operating-system VS nixpkgs

https://github.com/home-assistant/operating-system/pull/3248

BTW found exact same issue with homeassistant browsing the internet; Add support for Intel GMAC Ethernet controller (#2589) (#2593) · home-assistant/operating-system@9ca836f (github.com)

HAOS (https://github.com/home-assistant/operating-system) is not "vanilla" linux, and I have somewhat little experience of linux, although using raspberry-based systems (Domoticz, Pihole, etc) and basic usage of unix mainframes since early 90s. But the question I could not find answer for by googling is, could I use HAOS to farm chia as well, or is it too much optimized towards HA usage to reasonably serve as a chia farming computer too?

The main issue with the 3A+ is the 512MB of RAM. Combined with only having one USB port and no Ethernet, I would not advise using a pi3A+ as a sustainable foundation for HA.

Home assistant was the last thing I had running as a VM, but recently switched over to running it in a LXC container with their ContainerOS (i think that's what they call it). I would say don't do it (at least not yet), and go with their full OS in a VM (dl link to correct KVM/qcow2 version). I say don't start with HomeAssistantContainer b/c you lose Supervisor and the add-on store, and it's a bit less straighforward to get installed.

One thing to notice, I have been able to successfully boot Home Assistant OS Generic x86-64 https://github.com/home-assistant/operating-system which is using kernel 5.15+ and I don't know why I am able to boot HAOS (maybe they are using uncompressed kernel?), but not other general or special Linux distributions.

Raspberry Pi 4 64-bit

hass.io builds the whole gamut of images. There's a list at the bottom of the github page https://github.com/home-assistant/operating-system/releases/tag/8.0.rc2

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...