I really do not like how this approach depends on their seemingly not open source backend. Nix needs tools like this, no question, but I'd hate to see it get adoption through a way that isn't reproducible by anyone. It looks like it could be a repeat of the Snap store problem - interesting tech, made unusable through de-facto dependencies on proprietary services.
I didn‘t look too deep into Nix the last couple of months (> 12) and was wondering while reading: what the hell is fh now. Another abstraction? I share your views here!
> Even if you can (ideally) pull a path from a cache instead of building it, you still have to pay Nix’s evaluation tax in determining the derivation’s store path in the first place. [...] Fortunately, FlakeHub now offers an elegant solution to this problem: resolved store paths.
If I may paraphrase:
> [fundamental problem with Nix] -> [proprietary solution].
Cachix and nixbuild feel like they're solving something at a different layer. They fit into the existing Nix ecosystem (binary cache, builders) and just provide a hosted version of an existing concept. They don't change anything fundamental about Nix.
I don't object to the product, I object to DetSys moving CppNix into more of an de-facto open core product[1]. This is just a symptom. DetSys contributes the majority of the code that actually gets prioritized and merged (because the maintainer is a DetSys employee), but asking them to build better caching mechanisms into CppNix (which, to be clear, I never asked, that's just Luc's strawman of me) instead of their proprietary product is suddenly "asking Eelco to work for free".
Sure, but you seem to sidestep the primary accusation that Nix itself got neglected in favor of DetSys. Which is most certainly true for at least the installer.
I don't get this argument. It is clear that if it wasn't for DetSys making a better installer, we wouldn't have one, period.
And now there is some movement from NixOS to bring the new installer as a replacement of the old one: https://github.com/NixOS/experimental-nix-installer. It doesn't seem that Eelco or anyone in CppNix is actively trying to sabotage the improvement in the installer, but they simple don't care enough to improve the situation (that is fair enough, I assume most in the core team use NixOS).
The expectation seems to be that Eelco work on Nix full time for free lest he be accused of neglect. Is there a way for Eelco to make money that you would approve of?
I would've replied to you but HN's intransparent timeout mechanism hit me.
I'd invite everyone to wonder why Lix exists (and is better enough to be used in some parts of Nix's CI now), why CppNix stable was stuck 6 versions behind on nixpkgs until half a year ago, and what kept Lix contributors from working on CppNix instead. Tip: "I want free labor from Eelco" is not the answer.
Nobody said this. I suggest that you not escalate the discussion in this direction. You're obviously biased given involvement with detsys, nobody expects you to think differently. This crass dismissal off the issue with a strawman isn't right.
Love what they are doing. At least you get the chance to introduce Nix in the enterprise with the MacOS installer, having figured out private CAs and the MacOS keychain for example. Then MDM.
And I can still install a snap on an Ubuntu Core machine by building my own distribution method, but it will be a downgrade from the experience of running "snap install something" that introduced me to it. So nobody does.
Lix (yes, I will mention it again) essentially exists by a large degree because the overlap between the people that control Nix and DetSys is big, even very big if you look at CppNix.
> exists by a large degree because the overlap between the people that control Nix and DetSys is big
No, it exists because of sexual identity politics. 11 out of 12 of the Lix developer team are transsexuals. Clearly the selection isn't about technical issues.
Ok but they’re creating a good product, in their “own” space, not bothering anyone, and they increase competition which benefits the entire ecosystem, so to be frank… who cares?
Lix is a net win for everyone. It would behoove us to stop taking pot shots at them because if you want nix to succeed, the presence of Lix is a net positive.
Not sure deliberate and obtuse fragmentation benefits anyone.
If they started to fix some of the long-standing Nix implementation issues (namely, evaluation performance) that would be one thing.
But what they actually did is rage-fork nixpkgs and register new domains.
>in their “own” space, not bothering anyone, and they increase competition which benefits the entire ecosystem, so to be frank… who cares?
Sounds like White supremacy and Neo-Nazism. Why not say that about every other project that leftist enter and try to push their religious beliefs?
>Lix is a net win for everyone.
Most definitely not, fragmentation and religious proselytizing destroys projects.
>It would behoove us to stop taking pot shots at them
The truth shouldn't be hidden, regardless if they're "pot shots" or not.
>want nix to succeed, the presence of Lix is a net positive.
The Lix team are the ones that destroyed the nix community with their totalitarianism, leftist/woke ideology, and subversive actions. They are a net negative.
Nobody is keeping cis people from contributing to Lix, and even if they did, it'd be far from them trying to eliminate you. Isolationism isn't genocide, you fetid moppet.
I really do not like how this approach depends on their seemingly not open source backend. Nix needs tools like this, no question, but I'd hate to see it get adoption through a way that isn't reproducible by anyone. It looks like it could be a repeat of the Snap store problem - interesting tech, made unusable through de-facto dependencies on proprietary services.