3 ms·

Reproducibility in a system that itself changes over time isn't valuable. Fedora makes releases every 6 months. Why bother reproducing something that's going to

Reproducibility in a system that itself changes over time isn't valuable. Fedora makes releases every 6 months. Why bother reproducing something that's going to change in 6 months. It makes sense in the context of individual pieces of software where you control the release schedule. Not in a system that is continuously updating itself.

pshirshov 1y ago
> Reproducibility in a system that itself changes over time isn't valuable. Please educate yourself. > Why bother reproducing something Yes-yes, a very good question.
- vinceguidry 1y ago
  Wikipedia shares my assessment: > Reproducible builds, also known as deterministic compilation, is a process of compiling software which ensures the resulting binary code can be reproduced. Source code compiled using deterministic compilation will always output the same binary.[1][2][3] An operating system isn't a binary executable. You're gonna need to come at me with more than RTFM my bro.
  - pshirshov 1y ago
    > Wikipedia shares my assessment Everything is wrong with this statement but no, please educate yourself. > An operating system isn't a binary executable In many cases it exactly is a binary executable, but in some cases one may say that it's just a binary blob containing a filesystem image. If you can build with any level of reproducibility, you are doing great.
    - vinceguidry 1y ago
      You're not making your case very well, and claiming it to be a matter of education isn't helping. You can't just say someone is wrong without actually articulating why and expect to sound smart. Yes you can attempt to build operating systems in a manner that approaches the way you'd use to build an executable. But you're chasing after a moving target and there's not that much benefit in putting in the work, and the reason why is the exact thesis of the article. What you lack isn't education, it's experience. Experience to determine what is a good use of time and what doesn't matter. Experience to determine how to approach implementing ideas like reproducibility without shooting yourself in the foot, as the author did. Experience you gain by screwing it up and learning the lesson. It sounds to me like you screw stuff up and don't learn the lesson, leaving you to develop hard-headed idealistic positions like this one that you rely on in lieu of said experience.
      - pshirshov 1y ago
        > You can't just say someone is wrong without actually articulating I can, I just did it. > But you're chasing after a moving target Please educate yourself. Read about bootstrap, hermeticity and reproducibility. Nix has a byte-to-byte reproducible core and that is very important and valuable.
        vinceguidry 1y ago
        Nerd. > byte for byte reproducible core Whoop de doo. What about the other 9000 parts?
- yjftsjthsd-h 1y ago
  > Please educate yourself. Unless you substantiate it, this is not a constructive response. (To take a stab at a useful answer: Being able to perfectly reproduce a system is actually quite helpful when changing things, because the easier it is to roll back the safer it is to roll forward.)
  - vinceguidry 1y ago
    It would be helpful, if it were possible. But an operating system consists of thousands of independently changeable components, any of which can stop being available at any time. You'd have to vendor all your dependencies for your builds to truly be reproducible. The Arch system is flexible and is designed to account for this. It offers something better than reproducibility imo.
    - yjftsjthsd-h 1y ago
      > But an operating system consists of thousands of independently changeable components, any of which can stop being available at any time. You'd have to vendor all your dependencies for your builds to truly be reproducible. Er, yeah, that's why NixOS, like many distros, keeps public archives of packages and their source (see the discussion at https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36261492 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36261492 )
      - vinceguidry 1y ago
        Didn't know that, thanks! Won't get me off Arch. Wait. There's one thing that might sway me. Do they offer a systemd-less option? Edit: found it: https://codeberg.org/amjoseph/sixos https://codeberg.org/amjoseph/sixos Too new to rely on, sadly. Maybe in a few years.

pshirshov 1y ago

> Reproducibility in a system that itself changes over time isn't valuable. Please educate yourself. > Why bother reproducing something Yes-yes, a very good question.

vinceguidry 1y ago
Wikipedia shares my assessment: > Reproducible builds, also known as deterministic compilation, is a process of compiling software which ensures the resulting binary code can be reproduced. Source code compiled using deterministic compilation will always output the same binary.[1][2][3] An operating system isn't a binary executable. You're gonna need to come at me with more than RTFM my bro.
- pshirshov 1y ago
  > Wikipedia shares my assessment Everything is wrong with this statement but no, please educate yourself. > An operating system isn't a binary executable In many cases it exactly is a binary executable, but in some cases one may say that it's just a binary blob containing a filesystem image. If you can build with any level of reproducibility, you are doing great.
  - vinceguidry 1y ago
    You're not making your case very well, and claiming it to be a matter of education isn't helping. You can't just say someone is wrong without actually articulating why and expect to sound smart. Yes you can attempt to build operating systems in a manner that approaches the way you'd use to build an executable. But you're chasing after a moving target and there's not that much benefit in putting in the work, and the reason why is the exact thesis of the article. What you lack isn't education, it's experience. Experience to determine what is a good use of time and what doesn't matter. Experience to determine how to approach implementing ideas like reproducibility without shooting yourself in the foot, as the author did. Experience you gain by screwing it up and learning the lesson. It sounds to me like you screw stuff up and don't learn the lesson, leaving you to develop hard-headed idealistic positions like this one that you rely on in lieu of said experience.
    - pshirshov 1y ago
      > You can't just say someone is wrong without actually articulating I can, I just did it. > But you're chasing after a moving target Please educate yourself. Read about bootstrap, hermeticity and reproducibility. Nix has a byte-to-byte reproducible core and that is very important and valuable.
      - vinceguidry 1y ago
        Nerd. > byte for byte reproducible core Whoop de doo. What about the other 9000 parts?
yjftsjthsd-h 1y ago
> Please educate yourself. Unless you substantiate it, this is not a constructive response. (To take a stab at a useful answer: Being able to perfectly reproduce a system is actually quite helpful when changing things, because the easier it is to roll back the safer it is to roll forward.)
- vinceguidry 1y ago
  It would be helpful, if it were possible. But an operating system consists of thousands of independently changeable components, any of which can stop being available at any time. You'd have to vendor all your dependencies for your builds to truly be reproducible. The Arch system is flexible and is designed to account for this. It offers something better than reproducibility imo.
  - yjftsjthsd-h 1y ago
    > But an operating system consists of thousands of independently changeable components, any of which can stop being available at any time. You'd have to vendor all your dependencies for your builds to truly be reproducible. Er, yeah, that's why NixOS, like many distros, keeps public archives of packages and their source (see the discussion at https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36261492 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36261492 )
    - vinceguidry 1y ago
      Didn't know that, thanks! Won't get me off Arch. Wait. There's one thing that might sway me. Do they offer a systemd-less option? Edit: found it: https://codeberg.org/amjoseph/sixos https://codeberg.org/amjoseph/sixos Too new to rely on, sadly. Maybe in a few years.