4 ms·

I agree with everything you just said. I really like the idea behind NixOS - write a config and apply it, all containerised, but I never had a chance to try it

I agree with everything you just said. I really like the idea behind NixOS - write a config and apply it, all containerised, but I never had a chance to try it until recently when I got a new laptop at work. But after 3 months I updated my Ansible playbook, added things I needed for work, went back to Arch and couldn't be happier. With NixOS it felt like there was an extra maintenance fee for doing regular Linux things. It just wasn't worth it for me.

poincaredisk 2y ago
I'm a bit surprised to read it - for me I configured my system years ago and it just "keeps working" (I very rarely need to edit my configuration, for trying new programs I just spawn a nix-shell). Though I agree that first time doing anything has an additional cost - for example configuring my HP printer was maybe three lines of nix code, but I had to spend some time with forums to write them. On the other hand, I now just reuse these lines everywhere and don't have to think about it at all. For me that's a lot of time saved. It's entirely possible you're using OS differently than I do, and cost/benefit calculation is different for you.
- _fsql 2y ago
  If NixOS works well for you, that's great! But from my perspective, the whole NixOS model adds unnecessary complexity and makes you learn ways to do things that don’t really translate to other Linux systems. The directory structure in NixOS is different and doesn't follow the FHS (Filesystem Hierarchy Standard) and the system uses a bunch of symbolic links that feel like "hacks" to keep some kind of compatibility with the FHS. For example, if you want NixOS to recognize paths like /bin or /usr/bin in your scripts, you have to enable services.envfs.enable in your configuration.nix or in a .nix module. If something goes wrong in NixOS, you might run into multiple issues because the problem could be within NixOS, the underlying system, nixpkgs, upstream packages, or a mix of all these factors. Sure, it might save you time in some situations, but when a problem pops up, you'll find yourself in a tricky spot since you’ll have to dig through all the layers of the system to find the root cause. On top of that, you’ll have to sift through the options and the documentation, which can often be pretty confusing.
_fsql 2y ago
With NixOS, you simply use Nix to configure a file that in turn configures other files that configure other packages, and you have to rely on the new path and variable definitions created by the maintainers of NixOS for upstream programs. So, you need to learn that if the program used A, in NixOS it's B -> A -> does the job (although it's not that simple). That's why, when you use NixOS, you feel like you're working twice as hard, while Arch Linux aims to be transparent by exposing the system structure without adding a ton of crap complexity like NixOS does.

poincaredisk 2y ago

I'm a bit surprised to read it - for me I configured my system years ago and it just "keeps working" (I very rarely need to edit my configuration, for trying new programs I just spawn a nix-shell). Though I agree that first time doing anything has an additional cost - for example configuring my HP printer was maybe three lines of nix code, but I had to spend some time with forums to write them. On the other hand, I now just reuse these lines everywhere and don't have to think about it at all. For me that's a lot of time saved. It's entirely possible you're using OS differently than I do, and cost/benefit calculation is different for you.

_fsql 2y ago
If NixOS works well for you, that's great! But from my perspective, the whole NixOS model adds unnecessary complexity and makes you learn ways to do things that don’t really translate to other Linux systems. The directory structure in NixOS is different and doesn't follow the FHS (Filesystem Hierarchy Standard) and the system uses a bunch of symbolic links that feel like "hacks" to keep some kind of compatibility with the FHS. For example, if you want NixOS to recognize paths like /bin or /usr/bin in your scripts, you have to enable services.envfs.enable in your configuration.nix or in a .nix module. If something goes wrong in NixOS, you might run into multiple issues because the problem could be within NixOS, the underlying system, nixpkgs, upstream packages, or a mix of all these factors. Sure, it might save you time in some situations, but when a problem pops up, you'll find yourself in a tricky spot since you’ll have to dig through all the layers of the system to find the root cause. On top of that, you’ll have to sift through the options and the documentation, which can often be pretty confusing.

_fsql 2y ago

With NixOS, you simply use Nix to configure a file that in turn configures other files that configure other packages, and you have to rely on the new path and variable definitions created by the maintainers of NixOS for upstream programs. So, you need to learn that if the program used A, in NixOS it's B -> A -> does the job (although it's not that simple). That's why, when you use NixOS, you feel like you're working twice as hard, while Arch Linux aims to be transparent by exposing the system structure without adding a ton of crap complexity like NixOS does.