OpenGarage-Firmware VS nixpkgs

Personally I went with OpenGarage https://opengarage.io/. I have been using OpenGarage for 3+ years now. It has been amazing.

If anyone is lazy, but wants the functionality and insists on open source….check out https://opengarage.io/ ($50) which offers similar functionality. I switched to a MYQ door opener which made the opengarage need obsolete, but I’ve been happy with MYQ - however it does require cloud access.

I switched to opengarage.io - after trying a few garage door automation devices that utilized door sensors.

I recently got some Matter-capable IoT lightbulbs to try, and I am not impressed. They seemed to have all the same problems I've experienced with previous IoT products (connectivity issues, state de-sync between device and "edge router", firmware updates take ~10 minutes per device).

Then there are problems specific to Apple's IoT stack - like how it's impossible to set an RGB capable light to a ~specific~ white color temperature. Instead you get a shade picker and you have to guess what the color temperature is.

The best IoT experience I've had is with OpenGarage[1] using regular old WiFi, but overall I'd still never rely on IoT products for anything critical.

[1] https://opengarage.io

I got a opengarage thing instead. No door sensor. Uses ultrasonic sensor to see if the door is open or closed. All one piece, hardwired to power. It's been rock solid.

https://github.com/NixOS/nixpkgs/commits?author=neon-sunset

I see two signers in the top 6 displayed on https://github.com/NixOS/nixpkgs/graphs/contributors

For a single file script, nix can make the package management quite easy: https://github.com/NixOS/nixpkgs/blob/master/doc/languages-f...

For example,

```

Yes, Nix doesn't actually ensure that the builds are deterministic. In fact it works just fine if they aren't. There are packages in nixpkgs that aren't reproducible: https://github.com/NixOS/nixpkgs/issues?q=is%3Aopen+is%3Aiss...

I'm not familiar with Bazel, but Nix in it's current form wouldn't have solved this attack. First of all, the standard mkDerivation function calls the same configure; make; make install process that made this attack possible. Nixpkgs regularly pulls in external resources (fetchUrl and friends) that are equally vulnerable to a poisoned release tarball. Checkout the comment on the current xz entry in nixpkgs https://github.com/NixOS/nixpkgs/blob/master/pkgs/tools/comp...

NixOS uses a monorepo and I think everyone's love it.

I love being able to easily grep through all the packages source code and there's regularly PRs that harmonizes conventions across many packages.

Nixpkgs doesn't include the packaged software source code, so it's a lot more practical than what Debian is doing.

https://github.com/NixOS/nixpkgs

In this specific case, nix uses fetchFromGitHub to download the source archive, which are generated by GitHub for the specified revision[1]. Arch seems to just download the tarball from the releases page[2].

[1]: https://github.com/NixOS/nixpkgs/blob/3c2fdd0a4e6396fc310a6e...

[2]: https://gitlab.archlinux.org/archlinux/packaging/packages/ib...

True, but irrelevant -- _some packages_, _somewhere_, do depend on xz, which, if built, requires pulling the source from GitHub (see the default.nix: https://github.com/NixOS/nixpkgs/blob/nixos-23.11/pkgs/tools...)

It's not the vulnerability that's a problem right now (NixOS was protected by a couple of factors) but rather GitHub's hamfisted response.

That is the problem.