The future of software is Nix and we at Determinate Systems want to have a role in building that future.
Shouldn’t the “Nix” there say “Determinate Nix”? Considering the link directs people to the Determinate Nix page in the Determinate Systems site and not nixos.org.
I find the fact that the “Nixpkgs” and “NixOS” links go to Zero to Nix (another Determinate Systems project) instead of the NixOS website or the Nixpkgs repository concerning (if not borderline insulting to all of Nixpkgs past and present contributors).
I find the fact that the “Nixpkgs” and “NixOS” links go to Zero to Nix (another Determinate Systems project) instead of the NixOS website or the Nixpkgs repository concerning
The reason they do this is because Determinate Systems wants to introduce people to Nix through flakes and the official resources don’t mention flakes (in substantial detail). One of the main reasons (imo) that Zero to Nix exists is because resources like nix.dev, nixpkgs manual and the nixos manual don’t cover nix from a flake centric perspective.
It’s no secret that @grahamcloves flakes so I’m not surprised that Determinate Systems is not forwarding people to the official documentation because it goes against their flake centric philosophy.
PS:
Not trying to start a flake vs non-flake discussion. Just trying to explain from how I see their perspective.
That’s right! That is the reason we started z2n, and licensed it such that the community could adopt/take it once flakes are no longer marked experimental.
The official resources don’t mention Flakes because, as an experimental feature, we can’t just point users into using a feature that may change from time to time (realistically, it hasn’t, but there are new discussions about it). Being used by practically everyone (even me) does not change this fact.
Aside, if you want to be pedantic, Flakes are documented in the Nix manual along all other experimental features, and Nix is for now still a part of the NixOS project.
I haven’t yet formed an opinion on this, but to help me form one: would you have the same objection if an Oracle web page were to read, ‘The future of operating systems is Linux’, with ‘Linux’ linking to the Oracle Linux distribution instead of kernel.org? If not, what is the relevant difference between Oracle Linux as a Linux distribution and Determinate Nix as a Nix distribution?
Yes, Oracle pointing the word “Linux” to Oracle Linux (Oracle’s proprietary product) instead of the official Linux site (where most of the work Oracle depends upon is done) would be as bad as Determinate Systems pointing the word “Nix” to Determinate Nix (Determinate System’s proprietary product) instead of the official Nix site (where most of the work Determinate Systems depends upon is done).
I would say the same if Red Hat did it, or Canonical, or SUSE, or Microsoft, et cetera.
It seems to be that this is kind of a case of “it’s nice to push upstream when possible” - but is something adjacent, which is “it’s nice to support upstream when possible.”
Red Had consistently uses consistently Red Hat® Enterprise Linux®.
Also we are not talking about legal problems here, but rather about matters of tone and values. That people would prefer if determinate systems would use a clear not misleading language in their announcements. And if they would live up to their promises like contributing to an stabilization of flakes.
The official resources don’t mention Flakes because, as an experimental feature, we can’t just point users into using a feature that may change from time to time (realistically, it hasn’t, but there are new discussions about it). Being used by practically everyone (even me) does not change this fact.
Yeah my point was Determinate Nix is not the same as official Nix. They’re free direct people how they see fit through the Nix ecosystem. They choose to do that in a flake centric way so it doesn’t make sense to link to the official documentation. DetSys seems to think that flakes are “stable enough” to point people to their flake based documentation. If you disagree with that approach that’s fine but their motivations seem pretty clear and their line of reasoning is not irrational.
Aside, if you want to be pedantic, Flakes are documented in the Nix manual along all other experimental features, and Nix is for now still a part of the NixOS project.
Flakes are buried quite far into the documentation and I would never refer someone to the official documentation if I thought a flake centric view of Nix was the best approach.
I wish this Community could embrace that it is a vibrant growing ecosystem, and that an efflorescence in one part of the garden is not a cynical bid to cast shade on another part of the garden
I’d really like us to get beyond the cynical kind of zero-sum thinking that involves throwing shade. Nix is an incredible technology that is disruptive in a number of positive ways. The fact that it is open source and licensed under something like the LGPL means that the concept isn’t going anywhere, and the implementation certainly isn’t either. Of course, I’ve got opinions about the MIT License used for nixpkgs, and think that a better “living system” would be more likely with a dual LGPL/MIT, but that’s mostly beside the point here. The future is incredibly bright in multiple parts of the garden, and one party does not need to lose for another to win.
With no intention to be rude but… The future of distros it’s clearly declarative, so something to makes that possible on “upstream” side is needed. Nix{,OS} is the inventor (I think) but seen the actual fragmentation state I’m not so much optimistic about it’s future…
I wish people could remember the difference between trademark infringement and open source forks within a single thread. Forks are almost never permitted to use the upstream mark unconditionally, nor mislead others into believing they are getting the upstream software, the same would apply here.
And it probably hurts the nix community to pretend that the detsys community is the entirety of the nix community.
The issue isn’t zero-sum thinking, the issue is a company that has already demonstrated to be willing to use deception, sabotage, and predatory tactics like creating proprietary products like FlakeHub and Determinate Nix to lock in potential users to ensure profits. It’s not an “efflorescence in a part of the garden,” it’s kudzu crowding out everything else in the garden. Regardless if it’s zero-sum, there’s still plenty to lose.
Speaking of ways of thinking we need to get beyond, I really do not like when the focus of something is on how “disruptive” it is. To my understanding, that’s focusing purely on the potential for profit rather than actual usefulness or helpfulness. “Disruptive” seems to essentially be a marketing buzzword that boils down to “this is dramatically different from anything else out there and whoever is selling it is in the perfect opportunity to extract maximum profit from it and shape the market in their favor going forward.” That is the kind of thinking that drives companies like DetSys to come in and crowd out everything else in the garden, so to speak.
Edit: I should not have said the immediate above things. Whether I was aware at the time or not, I was taking my frustrations out on a stranger on a public forum. I have marked it as a spoiler to mark that I sincerely wish to retract what I have said.
FWIW, I do not think you are being rude.
I agree that the future of Linux distros is declarative configuration, but I think what you are referring to as “fragmentation” is a good thing. I think the proliferation of open-source forks and alternative implementations like Lix, Tvix, and the Aux community’s efforts to make an alternative to nixpkgs allows people outside of Nix’s dev team and DetSys to experiment with new ideas. If nothing else, it adds a potential check to prevent a single entity, non-profit or otherwise, from having complete dominance over the Nix ecosystem and the potential for stagnation that comes with it.
On second thought, I sincerely apologize. I should have thought a bit more before hitting “reply” and I should have realized how severely I was essentially accusing you.
I am sorry and I should know better than to behave in such a way, especially to a stranger and especially on a public forum.
I appreciate it. My actual stance on it is that there is a somewhat justified worry that DS isn’t being a good steward of the community. I’d go into how the LGPL in particular interacts with this and how I think all companies should push upstream when possible, but don’t love how these concerns turn into an opportunity to dunk on “the wrong people.” It has made interacting with the community frankly depressing, and is the kind of zero sum game I refer to.
