3 ms·
I'd say about 90% of the pain in NixOS comes from its non-FHS (Filesystem Hierarchy Standard) layout. But that's also a fundamental part of Nix/NixOS's design-i
by Mathnerd314 1y ago
I'd say about 90% of the pain in NixOS comes from its non-FHS (Filesystem Hierarchy Standard) layout. But that's also a fundamental part of Nix/NixOS's design-it was built that way from the start.
For complex packages like Steam, it's both possible and recommended to use FHS-compatible containers on NixOS. Still, I've seen people say things like, "All I do is set up containers-why not just use Docker instead of NixOS?" The thing is, if you dig deeper, tools like Docker or Flatpak are actually less powerful than Nix when it comes to container management.
I've been toying with an idea: using filesystem access tracing to replace the current approach of using random hashes for isolation. This could allow an FHS-style layout while preserving many of the guarantees of the Nix model. It would dramatically improve compatibility out-of-the-box, enable capabilities that aren't possible today, and reduce network and disk usage-since files could be modified in-place instead of being remade or redownloaded.
It's on my backlog, though. Starting a new distro doesn't seem particularly rewarding at the moment.