GNU DEATH BATTLE

In a fight to the death who wins?
Personally I am a big fan of the idea of compiling my own packages, got a big learning curve though as currently I've been using artix with the AUR and have a few proprietary softwares I use very often.
But the fundamental redesign of a package manager in guix seems unbeatable, its like having an actual compiled .exe which does not ever break minus the gaybuntu snap store nonsense.
As a long time windows user the entire idea of linux even needing dependencies always has and still does drive me insane
(if one breaks everything else topples down with it, and what happens when the internet goes bye bye? do any of you even consider this?)
So, what is worth the final switch to? I want to permanently move to linux, arch is fun but kind of a meme and seems on the edge of breaking all the time for no justifiable reason. I want a FINAL SOLUTION distro I never have to switch from again. A distro to end all distros. Please, show me bros.

Attached: gnu guix gentoo.png (3226x1080, 2.71M)

Gentoo offers more fine grain control of over how you compile whereas guix is alot easier to use and easier to configure.

Attached: memesmith 101 portrait asset 1.png (1080x1920, 413.75K)

does gentoo also offer the guix package system where it is like an .exe and relies on no dependencies?

bump

>I want a FINAL SOLUTION distro I never have to switch from again. A distro to end all distros. Please, show me bros.
Slackware

Get some slack!

Attached: j.r.bobdobbs.jpg (401x596, 82.43K)

>The guy who made slackware has been declared the Benevolent Dictator of Slackware for Life
Based? Might need to look into this one

>relies on no dependencies
You're a retard

GNU Guix is a package manager that offers transactional, reproducible, per-user package management

None of that excludes packages having dependencies.

Guix user here.

>As a long time windows user the entire idea of linux even needing dependencies always has and still does drive me insane
Windows also has dependencies user. Dependencies is just a simpler way to talk about schemes for dynamic/static linking.
The only OS that can avoid having dependencies is an OS that doesn't use linking in any of its software. And no such OS exists as far as I'm aware.

The windows solution to dependencies is to have a single definitive authority on core system libraries. When windows releases a core library there is only ONE compiled version of it that literally everyone uses. Because nobody CAN compile another version since it's closed source.
This doesn't mean windows has somehow transcended the problem of different machines ending up with slightly different compiled libraries, it means they sweep the problem under the rug by not allowing you to compile the library in the first place.
Windows further avoids versioning issues by just telling developers to bundle any non-core libraries with their software.

GNU/Linux could also do things that way. There is nothing about our systems or our kernel that prevents it.
The reason nobody does it that way is because it's dumb, and because we would never agree on a single compiled binary as the "definitive" one that we just have to trust wasn't tampered with.

Guix/Nix is definitely (in theory) a water tight solution to the problem. It doesn't work around the issues but directly addresses them by not thinking of dependencies as a single layer, but a deep tree of dependencies (e.g. dependencies of dependencies) that stretches all the way back to a small bootstrap.
However there are downsides to this too. You end up compiling things way more often.
For example say GCC gets upgraded, on normal distros you don't need to recompile everything that was built with GCC, but on Guix you do.

Attached: nix_guix.jpg (559x320, 138.64K)

The rebuilding will be less of a problem when CA derivations become the default

>As a long time windows user the entire idea of linux even needing dependencies always has and still does drive me insane
Never had to install vcredist? dxredist? dotnet? Heck, even graphics drivers are dependencies. Don't say windows has none, and you're as fucked with those breaking (just check for the whole dotnet stack breaking on some systems) as you are on a linux system.

Dependencies are nothing bad. They're the planned result of multiple developers using the same software and NOT installing it every time, but agreeing on using the same resource already present on the system.
On windows, just check some of the installation directories of multiple similar programs. I bet there's a lot of duplicates, which could be centralized in one spot, thus saving disk space and installation time.

About your final solution, see attached image.

Attached: standards.png (500x283, 23.74K)

>I bet there's a lot of duplicates, which could be centralized in one spot, thus saving disk space and installation time.
The problem with that method isn't so much about disk space. Most libraries are pretty small in the first place.

The reason it's a terrible way to do things is because how do you upgrade those libraries?
Someone might say you could have the upgrade system search those directories and upgrade any libraries it finds, but if you go that route then you open up the ENTIRE can of worms that GNU/Linux package managers struggle with.
Because those are non-core libraries, and who knows who compiled them? Upgrading them may break the programs they're bundled with.

So you have a situation where every program is responsible for upgrading itself (that's why it's not uncommon for windows software to install background processes just to check for updates to 1 fucking piece of software).
And in reality what happens is that practically every single windows machine will be running some outdated libraries (even after doing a full system upgrade). Which is why windows is notoriously vulnerable to attacks.

your picrel makes no sense, and its a plebbit midwit humour meme
i am asking for what the best distro is out of ones that are already extremely well established
also, these dependencies seem to be far and few between, in addition, they have never even once broken for me and almost never need updating.
Compare this to linux, they break all the time, need to be updated all the times, and there is seemingly and endless amount of small, atomized pieces

gentoo for fat retard

none.
Gentoo has value only for someone who is learning linux and flatpak will solve 90% of what guix does, which will be "good enough" for the industry

>GNU/Linux could also do things that way. There is nothing about our systems or our kernel that prevents it.
In fact there is a real world example of this: Steam.
Steam on GNU/Linux handles libraries "the windows way". Steam provides a definitve core of libraries (the steam runtime), and then individual games bundle .so files that differ from that core.

So yeah, the windows method definitely still works on GNU/Linux. But it's still not a good idea. That's why I love that Guix's Steam package (from the nonguix repo) runs Steam in a sandbox.

>but a deep tree of dependencies
You mean
>a directed acyclic graph

>arch is fun but kind of a meme and seems on the edge of breaking all the time
If this happens to you consider going back to Windows. Linux isn't for you

I've heard Guix has some issues, like handling repository (or whatever it's called) with a lots of packages. There is also NixOS but I think the user experience was much better with Guix when I tried it (now on NixOS for over a year or so).

It's for everyone, because it's free.
If you want to be an authority on how people use their machines then maybe it's you who should go join microsoft, because that's how they do business.
You want to be better than microsoft don't you user?

ive been running the same arch install for 4 years and never once has it had a system error. even with 1+gb updates.

the worse thing that's happened to me is a default font changed.

GUIX has muh free software autism so it is not an option for people who actually want something usable

I'm talking about OP's inability to daily drive the easiest distribution available. If "Arch breaks" you're doing something horribly wrong, the worst case scenario is having to recompile 1 package with newer libraries or downgrade it temporarily. If you face issues of Arch bricking itself you'll not be able to daily drive any other distribution at all