nheko VS nixpkgs

Look at this, notice anything different? https://github.com/Nheko-Reborn/nheko/issues/new/choose

Nheko has been around for a number of years. Never used it myself though.

https://github.com/Nheko-Reborn/nheko

Matrix clients hit different than pretty much any other chat client I've use before. Theres multiple clients I've found like nheko, moments, element that are a pleasure to look at and smooth as hell. Even better you can have users use web services like Element Web to sign-up and chat. Its sick.

The Nheko flatpak is official. Just compare the source to the nightlies we build and upload to our nightly repo.

Like almost every client out there it has no support for e2ee. I was happy to find https://nheko-reborn.github.io (I'm a KDE user so Qt apps are preferred).

There's also FluffyChat or Nheko if Element is too heavy.

I probably wouldn't have guessed that `e.dataTransfer.items` gets cleared at the first await (since I'm not a proficient web developer), but I would've been extremely wary of this code in general. Additionally (not tied to async-await but race conditions in general), is `item.getAsFileSystemHandle()` a TOCTTOU vulnerability where the type of an item can change between folders and files and symlinks etc., while this code is running?

Rust's & vs. &mut system largely eliminates shared state hazards in both threading and asynchronity (&mut is exclusive/unaliased and can't be mutated by other threads or event loop jobs, and & is difficult and unidiomatic to mutate), though it doesn't solve async cancellation errors (https://carllerche.com/2021/06/17/six-ways-to-make-async-rus..., discussed at https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27542504), or filesystem TOCTTOU (https://blog.rust-lang.org/2022/01/20/cve-2022-21658.html as well as user code).

Qt event loop reentrancy is fun(tm) as well. It looks like a blocking call, but spawns a nested event loop which can do anything (but rarely enough to lull you into a false sense of complacency), resulting in segfaults like https://github.com/Nheko-Reborn/nheko/issues/656 (workaround at https://github.com/Nheko-Reborn/nheko/commit/570d00b000bd558..., I didn't look into it). And Qt lacks "easy" await syntax and a framework based on calling red functions (though I didn't look into C++20 coroutines yet, perhaps https://www.qt.io/blog/asynchronous-apis-in-qt-6 or https://github.com/mhogomchungu/tasks or https://blog.blackquill.cc/asynchronous-qtquick-uis-and-thei...?).

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.

We’ve noticed that some users have been asking about how to use older versions of Terraform in their Nix setups [1, 2]. This is an example of the diverse needs of people and the importance of maintaining backward compatibility. We hope that nixpkgs-terraform will be a useful tool for these users.

I think whateveracct was referring to is this link:

https://github.com/NixOS/nixpkgs/blob/master/pkgs/developmen...

What that file is doing, is building a package, and it essentially is a combination of what Makefile and what RPM spec file does.

I don't know if you're familiar with those tools, but if you aren't it takes some time to know them enough to understand what is happening. So why would be different here?

#!/usr/bin/env nix-shell #! nix-shell -i bash #! nix-shell -p sops #! nix-shell -I https://github.com/NixOS/nixpkgs/archive/refs/tags/23.05.tar.gz source config.sh "$@"

NixOS just got tabbyml[1] which is built on llama-cpp. Working on systemsd services the weekend and updating latest tabbyml release which supports rocm in addition to cuda

[1] https://github.com/TabbyML/tabby

[2] https://github.com/NixOS/nixpkgs/pull/291744