NixOS’ influence and importance at pushing Linux forward into the (previously) unexplored landscape of configuring your complete system through a single config file is undeniable. It’s been a wild ride, but it was well worth it.
And although it has only been relatively recently that it has lost its niche status, the recent influx of so-called ‘immutable’ distros springing up like mushrooms is undeniably linked to and inspired by NixOS.
However, unfortunately, while this should have been very exciting times for what’s yet to come, the recent drama surrounding the project has definitely tarnished how the project is perceived.
NixOS’ ideas will definitely live on regardless. But how do you envision NixOS’ own future? Any ETA’s for when this drama will end? Which lessons have we learned (so far) from this drama? Are there any winners as a result of this drama? Could something like this happen to any distro?
In case you’re out of the loop. Though, there’s a lot that has transpired since but which hasn’t been rigorously documented at a single place; like how 4 out of 5 NixOS board members have quit over the last 2 months or so.
My take on it is that the creator of Nix was very good technically but was not a good BDFL, and that was the root of the problem. He didn’t do a good job of politicking, stepped down, and now Nix is going through a bit of interregnum. I don’t think it’s likely to fail overall though, nixpkgs is too valuable of a resource to just get abandoned. I expect the board seats will be filled by people that know how to politick, and things will continue on after that.
Lessons learned is being a BDFL is hard. IMO Eelco Dolstra failed because he had opinions about things like Anduril sponsorship and flakes, and didn’t just declare “This is the way things are going to be, take it or leave it”. People got really pissed off because there wasn’t a clear message or transparency, which resulted in lots of guessing.
Thank you for your input! I would love to read more on this. Do you happen to know a good source wherein Eelco Dolstra’s leadership is discussed (as fair as possible)?
Unfortunately there isn’t one easy source that I’ve found. This is based on reading the stuff you linked to, as well as discourse/matrix discussions linked to from those sources. I compare it mentally to Guido van Rossum as BDFL of Python (though not any longer). He did a much better job of communicating expectations, like here
It made some people unhappy that there was no Python 2.8, but everybody knew what was happening. The core Python team also wasn’t surprised by that announcement, unlike with stuff like Anduril or flakes for the nix devs.
There was also a failure to communicate with stuff like the PR that would switch to Meson. The PR author should have known if Eelco broadly agreed with it before opening it. If there was a process that the PR author just ignored, the PR should have been closed with “Follow this process and try again”. That process can be as simple as “See if Eelco likes it”, since he was BDFL, but the process needs to be very clear to everyone.
Thank you for your insights! I appreciate it!
I believe there is a much larger, silent majority of nix users, contributors and enthusiasts that are not affected by this drama. Here’s a post that resonates with me: https://nrd.sh/blog/nixos-policy-breakdown/
Over 20 years in this technology space, I’ve come to recognize software built on very solid foundational concepts. Nix is one of those. It’s not going anywhere and neither is NixOS. I encourage anyone interested in Nix to read Eelco Dolstra’s thesis: https://edolstra.github.io/pubs/phd-thesis.pdf
I don’t believe in immutable distros. They are not well developed now so it’s a bubble that should pop soon after people realize they are not ready yet and have a lot of disadvantages. Also they are unsuitable for old PCs and Nix seems relatively good for them so I don’t think Nix will die completely but we’ll have to see.
Interesting take.
I don’t believe in immutable distros.
This seems more philosophical than on technicalities. If this is correct, would you mind elaborating on the philosophical side?
They are not well developed now
Even if this were the case, shouldn’t the constant development and continuous improvement result in something that’s (eventually) well-developed? The only way I could see this holding some truth is if by design the ‘immutable’ model (whatever that is) happens to be broken or something like that. Like, how some file systems are simply better than Btrfs (or any CoW filesystem for that matter) for specific tasks; i.e. ensure to use the right tool for the right task. So, do you pose that ‘immutable distros’ are by design not well-suited? If so, why?
so it’s a bubble that should pop soon after people realize they are not ready yet
So you (actually) acknowledge and imply that it will become ready at some point. Or not? Furthermore, like how do you reconcile this with Fedora’s ambitions for Fedora Atomic? Or how NixOS is going strong (perhaps stronger than ever) while it’s been in the making since before Ubuntu?
and have a lot of disadvantages.
And advantages*. Or do you ignore those?
Also they are unsuitable for old PCs
This is false. What makes you think that?
and Nix seems relatively good for them
What’s “them” in this sentence? The “old PCs” you had just mentioned? Or something else? Furthermore, if it is the “old PCs”, doesn’t this directly contradict with “they are unsuitable for old PCs”?
You have entirely misunderstood or intentionally misconcepted my comment.
This seems more philosophical than on technicalities. If this is correct, would you mind elaborating on the philosophical side?
There is no philosophical side. I don’t believe in them getting very major on desktops and laptops. That’s it.
Even if this were the case, shouldn’t the constant development and continuous improvement result in something that’s (eventually) well-developed?
Yes but the hype should disappear a long time before it happens. And that’s what I meant by the bubble. It’s very hyped, misunderstood and misused thing now. It will go away and then immutable systems will find their niche or die out.
And advantages*. Or do you ignore those?
This looks like an attempt to start a fight or act like the aggressive part of the Nix community. I said immutable systems have advantages and disadvantages (in the next comment I think) but you either didn’t read or decided to just fight instead.
This is false. What makes you think that?
Dual system partitions and Flatpaks are both not great for machines that use HDDs.
What’s “them” in this sentence?
Old PCs.
Furthermore, if it is the “old PCs”, doesn’t this directly contradict with “they are unsuitable for old PCs”?
It doesn’t because Nix doesn’t have the just mentioned disadvantages of immutable systems. Idk why you misunderstood this but imo it seems suspicious of you.
Thank you for the quick reply!
There is no philosophical side. I don’t believe in them getting very major on desktops and laptops. That’s it.
Alright. Thanks for clarification. Does “getting very major” primarily apply to adoption rate amongst users? Or does it primarily take into account adoption rate amongst distros?
Yes but the hype should disappear a long time before it happens. And that’s what I meant by the bubble. It’s very hyped, misunderstood and misused thing now. It will go away and then immutable systems will find their niche or die out.
Clear. Thank you. In your view, how should they be understood and used?
I said immutable systems have advantages and disadvantages (in the next comment I think)
I saw the part about advantages right after. However, I also noticed how the first disadvantage was written without nuance. The set of disadvantages and advantages that followed right afterwards was accompanied with “for some” (or something like that IIRC[1]). Therefore, to me at least, it seemed as if you meant that there were disadvantages overall. But some of these disadvantages may be perceived as advantageous to some. Which, I thought was perhaps more in line with the general outlook of your comment. Or at least, my understanding of it*.
Dual system partitions and Flatpaks are both not great for machines that use HDDs.
HDDs in general are not great :P . But, “unsuitable” =/= “not great”. So, this does not justify the (previous) usage of “unsuitable”. So, do you still stand behind the earlier use of “unsuitable”?
Old PCs.
Thank you for another clarification!
It doesn’t because Nix doesn’t have the just mentioned disadvantages of immutable systems.
Interesting.
I just noticed that I read your “Nix” as “NixOS”. Which is blameworthy*. Uhmm…, so I have to ask for some (more) clarifications then 😜. Did you strictly mean Nix; i.e. the package manager and/or language? Or NixOS? According to you, does NixOS fall into Nix; i.e. simply the system that’s built on Nix?
This looks like an attempt to start a fight or act like the aggressive part of the Nix community.
but you either didn’t read or decided to just fight instead.
Idk why you misunderstood this but imo it seems suspicious of you.
Fam. Chill. Please. I don’t intend to antagonize or whatsoever 😅. Like, the (overwhelming) majority of my previous comment were queries for clarifications and questioned related to how I initially understood them. There’s no need to make it more than that 😉.
All in all, thank you for clarifying and answering almost anything I asked. However, the following (I believe) still requires some attention:
Furthermore, like how do you reconcile this with Fedora’s ambitions for Fedora Atomic?
To clarify, from my understanding, it seems you regard/view ‘immutable distros’ at best as some niche. Which, to be fair, is absolutely fine. And perhaps you’re right; the future will tell. However, we know what Fedora intends for 2028; i.e. users of Fedora Atomic (and related ‘immutable’ projects led by Fedora) would constitute the majority of its user base. Furthermore, they’ve spoken since 2021 (IIRC) that Fedora Atomic (so likely Fedora Silverblue) will eventually become what people will install for Fedora Workstation. So, their ambition is clear. And their ambition contradicts with how you view it. How do you reconcile this with the fact that other distros (more often than not) join Fedora into whatever direction they depart? Examples of this include systemd, PulseAudio, PipeWire and some might even mention Flatpak and Wayland here.
- You’ve since changed your original comment (which is fair), so I’m not able to directly quote*.
OMG that’s a lot of comment lol. My brain is gonna melt when typing a reply to THIS in English. But I guess I can try.
Does “getting very major” primarily apply to adoption rate amongst users? Or does it primarily take into account adoption rate amongst distros?
Amongst users. It’s possible that every big and medium distro will have an immutable spin soon but it won’t be too popular.
In your view, how should they be understood and used?
I’m sorry but expressing my opinion on it greatly increases the chance of running out of energy which will make my speech absolutely illogical and ridiculous.
I saw the part about advantages right after. However, I also noticed how the first disadvantage was written without nuance. The set of disadvantages and advantages that followed right afterwards was accompanied with “for some” (or something like that IIRC[1]). Therefore, to me at least, it seemed as if you meant that there were disadvantages overall. But some of these disadvantages may be perceived as advantageous to some. Which, I thought was perhaps more in line with the general outlook of your comment. Or at least, my understanding of it*.
My brain always returns an “out of memory” error of the if/else solving module if I try to feed it this part so sorry if my response isn’t complete. I indeed made it look like the features of immutable distros are disadvantages to more people than they are advantages to. This is my opinion which might be biased since immutability goes totally against my workflow and the workflows I make for other people.
But, “unsuitable” =/= “not great”. So, this does not justify the (previous) usage of “unsuitable”. So, do you still stand behind the earlier use of “unsuitable”?
Worse for = not meant for; not meant for = unsuitable imo because there are just better options; this leads to worse = unsuitable. Maybe not completely unsuitable but at least definitely not good for.
Thank you for another clarification!
You are welcome and thank you for not being toxic like at least approximately 2/3 of people on Lemmy (according to my not-so-accurate research).
I just noticed that I read your “Nix” as “NixOS”. Which is blameworthy*. Uhmm…, so I have to ask for some (more) clarifications then 😜. Did you strictly mean Nix; i.e. the package manager and/or language? Or NixOS? According to you, does NixOS fall into Nix; i.e. simply the system that’s built on Nix?
Ok listen idk much about Nix ecosystem/infrastructure. I meant NixOS here. Sorry for the confusion. The habit of not including the “OS” ending comes from the Android community.
Fam. Chill. Please. I don’t intend to antagonize or whatsoever 😅. Like, the (overwhelming) majority of my previous comment were queries for clarifications and questioned related to how I initially understood them. There’s no need to make it more than that 😉.
I’m sorry, mister/miss. My attitude to the society, people in general and Lemmy users is negative and suspicious by default. I have my reasons and, no matter how controversial it is, I’m not going to change it. Most of the people by far are bad and toxic so it’s ok to make this assumption the default. Again I’m sorry that this my assumption caused inconvenience for you.
To clarify, from my understanding, it seems you regard/view ‘immutable distros’ at best as some niche. Which, to be fair, is absolutely fine.
It may not be a small niche but everything has a niche (even X11, Wayland, GNOME and Windows 10) so immutable distros can have a big one or a small one. As you said, future will tell. I don’t see them getting a large (more than 10-20% desktop Linux users) niche any time soon.
How do you reconcile this with the fact that other distros (more often than not) join Fedora into whatever direction they depart?
I don’t think it’s the case or at least I don’t have any information on it. Fedora just tries making new and very perspective stuff the first and the stuff always succeeded in the past. In the case of immutable distros, I feel like it’s gonna be some nice to watch chaos because new users will have to understand how to disable immutability to install drivers and fixes which means much more research (because most answers will just say “disable immutability for the directories that the fix needs” and the user will have no idea of any of that) and terminal commands. At the same time, immutable systems may be less suitable for advanced users who like tinkering. This makes a huge part of the Linux user base. Then I can say “told you” with pride. Though immutable distros are great for cases when the system must be limited to a certain task(s). On the desktop it’s the enterprise usage but idk how many % they are. I think it’s in the single digits.
Also we’re searching for the Lemmy’s comment length limit with these ones!!!
My previous comment was perhaps too enthusiastic 😜 . I’d like to slim it down as follows:
- First of all, thank you! It has been a lovely interaction so far. Your clarifications have been very helpful!
- I’m still very much interested in how you think ‘immutable’ distros should be understood and used.
- If I understood you correctly, you don’t regard NixOS as an ‘immutable’ distro (or at least not representative), would you be so kind to elaborate on this?
- Some of your notions regarding ‘immutable’ distros don’t align with my own experiences; i.e. a user with over two years of experience with Fedora Atomic and who has played around with Nix. Especially the following parts:
In the case of immutable distros, I feel like it’s gonna be some nice to watch chaos because new users will have to understand how to disable immutability to install drivers and fixes which means much more research (because most answers will just say “disable immutability for the directories that the fix needs” and the user will have no idea of any of that) and terminal commands.
To be absolutely clear, these notions are (almost) alien to me. I’ve only come across these with new users that had fallen for the (infamous) XY problem. But that’s not even remotely representative. Hence, would I be correct to assume that your understanding of ‘immutable’ distros is relatively shallow? Which, to be absolutely fair, is totally fine.
Though, the possibility exists that your understanding of “disable immutability” is correct, but this particular phrase happens to be misleading instead. Hence, could you perhaps elaborate on what you mean with “disable immutability”? Like, how does that look like on any ‘immutable’ distro you’re familiar with?
Thank you in advance 😊!
I am sorry, mister/miss. Something weird happened to my Lemmy account and it was inaccessible for 2 days.
I’m still very much interested in how you think ‘immutable’ distros should be understood and used.
Immutable distros are good for cases when the machine is meant to be used for very specific tasks and applications while maintaining extreme stability and ease of updating. This includes OSes for ATMs, machinery control panels, enterprise office computers with very strict policies, educational computer class devices. I am not sure whether they are good for critical infrastructure such as aerospace industry and on-board computers so I can’t comment on that and it’s too early to do so anyways. Immutable systems can also be used for regular modern workspaces if stability (and possibly security) are preferred over absolutely everything else.
If I understood you correctly, you don’t regard NixOS as an ‘immutable’ distro (or at least not representative), would you be so kind to elaborate on this?
For me an “immutable distro” is defined more by its read-only (or R/W with write being disabled by default) root file system than by reproducibility or any other stuff. Afaik NixOS does not use any form of read-only FS so that’s why it is not an immutable distro to me.
To be absolutely clear, these notions are (almost) alien to me. I’ve only come across these with new users that had fallen for the (infamous) XY problem. But that’s not even remotely representative. Hence, would I be correct to assume that your understanding of ‘immutable’ distros is relatively shallow? Which, to be absolutely fair, is totally fine.
No matter how good your distro is, there always will be new users that need fixes or customizations that require extra steps and research on immutable (as in my definition) distros. This increases the chance of them giving up on Linux or creating angry/toxic posts on Linux related websites and communities.
Hence, could you perhaps elaborate on what you mean with “disable immutability”.
“Disable immutability” means “allow persistent changes for files and directories located in specific directories that are not in the /home directory/partition (“read-only” directories)”.
Thank you. Thank you.
I am sorry, mister/miss. Something weird happened to my Lemmy account and it was inaccessible for 2 days.
No worries, fam 😉.
Immutable distros are good for cases when the machine is meant to be used for very specific tasks and applications while maintaining extreme stability and ease of updating. This includes OSes for ATMs, machinery control panels, enterprise office computers with very strict policies, educational computer class devices. I am not sure whether they are good for critical infrastructure such as aerospace industry and on-board computers so I can’t comment on that and it’s too early to do so anyways.
I think we very much agree on this. I am actually surprised 😜. Perhaps we (possibly) only ‘disagree’ on the following:
Immutable systems can also be used for regular modern workspaces if stability (and possibly security) are preferred over absolutely everything else.
I actually even agree with this. But, and here it comes, you limit the use of ‘immutable systems’ when it comes to regular workspaces to just a subset that complies with “if stability (and possibly security) are preferred over absolutely everything else”. However, I’d argue it will soon become the preferred model for most people; simply because I’d argue the net positives dramatically outweigh the (diminishing) net negatives. And this ‘clash’ in perspectives is literally a philosophical/ideological one. Which, I actually tried to allude to in my very first comment. Btw, neither of us is right or wrong; as mentioned earlier, only time will tell.
For me an “immutable distro” is defined more by its read-only (or R/W with write being disabled by default) root file system than by reproducibility or any other stuff.
Alright. So, you prefer to refer to ‘immutable’ distro in the literal sense.
Regarding the status of the read-only (or disabled R/W) root file system, does this have to apply to the complete root file system; i.e. absolute? Or does it suffice if only a select subset of the system is read-only (or disabled R/W)?I wanted to ask this, but later on you made clear that a system does not have to be completely and absolutely immutable for it to be considered immutable; a couple of read-only directories suffices.Furthermore, is it required that an immutable system should remain immutable at all times for it to be considered an immutable system; i.e. changes are not allowed besides ‘hacks’? Or is it perhaps possible for a system to be deemed immutable if it only possesses immutability during runtime?
Thanks in advance for yet another set of clarifications 😜!
Afaik NixOS does not use any form of read-only FS so that’s why it is not an immutable distro to me.
Teaser; the Nix Store, i.e.
/nix/store, is immutable.“Disable immutability” means “allow persistent changes for files and directories located in specific directories that are not in the /home directory/partition (“read-only” directories)”.
Very interesting. So, on Fedora Atomic,
rpm-ostree install <package>would be considered “disable immutability”. Right? But, this does not apply toflatpak install <package>. Right?No matter how good your distro is, there always will be new users that need fixes or customizations that require extra steps and research on immutable (as in my definition) distros. This increases the chance of them giving up on Linux or creating angry/toxic posts on Linux related websites and communities.
To be clear, new users will most likely experience some issues on Linux for the time being. I don’t think that ‘immutable’ distros are immune to that. Nor do I think they’re particularly more troublesome. If anything, they allow for more stable experiences overall; which you seem to allude to as well.
It’s probably wise to simply ignore the drama. Open source seems to invite this at the “top” for whatever reason, but for the casual user there is usually little to no impact.
Unless you’re trying to be a top contributor to nix, I would just carry on with normal usage and all the current drama will blow over.
uh, the drama being what it is about people in positions of power blocking efforts to make a welcoming and diverse nixos community, persisting right wing concern trolling, and especially what appears to be maybe a military tech company takeover of nixos, it’s hella understandable people would want to reconsider using this tech on their own hardware and it’s pretty sus to respond to this with ‘ah just drama it’ll blow over’…
military tech company
wait until they find out where computers and the internet came from. or Tor… GPS, etc etc.
Didn’t GPS come from NASA?
You should know that the guy you cited in the second link, Srid, is a well-known right-wing shit-stirrer who is banned from basically all NixOS spaces because he cannot peacefully coexist. He literally gets up day after day with the seemingly sole purpose of fueling drama and causing problems. Don’t take his opinion at face value, he wants to see the project burn down and this colors his interpretation of events.
NixOS is going through a rocky moment for sure, but there’s no indication it will implode currently.
Thank you for mentioning who he is and what his goals are!
which is hilarious because any time I make comments like that, they get removed.
I think we should attack the arguments made and not the people, seems a bit hypocritical IMO.
I attacked his beliefs which is perfectly valid. You should critically examine the motives and biases of people who feed you information.
I am critically examining your responses and I believe that you are making personal attacks.
Criticizing people’s past and current actions relating to the subject and bringing up their direct history relavent to the subject is not a personal attack, nor is it out of line to point out he does his to advance his political agenda within the project, which is why he got banned in the first place. All of this directly relates to the subject at hand.
You know what doesn’t relate to the subject at hand? Your random little “sjw gender terrorists” comment. But it does make it rather clear why you want to obfuscate the facts about Srid’s history with the project, subsequent ban, and continued amplification of drama and general shit-stirring ever since.
He literally gets up day after day with the seemingly sole purpose of fueling drama and causing problems
That’s funny because I feel like that’s exactly what all these self-proclaimed “gender terrorist” SJWs are doing to projects in the first place.
You made one reply to me whining that I attacked the person by pointing out his beliefs, and then made another reply to me about “gender terrorist SJWs”. Do you just lack any form of self-awareness?
Why the whataboutism?
I had to look up what that word means. It sounds like calling something whataboutism could itself be considered whataboutism. Anyways, I was merely making an observation with no ulterior motive, I was not trying to discredit or shift any focus away from the original argument. Apologies if that wasn’t clear.
