41–50 of 113 posts
> it’s not a bootable distribution yet, but rather one to be installed on top of a running GNU/Linux system. For a moment there I thought the GNU Hurd had been finished, I misread it as GNU Unix :(
GNU Hurd finished? Good one :)
> A distribution built by GNU hackers is a great opportunity to improve consistency and cohesion in GNU! Because the existing fragmentation of GNU package management is too confusing, so we need a new standard for everyone to rally round. [ http://xkcd.com/927/ ]
That particular Xkcd comic has been posted 79 times in the past year or so† and has quickly become a cliché. The authors' stated goals are to make a "purely functional" and "practical 100% free" package manager.†† They don't mention competition, proliferation, or winning market share. A vague hope of consistency and cohesion accompanying the announcement of a program "approaching its first alpha release" isn't a rall…
Yet another package manager? :) I've yet to see something that does a better job than http://paludis.exherbo.org/ And that is not to say Paludis couldn't be improved. But I don't get why people devote time to the community to work on stuff that has been thoroughly solved.
How can I give it a try? F.e. if I want to install my own vim in my home directory?
look in documentation at http://nixos.org/nix/ on how to install nix and drop on irc.freenode.org#nixos if having problems
Earlier quoted context omitted.
GNU Hurd finished? Good one :)
It is finished, in the sense like WebOS is finished.
Now, how does that compares to GNU Hurd?
It seems everyone reinvents package management poorly again and again. Some things that obviously stand out to me: * Why utilize scheme? It's declaritive utilize a markup like yaml, don't go off the deep end because you can. * Utilize OS specific features such as jails, bind mounts, namespaces, you can have the same NIX style separation without destroying FHS. * Parse the config files for options, it's easy cmake, au…
Please, utilise the word "use".
"Use is three times as performant as utilize."
It seems everyone reinvents package management poorly again and again. Some things that obviously stand out to me: * Why utilize scheme? It's declaritive utilize a markup like yaml, don't go off the deep end because you can. * Utilize OS specific features such as jails, bind mounts, namespaces, you can have the same NIX style separation without destroying FHS. * Parse the config files for options, it's easy cmake, au…
Why utilize scheme? If emacs has thaught us anything, it is that when you give people a fully featured language to fool around with, things you could never imagine can start happening. Why not scheme? It's liberally licensed and already has mind-share. It's a simple, no fuzz language with little obfuscating magic and great expressive power. It allows you to build your solutions as bare-bones as you like or go on full…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Then, why reinvent the obvious other wheel? http://nixos.org/nix/
It's not a reinvention, it's a fork: "Guix is based on the Nix package manager." [ https://savannah.gnu.org/projects/guix/ ] (More info here: https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/guile-user/2012-07/msg000... , taken from icebraining below)