tabby VS nixpkgs

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

Nice implementation! It should serve as a great reference for a minimal Tabby's backend API. Thank you for sharing it!

Yeah - ultimately, it won't be as performant or feature-rich compared to https://github.com/TabbyML/tabby, but it's still perfect for educational purposes!

Looks interesting! What are the main differences between this and https://github.com/TabbyML/tabby ?

TabbyML | Software Engineer (Rust) | REMOTE

Self-hosted AI coding assistant. An opensource / on-prem alternative to GitHub Copilot.

Project: https://github.com/TabbyML/tabby

Tabby is seeking a Software Engineer proficient in Rust to join our core engineering team. In this role, you will be responsible for developing the following features:

There are a bunch of VSCode extensions that make use of local models. Tabby seems to be the most friendly right now, but I admittedly haven't tried it myself: https://tabbyml.github.io/tabby/

Check out https://github.com/TabbyML/tabby, which is fully self-hostable and comes with niche features. On M1/M2, it offers a convenient single binary deployment, thanks to Rust. You can find the latest release at https://github.com/TabbyML/tabby/releases/tag/latest.

(Disclaimer: I am the author)

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.