use Guix on macOS with https://superkamiguru.org/projects/msg.html https://superkamiguru.org/projects/msg.html, but it's probably not what people want when they ask for macOS support.
    - KingMob 2y ago
      > What is the real reason then? Unwillingness to compromise, as you might recall from our last conversation on the topic. This is your right, but framing it as a technical problem is incorrect. > there is no glibc port for macOS https://formulae.brew.sh/formula/glibc https://formulae.brew.sh/formula/glibc clearly proves otherwise. It just can't be built to your satisfaction with complete verifiability. > Using XCode for everything You don't have to use it for everything, that's a straw man. If Guix-darwin was willing to accept some impurity, you could probably use XCode just enough to bootstrap a glibc and compiler chain, and then dispense with it. Having a completely verifiable toolchain is a laudable political goal, not a technical requirement. nix-darwin's existence clearly shows there are no technical obstacles to an equivalent guix-darwin. Believe me, I wanted to like Guix. I'd prefer a Lisp over the nix language, easily. But I'm losing respect for the project based on its messengers.
      - rekado 2y ago
        Clearly we do not have a shared understanding of identity.
        KingMob 2y ago
        We don't have a shared understanding of something, because I don't know what you're referring to by "identity" there. (If you're referring to "identity of who we're talking to", I can link you to our previous HN conversation, which is pretty similar to this one.)
- rekado 2y ago
  Guix has the nonguix channel, which provides the vanilla Linux kernel and other packages that contain blobs or nonfree parts: https://gitlab.com/nonguix/nonguix/ https://gitlab.com/nonguix/nonguix/

mtndew4brkfst 2y ago

Yeap, proprietary software and firmware are dealbreakers for me too.

justahuman74 2y ago

Do we just need a compromise-happy downstream of guix, much like ubuntu of debian?

brabel 2y ago

I really like the idea and architecture of GUIX and I find it like a better design overall than Nix... but unfortunately, being under the GNU, support for proprietary firmware and Operating Systems (i.e. Mac and Windows) makes it really hard for most of us who are using those systems and don't really feel like running a VM just to use whatever software. I wish they had a separate spinoff that just made sure their software can run on Windows and MacOS, something like exists for emacs, but I think that the challenges are pretty big as they appear to rely on Linux-only APIs?

KingMob 2y ago
The challenges are more political than technological. They prefer not to compromise their choice to use only Free Software, which is their right, of course. However, I've run into a GUIX person or two who frame it as a technical issue because something like macOS lacks a completely verifiable build chain (i.e., needing to use XCode to bootstrap). This is a factual statement, but not the real reason why support for macos/windows is absent.
- rekado 2y ago
  What is the real reason then? Please enlighten me, because I have been blocked by these technical issues in my past attempts to bring Guix to macOS. Guix is built around glibc and there is no glibc port for macOS. Using XCode for everything is like replacing a bicycle drive train with a steam engine; I guess it's still a vehicle of some sort, but Theseus is still unhappy with his new ship. You can use Guix on macOS with https://superkamiguru.org/projects/msg.html https://superkamiguru.org/projects/msg.html, but it's probably not what people want when they ask for macOS support.
  - KingMob 2y ago
    > What is the real reason then? Unwillingness to compromise, as you might recall from our last conversation on the topic. This is your right, but framing it as a technical problem is incorrect. > there is no glibc port for macOS https://formulae.brew.sh/formula/glibc https://formulae.brew.sh/formula/glibc clearly proves otherwise. It just can't be built to your satisfaction with complete verifiability. > Using XCode for everything You don't have to use it for everything, that's a straw man. If Guix-darwin was willing to accept some impurity, you could probably use XCode just enough to bootstrap a glibc and compiler chain, and then dispense with it. Having a completely verifiable toolchain is a laudable political goal, not a technical requirement. nix-darwin's existence clearly shows there are no technical obstacles to an equivalent guix-darwin. Believe me, I wanted to like Guix. I'd prefer a Lisp over the nix language, easily. But I'm losing respect for the project based on its messengers.
    - rekado 2y ago
      Clearly we do not have a shared understanding of identity.
      - KingMob 2y ago
        We don't have a shared understanding of something, because I don't know what you're referring to by "identity" there. (If you're referring to "identity of who we're talking to", I can link you to our previous HN conversation, which is pretty similar to this one.)
rekado 2y ago
Guix has the nonguix channel, which provides the vanilla Linux kernel and other packages that contain blobs or nonfree parts: https://gitlab.com/nonguix/nonguix/ https://gitlab.com/nonguix/nonguix/