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

I Love Arch, but GNU Guix Is My New Distro

boilingsteam.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 318 posts

Re: I Love Arch, but GNU Guix Is My New Distro

#81

Post by amelius »

masklinn wrote: post #68
amelius wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How does Nix work with less sophisticated package managers that run on top of it, e.g. Python's "pip"?

If you just use pip & co, nix will be unaware of it and won't care one way or another. It will basically treat your pip-installed stuff like it'd treat your sourcefiles or pdfs. Alternatively you can create derivations instead in which case the resulting artefacts will be fully understood and manageable by nix (I think there are integrations to do that e.g. tools like carnix which can automatically create derivations…

> If you just use pip & co, nix will be unaware of it and won't care one way or another. It will basically treat your pip-installed stuff like it'd treat your sourcefiles or pdfs.

Also if you run pip as root (to install for all users at once)?

Re: I Love Arch, but GNU Guix Is My New Distro

#82

Post by marcan_42 »

kzhukov wrote: post #74
marcan_42 wrote: post #27

> Guix System is an advanced distribution of the GNU operating system. It uses the Linux-libre kernel It's worth pointing out that the linux-libre kernel is developed under the FSF doctrine that "binary blobs are bad unless you can't see them". This has been taken to its logical extreme here, where this Linux fork actively removes security warnings informing users that they need to update their CPU microcode , becaus…

Well, for some people loading an arbitrary binary code without possibility to check what's inside it is a critical security issue as well.

Those people are already running arbitrary binary code without the possibility to check what's inside, it's just that it was loaded before purchase. If you don't trust Intel's updates, then you also can't trust their CPUs in the first place.

Re: I Love Arch, but GNU Guix Is My New Distro

#83

Post by medo-bear »

marcan_42 wrote: post #79
medo-bear wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

i just looked through this website and found a link to their certification process at https://ryf.fsf.org/about/criteria it states: > However, there is one exception for secondary embedded processors. The exception applies to software delivered inside auxiliary and low-level processors and FPGAs, within which software installation is not intended after the user obtains the product. This can include, for instance, mic…

The existence of that exception, the way it is implemented, the way they work with vendors to help them fit into it, and the way they do not require informing users of such secondary processors are all deceptive. Just look at the Librem 5. That CPU needs a blob to even boot (to train the RAM). Normally that would just be embedded into the bootloader. But that would make it evident in the build process for their boot…

not knowing about https://ryf.fsf.org/ previously, i managed to find and understand their certification process within a matter of ten minutes. if i was a user of these products i don't think i would feel decieved

Re: I Love Arch, but GNU Guix Is My New Distro

#84

Post by Santosh83 »

marcan_42 wrote: post #82
kzhukov wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, for some people loading an arbitrary binary code without possibility to check what's inside it is a critical security issue as well.

Those people are already running arbitrary binary code without the possibility to check what's inside, it's just that it was loaded before purchase. If you don't trust Intel's updates, then you also can't trust their CPUs in the first place.

There is a bit more nuance here though. There may be users who trust their old systems but no longer trust the current state of its manufacturer or their binary only updates. Proprietary blobs go against the core freedom as defined by FSF so I can understand why they block by default but IMO they should allow informed users to override. Simply censoring without allowing a user to bypass is not user (or freedom) respecting. The power to choose should be with the user, whom the FSF claims to represent.

Re: I Love Arch, but GNU Guix Is My New Distro

#85

Post by rightbyte »

marcan_42 wrote: post #51
detaro wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

... yes, because your distro did the right thing and does provide updated packages and loads them for you (it's not persistent, but rather done on each boot), and thus you don't need to do anything and also don't see warnings about your distro failing to do so. Whereas linux-libre doesn't want you to know if your distro isn't loading updated microcode, because it's "better" (according to them) to run vulnerable non-u…

Yup, it's all about controlling users' access to hardware and software to fulfill some imaginary "freedom" ideal that doesn't actually have any relevance in reality. Stallman personally refused to certify bunnie's Novena laptop (a fully open hardware and software laptop) as "Respects your Freedom" because there were no free drivers for the GPU, and although it wasn't going to ship with GPU acceleration (that's option…

> a few years later, open drivers for that GPU were developed

So ... FSF made the right call? What is the point of the certification of a device if there are no drivers for it.

Re: I Love Arch, but GNU Guix Is My New Distro

#86

Post by ajvs »

marcan_42 wrote: post #82
kzhukov wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, for some people loading an arbitrary binary code without possibility to check what's inside it is a critical security issue as well.

Those people are already running arbitrary binary code without the possibility to check what's inside, it's just that it was loaded before purchase. If you don't trust Intel's updates, then you also can't trust their CPUs in the first place.

Just because some proprietary code exists doesn't mean you should leave the door open for them to add as much extra proprietary code as they wish.

You can regard it as two separate features: one that's needed for the CPU to function, and another that's the door for more code being added. In that perspective it's better to go with preventing additions.

Re: I Love Arch, but GNU Guix Is My New Distro

#87

Post by medo-bear »

marcan_42 wrote: post #71
medo-bear wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

what does adapting to the times mean? FSF and GNU seem to be about fundamentals of computing and software. have these fundamentals changed?

The line between hardware and software has been heavily blurred in the past 30 years. The FSF continue to draw an arbitrary line where none can be drawn, and then say only one side needs to be Free. Since there is no longer any clear line, this gives them the freedom (ha) to deceptively do so in a way that is convenient to them and makes their followers believe they are getting some kind of special Freedom, when in r…

>Then they spin narratives about how this is important for not just freedom, but also security/privacy/etc, while their policies have absolutely nothing to do with improving users' security or privacy

i think i have always held the opinion that for FSF and GNU their concept of security was "security through free software". that is free software (according to how its understood by them) comes first

Re: I Love Arch, but GNU Guix Is My New Distro

#88

Post by georgyo »

ajvs wrote: post #86
marcan_42 wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Those people are already running arbitrary binary code without the possibility to check what's inside, it's just that it was loaded before purchase. If you don't trust Intel's updates, then you also can't trust their CPUs in the first place.

Just because some proprietary code exists doesn't mean you should leave the door open for them to add as much extra proprietary code as they wish. You can regard it as two separate features: one that's needed for the CPU to function, and another that's the door for more code being added. In that perspective it's better to go with preventing additions.

This is a double edge sword.

If there are issues with what are initially released and you do not patch you do not get those fixes.

So they could add stuff but they definitely will fix stuff. Not updating could be more dangerous then updating.

Re: I Love Arch, but GNU Guix Is My New Distro

#89

Post by onli »

marcan_42 wrote: post #71
medo-bear wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

what does adapting to the times mean? FSF and GNU seem to be about fundamentals of computing and software. have these fundamentals changed?

The line between hardware and software has been heavily blurred in the past 30 years. The FSF continue to draw an arbitrary line where none can be drawn, and then say only one side needs to be Free. Since there is no longer any clear line, this gives them the freedom (ha) to deceptively do so in a way that is convenient to them and makes their followers believe they are getting some kind of special Freedom, when in r…

There is no nuance there. Without free software there is no software freedom. If blobs are allowed at all that is already a measure to have a system that works in practice, but in no way makes it the position against closed software and blobs wrong.

The people criticizing the FSF here act as if Stallman were wrong about these issues because he said it back then already. While in reality again and again he was right about how user freedoms are limited when the principles he outlined are not followed.

To give Intel a way to distribute closed source software updates to your processor is definitely a security risk. And we know for certain the actors in the USA that try to use those security risks for their surveillance programs. Don't act like this world does not exist.

Post reply on HN