At least money falls out of a slot machine... This is just rolling a dice and seeing what number you get. Seriously, that's all it was for me... where are the battles people spoke about?
You'd be surprised. In the mobile app stores, there are slot machine simulator games that are licensed reproductions of popular physical slot machines but don't pay out any actual money. They play all the visuals and sound effects of a win that the physical machine would if the player spins a winning combination and award virtual currency for more spins. Despite this, they rake in absurd revenue from people spending real currency to play beyond the daily free allotment of spins.
Wouldn't the Steam digital demo system be the modern evolution of the shareware model? For free you can access a limited portion of the game to try it and consider eventually buying it.
This feels like a very high-tech solution to a problem that doesn't really exist. Why involve an LLM to install Hyprland when "sudo dnf install hyprland" works fine? I feel like you're mistaking Nix being 'AI-ready' as a feature, when in reality, you're just forced to use an LLM because Nix is too annoying to manage manually.
The key point is that all such tweaks to the system is managed in a one configuration file. While installing Hyprland may be a one-liner, configuring it and all other services from a single entry point is incredibly liberating.
Reverting changes are guaranteed to not leave behind any cruft, and you don't have to remember what you changed to make X or Y work: it's all visible in the (usually version controlled) system configuration.
Got a new computer? Just copy the configuration and enjoy a bit-identical system in seconds. Have an LLM tweak it and see the changes in the form of git diffs.
Sure, you can do the same with Silverblue and writing Ansible for everything, but it's not free of side effects (unlike Nix).
While nix might be free of side effects, activating a nixos configuration isn't as free as you imply. As an example, nixos keeps state around regarding user id/username mappings, to avoid giving the same user id to different users across time. So a fresh install of nixos might leave services unable to read their data files, because the file might be owned by a different user id. And if you activate and enable incus, for instance, it will probably create a bridge device: the device will remain in place after you remove incus, which will have implications for how your network/firewall works that your configuration will depend on but will not enforce or be able to reproduce.
Not an argument against using NixOS - I think the bridge device issue could reasonably be regarded as a bug rather than a fundamental design issue, and the user id/username mapping is a totally reasonable design decision which can be taken into account by forcing the user id numbers anyway.
> As an example, nixos keeps state around regarding user id/username mappings, to avoid giving the same user id to different users across time. So a fresh install of nixos might leave services unable to read their data files, because the file might be owned by a different user id.
> And if you activate and enable incus, for instance, it will probably create a bridge device: the device will remain in place after you remove incus, which will have implications for how your network/firewall works that your configuration will depend on but will not enforce or be able to reproduce.
To be clear, I don't use neither. But you can get NixOS to be almost completely stateless (if this is something you care) with a few changes. The power is there, but it is disabled by default because it is not the pragmatic choice in most cases.
How would "bit-identical" or "free of side effects" make an actual difference in practice?
Rollback is already very easy with filesystem snapshots.
Configs are already tracked by etckeeper.
New laptop: either copy the whole drive or the package list and dotfiles. Also, how often do you have to get new laptops for this to be relevant ?
The problem that exists is that you cannot just willy nilly try out entirely different desktop envs/window managers/audio frameworks on an existing install of any other distro and be certain everything will work exactly as it was when you remove it. Especially as an only moderately knowledgeable user that won't know every single piece of config that needs to be changed back. Unless you're trying everything new out on a fresh install then there's a big risk.
NixOS gives you that just by opting in to using it, and while AI also speeds up config changes and translating your existing knowledge to a new tool you're trialing in other distros as well it really shines with NixOS where you don't even have to care what it messes up while you're trying something new. You just revert and you know that nothing that was done to configure that new thing - which likely would have broken your existing configuration on other distros - has persisted.
Here is a simple workflow with mutable systems like Fedora that I think a lot of people are missing. AI could be brought into this workflow also for those who want that:
(1) Take a snapshot of your current system (snapper+btrfs on Linux, bectl on FreeBSD+ZFS)
(2) Make destructive changes like install a new windows manager, some drivers etc.
(3) If everything worked out well, continue
(4) If something failed badly, restore from (1) using the snapshot restore -- Your system is as good as before
This workflow replicates many of the benefits of NixOS without the complex nix scripting that can be often needed.
Of course, a declarative and textual rendition of the configuration is better than bash commands entered on the command line but sometimes you don't need that level of precision.
A snapshot of your build folder. Not even the sources. This is my other problem with mainstream Distros. Extending them is completely opaque. NixOS is source based and anything and everything can be updated by the user. Need some patch from kernel ML? 1 line of code. Need a Bugfix in your IDE that hasn't landed in a release? 1 line of code.
There is no distinction between package maintainers and end users. They have the same power.
In the meantime i dont expect Debian users to ever write a package themselves or to modify one.
Arch Linux also has a long history of people writing their own package specs (AUR) and is relatively simple too of course.
Let me put it differently. The documentation of NixOS treats package maintainers and users as kind of equal.
This has benefits and downsides. Benefit is that everyone is treated as a power user. Downside is that power users are horrible at writing docs and this philosophy is my main theory why NixOS docs are so .... Bad
Fedora (and RHEL) end user and developer docs are written for quite different audiences
Yes I just replied to your other comment with the same observation. It reminds me of an article by Paul Graham, I forget which, who expressed the difficulty of explaining to programmers who lack an abstraction just how good the abstraction is. Anything you can do with NixOS, you can do with any distribution, because it isn't magic. But somehow, more stuff becomes possible because it gives you a better way to think.
(As for why the docs are so bad, I think it's because of the lack of good canonical documentation. There's too many copies of it. Search engines ignore the canonical version because it's presented as one giant document. Parts of the system aren't documented at all and you have to work out what you've got by reading the code. The result is that you have no idea what to do if you want to improve the situation - it seems like your best option is to create new documentation. And now you have the same basic level of documentation that didn't help the first hundred times it was rewritten. And I don't really think submitting a PR to nixpkgs is exactly userfriendly, so it probably discourages people from doing the "I'm just trying to understand this, so I'll fix up the documentation as I learn something" thing.)
yes i think you've hit the nail on the head. I tend to view NixOS not as a distribution, but as a distribution framework. The system configuration is the sources for an immutable distribution as much as it as system configuration.
You're in no way bound by decisions of the nixpkgs contributors: as you say, we can add a patch. Or we can also decide we totally disapprove of the way they've configured such-and-such a service and write our own systemd service to run it.
Anyone can write a local debian package which adds a patch, and build and install it. And anyone can write a systemd service and use it instead of the distribution's systemd service. But on NixOS, these are equal to the rest of the system rather than outside it. Nixpkgs is just a library which your configuration uses to build a system.
But note that I did caveat my suggestion: "Of course, a declarative and textual rendition of the configuration is better than bash commands entered on the command line but sometimes you don't need that level of precision."
That’s a great way to get one of the benefits of nix. But you still can check that snapshot into version control, share it with all your machines, etc.
You're right ... you cant check that snapshot into version control and share with your machines etc. When you need that level of control and need to scale your configuration to other machines NixOS sounds like the right choice. If it's for your own machine and you just want to try out a new windows manager non-destructively use snapshots.
Fedora also offers immutable distros which are (I've heard) much more user-friendly than Nix. Sure you can make a hacky pseudo-immutable workflow on a mutable distro but that's literally more effort for a worse result.
Man, I still remember what a pain the migration from PulseAudio to Pipewire was. Sure, it's only a couple packages, disabling a few services, enabling a couple others. But I had to do this almost on the daily, while bugs in Pipewire/Wireplumber were still getting ironed out and were rendering my audio stack temporarily unusable.
I use Nix for my homelab servers, and I'm using AI to be my IT support staff essentially. I don't need to ask AI for help installing hyperland, that is trivial as you say, but setting up nginx port forwarding? samba configs? k3s or k8s? Yeah individually any one of those things isn't very hard. But instead of spending 30 minutes reading through config examples and figuring out where it's setup I can instead spend 30 seconds just telling AI what I want, skimming the output to see if it's looks reasonable, and then doing a good ol' `git commit` of the config file & kicking off the "now go do it" nix build command.
And, critically, at no point does an LLM ever have access to sudo, shell, etc.. It just works with plain text files that aren't even on the machine I'm deploying it to.
I was looking at hyperland in Fedora this week. I wanted to try out the latest release (released two weeks ago give or take). It wasn't available yet (maybe it isn't still). That's ok, but I checked what would I have needed to do to build it myself, and I didn't want to mess with a bunch of dev dependencies I didn't really care about and that I would have forgotten, so I ended up not trying it
I think they just mean that the fat that they can do it this way says a lot about the os. No need to get into the weeds on exactly how to install hyprland. It was an example.
People who get bogged down by the details of examples/analogies are usually missing the point of why people use examples/analogies.
That would be Ubuntu and Docker. With Guix you can set everything for under a config.scm file in a reproducible way, you can even export a guix recipe as a Docker container, appimage or even as a standalone package for non-guix systems. That's unvaluable for scientific environments where the contrainsts must be set inmutable and unchanging.
But keep bitching about obsolete barely-GNU/Linux distros (the don't even use Linux-Libre) made to copycat NT with the registry, svchost.exe, MSI packages, DISM. (Gnome/OSTree/SystemD/Flatpak). Aka IBM's attempt to pick up RedHat and create another AIX but leeching everything from the community.
With Guix you can even crosscompile and export software to Win32 (for instance, Icecat, VLC...) and you don't need to nasty incantations with flatpaks.
If you want to live in 1993, go on. I already moved past Unix with 9front (my main machine, a n270 netbook, I code in C for expersite, rc/AWK for automation and EForth for fun) and Guix (sadly non-Guix because of wireless until I can afford a compatible laptop with ath9k and Intel).
9front it's my 'brain detox' machine, it's not Unix, it's even simpler than Unix. No wayland, no flatpak, no crap. Build once, run it again as it's a static binary. Guix it's to deal with corporate crap because of $JOB. You know, today they requiere docker and similar crap and with a guix environment I'm free to deploy at home everything at want.
For Go code I can just use 9front modulo some expecial cases (Yggdrasil-go needs a tun/tap interface, but with 9front you can just open() /net/ether/ files and you are free to inject whatever you want.
