Re: [OT, deeply] Guix
On Mon 08 Nov 2021 at 22:16:20 (-0500), Stefan Monnier wrote:
> >> >> In contrast, with NixOS/Guix that list is available in a plain text
> >> >> editable file.
> > I'm not sure I'd call scheme a "plain text".
>
> Interesting. What I mean is a file that's intended to be manipulated by
> a text editor rather than by some other program. It might *also* be
> manipulated by other programs, but often it makes things more complicated.
>
> It usually means that its visual presentation is intended to be
> human-readable (e.g. with indentation and comments to help understand
> the structure and intention).
> [ That's what makes it hard to manipulate with other programs, since
> you need to preserve layout and comments whose meaning relates to
> intentions (i.e. hard to formalize) and hence difficult to preserve
> other than by another human. ]
That's rather a stretch. If the text is /structured/, it's not Plain
Text. Sure, it's a text file and not binary, but that's usual for
Linux OSes. Here (Guix), it's actually source code written in guile,
a scheme variant AIUI. (For Nix, it's some other language.)
Earlier,
> I would love to see Debian move towards a model like that of NixOS or
> Guix. One of the main benefits I see of those systems is that it has
> a declarative description of what the system should contain.
I can't see the point. You can have the Guix package manager¹ now, as
it allegedly installs on top of "foreign distros" (their term). It
appears to me that you need well-resourced machines to benefit by its
ability to have different versions of packages for the system, and
yet more for individual users. I'm not typically in that position.
And I don't see how you track security with all those versions around.
I'll be sticking with APT for the time being.
¹ I think it's misguided to call the package manager and the
OS? / Distribution? / whatever it is by the same name.
Cheers,
David.
Reply to: