haskell-platform VS nixpkgs

The original link http://www.haskell.org/platform/ does redirect to the downloads page, but http://www.haskell.org/platform (without the slash) doesn't. Still, I think it's probably better to make it explicit to visitors that the Platform is deprecated in favour of the Downloads page: https://github.com/haskell-infra/www.haskell.org/pull/167

The link for the official page (http://hackage.haskell.org/platform/) gives you a 404 error and every other link (including those on the official Haskell Platform Github https://github.com/haskell/haskell-platform) leads you to the generic downloads page on the official website which has absolutely no hint about Haskell Platform.

If you plan to try some of the examples, I would highly recommend setting up Haskell locally on your machine. You can follow this guide to download and set up ghc and ghci, we will use ghci for all examples.

Why does the haskell platform (https://www.haskell.org/platform/ ) require it in order to install the IDE?

As for GHC, check out this page for step-by-step explanations of installation. Personally I think it's much easier to set this up on linux compared to windows. I use Ubuntu WSL2 on Windows, this avoids a lot of the trouble.

Is it about the time to redirect the "Download Haskell" link in the right sidebar here from https://www.haskell.org/platform/ to https://www.haskell.org/downloads/?

If you save the sliced model as x3g (default for FFCP) and you get an empty file, follow the steps described in this issue to install the required libraries: https://github.com/haskell/haskell-platform/issues/231#issuecomment-177530716

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...