28
Nix project: ban? What ban?
(discourse.nixos.org)
this is FreeAssembly, a non-toxic design, programming, and art collective. post your share-alike (CC SA, GPL, BSD, or similar) projects here! collaboration is welcome, and mutual education is too.
in brief, this community is the awful.systems answer to Hacker News. read this article for a solid summary of why having a less toxic collaborative community is important from a technical standpoint in addition to a social one.
some posting guidelines apply in addition to the typical awful.systems stuff:
(logo credit, with modifications by @dgerard@awful.systems)
You don't have to release anything. Most of my flakes are on private storage in my homelab, including my homelab configuration, and I don't feel any obligation to contribute anything upstream right now.
Don't let them take the Nix language from us. Focus on what's important: nixpkgs can be forked trivially and everything will continue to work, because that's the point of Nix. They can't disempower us other than by insisting that we don't have voices on their committees.
Agreed that releasing stuff isn’t necessary, especially stuff propping up the ecosystem.
Unfortunately, I think the rest of your statements are exactly inverted: the nixpkgs repo is pretty difficult to fork (moves fast, needs expensive CI/caches to properly operate), and while we may still have the nix expression language (and hey, lix is a good implementation of it!), I’m getting more and more convinced that it is not such a blessing.
The phd thesis though, that one is pretty good (currently reading it for realsies); lots of good ideas in it, regardless one’s thoughts about the expression language (:
For this reason, Tvix (a modular Nix implementation) cites compatibility with nixpkgs as one of their goals:
https://tvl.fyi/blog/rewriting-nix
Yup, there are a few efforts out there like that, I would group aux and lix in with them, as ecosystem-compatible parts.
My feeling these days is that the ecosystem is kinda screwy on a fundamental level, and I’m willing to blame the unhealthy focus on “purity” (both the word and the concept) for a good part of that. The language you use to define packages and systems doesn’t need to be lazily evaluated and purely functional; nothing needs to be, that is a lesson freely available to be learned coming out of the early 2000s.
Anyway, here I am slowly reading through the doctoral thesis, picking out the (several) grains of corn that make up the really good and solid ideas that make it a useful system; maybe a thing can be made that adds a bit of pragmatism… and then a lot of effort can be poured into that, unpragmatically.