251–260 of 286 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think the main reason actually is that nix supports more than just Linux - notably macOS.
The quality of Nix packages for Darwin is quite bad compared to Linux though, I don't think there's a core maintainer that runs Nix on Darwin.
Culture war grandstanding drowning out the much more interesting discussion around Determinate System’s pledge to support the long-debated Nix Flakes officially. Nix Flakes looking like the real source of the schism in the Nix community.
> Nix Flakes looking like the real source of the schism in the Nix community. No. In the talks about the fork because of the real issue of MIC sponsorship there was disagreement about whether flakes should be the default among those against MIC sponsorship. They are both issues, but the most pressing one causing large contributors to leave is the MIC sponsorship issue. The flakes/no-flakes issue existed before and wa…
People seem to forget that a lot if not most of IT has some form of military background/funding behind it. Be it the first computers, the Internet, RISC CPUs, BSD UNIX and much much more. You’re free not to like this fact of course, but then using the technologies anyway is a bit of a double standard.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes, because "ideas rooted in fascism or bigotry" is a vague phrase lacking any clear definition, and risks becoming a cudgel for cliques to use to shut down anyone who disagrees with them.
Slippery slope fallacy, however I agree the wording is too vague and needs to be more specified. Facism / bigotry are catch-all terms for a broad range of things, and the RFC should link to or include the definitions they consider, with a caveat that they may be updated at a later time.
How is what I said a "slippery slope"? And what makes it fallacious?
> Facism / bigotry are catch-all terms for a broad range of things
Why not then drop those terms, and replace them with more specific terminology?
Seems like this is becoming the terminal phase of the FOSS lifecycle for many projects. I wonder what makes some long-lived communities immune to this behavior...OpenBSD comes to mind.
Hygiene, folks.
Also could be the fact that the entire reason OpenBSD exists is that De Raadt got cancelled out of NetBSD: http://mail-index.netbsd.org/netbsd-users/1994/12/23/0000.ht...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> In particular the civil clause demands that members of the university reject research projects and funding which could serve weapon technology. Wait, what? Are you saying German universities are forbidden from contributing to Nix/NixOS, which is used by Anduril? Or say, the RISC-V ecosystem, which may be used as chips driving military weapons? ... or the Linux kernel? Heck, any OS at all?
Sponsorship with the attached advertisement is very different than "used by". Don't be silly. Are you even aware, I am referencing the issue of a Nix conference hosted at a German university, or are you in political autopilot drive-by mode? I linked a Wikipedia article, read it, if you're genuinely interested and not debating in bad faith.
Sure, but what does that have to do with the Civil clause that you mentioned? It doesn't say anything about sponsorship, but it does say about "used by": "Any participation of science and research with military use or purpose must be rejected". Obviously, this cannot be true, since it can be applied to anything that is used by the military, including paper, towels, pens, computers in general, water, etc.
> Are you even aware, I am referencing the issue of a Nix conference hosted at a German university
I am, and? I think you missed my point?
> I linked a Wikipedia article, read it, if you're genuinely interested and not debating in bad faith.
I did. The Civil clause of some universities does sound fine ("strive to", "focused on"), but the others make a blanket statement that is very hard to take seriously. Obviously, they don't take the statement to the letter, and in fact it's hard to tell what they aren't supposed to do (if anything), unless perhaps you look at the other universities. Even then, none of those clauses say anything that can be applied to hosting a conference with military sponsorship but not to contributing to Nix.
Regardless, I don't think what you linked to is well known outside Germany. You can judge by the extent and completeness of that Wikipedia article. I'm European (EU), went to a European (EU) university and I had never heard of such a clause.
To answer to your point:
> To even think of the sponsorship as a valid idea is US centric ignorance. Outside the US people don't get the "Thank you for your service" indoctrination and are way, way more reluctant to work with the MIC.
I think you're generalizing a wee bit too much -- I'm not from the US and I think there's plenty of indoctrination to go around, and yet I don't think rejecting this sponsorship is in accordance with open source and Free Software values, philosophy and spirit. You can go read about it here -- and notice how it says several times that the point is to include everyone: https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.en.html
To be honest, I think the mistake with Nixcon was not Anduril, but rather, to host the conference at a German university.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Indeed. Is that not a valid complaint?
Not every policy claiming to prevent (insert something heinous here) is a good one. The PATRIOT Act is a terrible law. Opposing it doesn't make you a terrorist. But you would've been accused of being one nonetheless if you opposed it in 2001. It's easy to see why many people wouldn't want to actively get into such a controversy. But even that is being used as grounds for kicking someone out.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> it's less "don't use our product" as "don't advertise in our spaces" I guess the problem here is the definition of "our". If Anduril sponsors development of nix, it's as much "their" product and "their" space as it is yours. Or in other words, they are included in "ours". You might not like that, but that doesn't change the facts.
i don't disagree with this. it takes care to figure out how to actually share the commons. despite my very obvious (at this point) anti-state motivations for being involved in open source, i've actually kept that discourse away from the NixOS spaces for two years. it's only after Anduril is reshaping those spaces to be pro-military that i bring my own world views into this space overtly. i'm not certain of the ideal…
If you want something to be open, you have to accept it will also be open to entities and ideas you don't like. If you don't want that, you don't actually want "open".
One way out of this specific situation would probably be a fork, which I suspect is what will happen. But forking is interesting, because in one way it's only possible with open system and on the other hand it's kind of an admission that the openness has failed.
> i would be content with an agreement that our shared spaces be neither overtly pro nor anti military -- to the degree which this is possible or enforceable.
I live in Switzerland. In some ways, this is our official stance in regards to neutrality and I don't think it works very well. Some things are just binary and you can't really be neither pro or anti, unless you're lying to yourself and/or others.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not every policy claiming to prevent (insert something heinous here) is a good one. The PATRIOT Act is a terrible law. Opposing it doesn't make you a terrorist. But you would've been accused of being one nonetheless if you opposed it in 2001. It's easy to see why many people wouldn't want to actively get into such a controversy. But even that is being used as grounds for kicking someone out.
I disagree that this is comparable to American politics in 2001, and that Eelco isn't actively involved.
Also, I brought up the PATRIOT Act because it's so strikingly similar. Any rule that is broad and vague can and will get abused. Any prior assurances otherwise have zero effect. Yet, looking at discussions in RFC 98, there was strong opposition to making the rules clear and well-defined in scope. It's no wonder the community was unable to reach an agreement. Also no wonder that the whole thing is blowing up even further because the moderation is effectively operating in this way regardless.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's wild to see how much hate Anduril gets from the same people who have statements supporting Ukraine in their READMEs or have licenses preventing Russians from using their software. How can you demand support for Ukraine, but then get upset by the people who are meeting actual needs for the war effort?
Anduril started by building tech to hunt poor people crossing the southern border of the US. Their CEO is a right wing extremist. How you can say this is the same as supporting Ukraine against Russia aggression is obviously telling more about you than about anyone else.