>promises to solve software distribution problem on Linux
>mostly repackages debs and snaps
>refuses to elaborate
>leaves
Promises to solve software distribution problem on Linux
Colton Perry
Other urls found in this thread:
google.com
nixos.org
flatkill.org
twitter.com
Luke Brown
>promises to solve software distribution problem on Linux
>actually solves it
>decades later, flatpak and snap are created, do a much worse job at solving the problem but are praised as the ideal solution
What gives?
Ryder Thompson
>uses some obscure language for configuration that makes it inaccessible by anyone not being virgin
>fails
color me surprised
Joshua Gray
Why do you care about the configuration language? You don't care about the format of flatpak manifests either.
Joseph Reed
>package manager uses more RAM than a desktop environment
google.com
Logan Lopez
>functionalfags write yet another shitty tool
>barely functional and completely impractical
>0.00001% adoption
>they somehow take is as a win
Carter Smith
>use a deprecated known-inefficient helper designed to help imperativefags over
>surprised when the imperative flaws come to bite you in the ass
>evaluate 200 system configs at once
>wtf where's my memory
>load an entire blockchain checkout into memory
>wtf where's my memory
It seems the only way you can discredit it is by coming up with convoluted and unrealistic scenarios. Nice "argument".
It does the same thing the "new and innovative" tools promise to do, except without the need for chroot hacks and 2 decades earlier. You have yet to provide a single argument.
Ryder Green
>complains about lack of arguments
>makes completely theoretical claims about the supposed capabilities of a tool, without any real world usage to back them up
Why are functionalfags like this?
At least Cniles write code that is actually run (and then segfaults, for our amusement).
Brayden Sullivan
>completely theoretical claims
How are these claims theoretical?
nixos.org
>Multiple versions
>Complete dependencies
>Multi-user support
>Atomic upgrades and rollbacks
Mason Gomez
Isn't configuring the entire system in your shitty DSL the whole point of NixOS? You're telling me the configuration language is irrelevant? No wonder it's so shit.
Isaiah Clark
Nix is not an OS, it's a package manager. We're talking about package managers. Most users don't care (nor do they need to care) about the language used for package build instructions.
Cameron King
Except when they're forced to configure their packages in said language.
Parker Robinson
Are you forced to configure your packages in yaml when using snaps? No. So why would Nix be any different? It's just a way to install binaries.
Jonathan Wood
>how is my promotional material theoretical???
As with all tools, what's written on paper is far less interesting than what actually gets done in practice.
Leo Taylor
let's say i have a binary i want to distribute.
how can nix help me and make it run on some random distro?
Brandon Garcia
flatpak bundles gpu drivers.
can guix do that?
Thomas Jones
>no sandboxing
Brandon Martinez
The binary and all its dependencies are installed in /nix/store and are independent of anything that exists on the host system. Simply copy them to the target in the same location and it will just work.
Dominic Campbell
There's literally nothing wrong with appimage
Nix is good tho
Jonathan Hernandez
no existing flatpak is sandboxed either
Ryder Jones
>flatpak
>sanboxing
lel
flatkill.org