Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

NixOS on Framework Laptop

kvark.github.io

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

231–240 of 250 posts

Re: NixOS on Framework Laptop

#231

Post by nybble41 »

mindslight wrote: post #223
5e92cb50239222b wrote: post #212

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why would you do this manually? You also have to remember to check multiple configuration paths (e.g. override units), all of which can have an additional `.d` include directory. This is the price you pay for the flexibility systemd provides (and I argue it's much better than random System V-style shell scripts that can include anything at all, maybe even some remote scripts piped from curl to sh if developers was ma…

Does `systemctl cat` also work for creating/editing units? If I've got to navigate files and directories configure the thing, then I am going to default to reading the configuration the same way. Having to find out these random commands to view simple things about its own internal model is one of the the worst parts of systemd. I'm no fan of SysV init either, and I appreciate the advancements that systemd does bring…

> Does `systemctl cat` also work for creating/editing units?

No, for that you would use `systemctl edit UNIT...` to create or edit a drop-in file, e.g. to add local overrides for an existing service, or `systemctl edit --full UNIT...` to open a copy of the existing unit file for editing which will replace the packaged version. Add `--force` to create a new unit file for a service which doesn't already exist.

Re: NixOS on Framework Laptop

#232

Post by mindslight »

nybble41 wrote: post #231
mindslight wrote: post #223

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Does `systemctl cat` also work for creating/editing units? If I've got to navigate files and directories configure the thing, then I am going to default to reading the configuration the same way. Having to find out these random commands to view simple things about its own internal model is one of the the worst parts of systemd. I'm no fan of SysV init either, and I appreciate the advancements that systemd does bring…

> Does `systemctl cat` also work for creating/editing units? No, for that you would use `systemctl edit UNIT...` to create or edit a drop-in file, e.g. to add local overrides for an existing service, or `systemctl edit --full UNIT...` to open a copy of the existing unit file for editing which will replace the packaged version. Add `--force` to create a new unit file for a service which doesn't already exist.

I'm not surprised there is functionality like this, but I do question the value in learning it. After you've given up on the filesystem, you've got to figure out how to eg automate it. Some things you're forced to (virsh, crontab, etc), but that's not a selling point.

I've been doing fine on Debian dropping files in /etc/systemd, with a possible hook to `systemctl enable`. A rudimentary ad-hoc object system with overrides etc for every program is like the exact opposite of what I want when doing sysadmin. I think NixOS's approach does a good job of coping with systemd, in that it bundles all that complexity up in a way so it doesn't propagate, despite still having to look up what the Wants/Needs/Likes/Prayers/Requires/Binds designations mean every time I touch the config.

Re: NixOS on Framework Laptop

#233

Post by LMYahooTFY »

joeberon wrote: post #205
fartcannon wrote: post #201

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, not a lot of marketing money behind not liking Apple things, or anyone's things, for that matter.

Just accept that others have a different opinion to you. No need to come up with some conspiracy about why we're not a homogenous blob.

How does pointing out how marketing works warrant being dismissive with 'conspiracy' labels?

Marketing teams actively distort are public opinion.

Your comment is remarkably dismissive IMO.

Re: NixOS on Framework Laptop

#234

Post by md8z »

CameronNemo wrote: post #229
md8z wrote: post #225

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm sorry I don't understand what you're asking for specifically, the source is the cgroups API. Check the documentation I posted earlier, particularly this line: "Because the resource control interface files in a given directory control the distribution of the parent’s resources, the delegatee shouldn’t be allowed to write to them." You could add locking but that would be basically doing what systemd/docker/runc doe…

What have you worked on in this space?

I used to consult for this kind of thing several years ago, I don't any more. The field has really just coalesced around K8s. I don't think there is much space for innovation anymore.

Re: NixOS on Framework Laptop

#235

Post by Izkata »

bschwindHN wrote: post #125
fartcannon wrote: post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To me, Macbooks have the worst trackpad 'feel' so hopefully it's nothing like that.

You're definitely in the minority, macbook trackpads are widely accepted as the best ones currently out there. Some good discussion on this: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19485178

I don't know if this is what GP meant, but I've tried a few co-workers' macbooks, and it's nothing driver related: The touchpad itself has this staticky feel that makes me never want to touch it again. Haven't felt that on any other touchpad before or since.

Re: NixOS on Framework Laptop

#236

Post by nybble41 »

mindslight wrote: post #232
nybble41 wrote: post #231

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Does `systemctl cat` also work for creating/editing units? No, for that you would use `systemctl edit UNIT...` to create or edit a drop-in file, e.g. to add local overrides for an existing service, or `systemctl edit --full UNIT...` to open a copy of the existing unit file for editing which will replace the packaged version. Add `--force` to create a new unit file for a service which doesn't already exist.

I'm not surprised there is functionality like this, but I do question the value in learning it. After you've given up on the filesystem, you've got to figure out how to eg automate it. Some things you're forced to (virsh, crontab, etc), but that's not a selling point. I've been doing fine on Debian dropping files in /etc/systemd, with a possible hook to `systemctl enable`. A rudimentary ad-hoc object system with over…

> I've been doing fine on Debian dropping files in /etc/systemd, with a possible hook to `systemctl enable`.

Don't forget `systemctl daemon-reload` to update the in-memory state when the unit files change. The `edit` command takes care of that for you. It also provides a template for the override files (when not using `--full`) which shows the current settings.

You are free to just drop files in /etc/systemd, of course. This is a fully-supported workflow. The `edit` command is only there for the convenience of the system administrator.

> A rudimentary ad-hoc object system with overrides etc for every program is like the exact opposite of what I want when doing sysadmin.

Are we talking about systemd, or NixOS? Their approaches to configuration really aren't all that different in this regard but you still seem to prefer one over the other. Or is the problem perhaps that you have two different programs trying to manage the configuration?

Personally, from the POV of distributions other than NixOS, I think the systemd approach is far superior to alternatives without overrides, where the only choice is to clone & modify the vendor-provided scripts. With overrides you can fine-tune the parts that matter for your environment without taking over the maintenance of the entire script (or unit file). For example, it's more likely to keep working after an upgrade.

Re: NixOS on Framework Laptop

#237

Post by mindslight »

nybble41 wrote: post #236
mindslight wrote: post #232

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not surprised there is functionality like this, but I do question the value in learning it. After you've given up on the filesystem, you've got to figure out how to eg automate it. Some things you're forced to (virsh, crontab, etc), but that's not a selling point. I've been doing fine on Debian dropping files in /etc/systemd, with a possible hook to `systemctl enable`. A rudimentary ad-hoc object system with over…

> I've been doing fine on Debian dropping files in /etc/systemd, with a possible hook to `systemctl enable`. Don't forget `systemctl daemon-reload` to update the in-memory state when the unit files change. The `edit` command takes care of that for you. It also provides a template for the override files (when not using `--full`) which shows the current settings. You are free to just drop files in /etc/systemd, of cour…

I was talking about systemd. It's each program having its own bespoke template/include/.d/override system that is the problem. Whereas NixOS is intended to be used for every program.

Personally I'd rather clone and modify a full config file rather than only overriding portions. Once I own it, I want to keep owning it - it's more straightforward to track down a problem due to my own assumptions being invalidated, than due to a distribution's assumptions being invalidated. And it's much nicer to read one file for the settings, than having to jump between a few different ones and know the overriding rules (referring to configuration in general here, not just systemd which provides the tools to work with them).

Good point about the daemon-reload. I actually don't have many custom systemd unit files, and they generally don't change. But to be fully correct and not require manual intervention or a full reboot I do need to include that step (although I'm moving away from Debian towards NixOS so shrug).

Re: NixOS on Framework Laptop

#238

Post by Apofis »

cl3misch wrote: post #161
zfnmxt wrote: post #154

> X1 took 120s, so 4.5x slower… totally unexpected Your numbers are clearly suspicious. Did you ever take measures to circumvent the CPU throttling bug under Linux on your X1E? See [1]. Also, regarding your battery comments, when my X1E G1 was new I got great battery life, around 7-8 hours. I still get 5ish. > requires LUKS full-disk encryption, and having it setup conflicted with NVidia’s proprietary driver. This ju…

Regarding the LUKS encryption, he is likely talking about an encrypted /boot partition and using SecureBoot.

Why in the world wouldn't Framework use CoreBoot? Very strange.

Re: NixOS on Framework Laptop

#239

Post by emiller88 »

jeppesen-io wrote: post #27
jph wrote: post #13

Framework + NixOS is the most exciting hardware + OS going IMHO. If someone wants to do a crowdfunding or devpay or similar to make them work out of the box together, I will gladly donate or pay.

It's not what you're asking but I wonder if NixOS's hardware repo could expand to support Framework with some good defaults That being said, I think there could be a good use case for "meta" NixOS distributions. I'm working on such a thing for a NixOS based RetroArch type thing. But could see a PopOS like configuration, focused on on an “out the box experience” https://github.com/NixOS/nixos-hardware

https://github.com/NixOS/nixos-hardware/issues/323

Created an issue for this for anyone interested!

Re: NixOS on Framework Laptop

#240

Post by joeberon »

LMYahooTFY wrote: post #233
joeberon wrote: post #205

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just accept that others have a different opinion to you. No need to come up with some conspiracy about why we're not a homogenous blob.

How does pointing out how marketing works warrant being dismissive with 'conspiracy' labels? Marketing teams actively distort are public opinion. Your comment is remarkably dismissive IMO.

> Your comment is remarkably dismissive IMO.

You'll survive

Post reply on HN