guix-installer VS nixpkgs

I've been using Guix for a bit over 2 months at this point and honestly the whole 'non-free' software thing has not been an issue in the slightest. Use the System Crafters installation iso [1] to get around driver issues on install, and then the only time I've ever had the system complain to me was it warning me one of my hardware components wouldn't work (which it did, since the System Crafters ISO uses the standard Linux kernel). Afterwards, just add nonguix (and I even added Nix as well, so I get the best of both worlds!) If a package isn't in Guix and I don't want to make a package definition, I simply pull it using Nix home-manager. May not be the best or 'proper' setup, but I find it works well enough. [2]

[1]: https://github.com/SystemCrafters/guix-installer/releases

[2]: https://g.stationery.lol/ryan77627/guix-dotfiles

You can try with: https://github.com/SystemCrafters/guix-installer/releases/tag/v202201150226

As for hardware compability, worry not! There's Nonguix! A bunch of nonfree packages including firmware and drivers for Guix! There's also an ISO image of it and even a nice Nonguix installation guide video by David/System Crafters.

There's also a community image (iso) of it made by System Crafters here.

If you need a nonguix installation image, check out the prebuilt one by System Crafters

I used the installation wizard from this image: https://github.com/SystemCrafters/guix-installer/

I don't think so. The article is probably intended for the Nix community, so the author doesn't need to convince HN that something is going on. If as an outsider you are interested then you need to look into it yourself, the community has no obligation to make their internal conflicts legible to the outside world.

As an outsider myself, it certainly looks like something is going on as more than 20 Nixpkg maintainers left in a week: https://github.com/NixOS/nixpkgs/issues?q=label%3A%228.has%3...

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...