On Mon 08 Nov 2021 at 22:16:20 (-0500), Stefan Monnier wrote: > >> >> In contrast, with NixOS/Guix that list is available in a plain text > >> >> editable file. > > I'm not sure I'd call scheme a "plain text". > > Interesting. What I mean is a file that's intended to be manipulated by > a text editor rather than by some other program. It might *also* be > manipulated by other programs, but often it makes things more complicated. > > It usually means that its visual presentation is intended to be > human-readable (e.g. with indentation and comments to help understand > the structure and intention). > [ That's what makes it hard to manipulate with other programs, since > you need to preserve layout and comments whose meaning relates to > intentions (i.e. hard to formalize) and hence difficult to preserve > other than by another human. ]
That's rather a stretch. If the text is /structured/, it's not Plain Text. Sure, it's a text file and not binary, but that's usual for Linux OSes. Here (Guix), it's actually source code written in guile, a scheme variant AIUI. (For Nix, it's some other language.) Earlier, > I would love to see Debian move towards a model like that of NixOS or > Guix. One of the main benefits I see of those systems is that it has > a declarative description of what the system should contain. I can't see the point. You can have the Guix package manager¹ now, as it allegedly installs on top of "foreign distros" (their term). It appears to me that you need well-resourced machines to benefit by its ability to have different versions of packages for the system, and yet more for individual users. I'm not typically in that position. And I don't see how you track security with all those versions around. I'll be sticking with APT for the time being. ¹ I think it's misguided to call the package manager and the OS? / Distribution? / whatever it is by the same name. Cheers, David.
