Hello, Chris Marusich <cmmarus...@gmail.com> skribis:
> Ricardo Wurmus <rek...@elephly.net> writes: > >> Hi Guix, >> >> on the website it starts right away with a list of features: >> “Liberating”, “Dependable”, and “Hackable”. But what is this thing >> called Guix? >> >> We should add a very short paragraph above that list to say what Guix >> and GuixSD are. >> >> What do you think? > > How is Guix different from other package managers? Why is it better? That’s what Liberating (free software), Dependable (transactional, etc.), Hackable (it’s a Scheme API) tries to convey. The hope was that by reading these 3 items people could tell how it differs from APT/dpkg, Conda, or Nix. > Perhaps the best way to do that would be to write a problem statement. > Instead of explaining what Guix is, explain what problems Guix solves. > The first chapter of Eelco Dolstra's Ph. D. thesis [1] did a fantastic > job of explaining what problems Nix solves, and by the end of that > chapter, I was really excited to learn more about Nix (and Guix) and try > it out. In particular, the list of problems with the state of the art > in section 1.3 "Motivation" and the list of solutions that Nix offers in > section 1.5 "Contributions" were particularly concise and convincing. > Maybe we can aim for something similar on our Guix website? The “Introduction” and “Features” sections of the manual aim to achieve that goal, but in a “constructive” way (stating what properties it has, rather than what properties other solutions lack.) However, I think it’s not that concise and it’s quite technical, so I’d keep that in the manual rather than on the front page. Thoughts? Ludo’.
