picrel sounds too good to be true, what's the catch?

>How can I install a proprietary or unfree package?
>You won't be able to install or search for an unfree package as a user, unless you explicitly enable it in ~/.config/nixpkgs/config.nix (the file and folder may need to be created):
I don't have an issue with devs maintaining optional nonfree packages on the side. It's not even a political thing if they're only supplying them for pragmatic usability reasons. Both distros have the same amount of difficulty in accessing nonfree repositories.

>They participated in ousting stallman. Sorry but all the euphemisms and cope in the world will not change the fact that guix devs are traitors to the movement and the singular value proposition guix provides is already off the table before it was even on it.
Stallman isn't free software. Bizarre cope.
>Nix has a nonfree repo, guix has a nonfree repo.
Nix has nonfree and binary packages in the main repository. It also repackages free software binaries, which Guix doesn't allow.
>You knew what I meant with config language. Your pedantry doesn't even work here, config languages are not defined by how indirect and turing complete they are.
And yet that has nothing to do with what I said. Nix is not a configuration language, it's a programming language. Guile is both, which makes it superior as you can manipulate the configuration as data using the programming language. Useful in many situations.
>You don't have to be a genius to use arch.
Arch has nothing to do with Guix. The primary difficulty in using Guix is that you have to understand many of the concepts involved (services, derivations, the store) before you can utilize it well.
>This entire thread proves otherwise.
The only thing this thread proves is that OP is a homosexual

>Stallman isn't free software.
The entire coup is about freeing up the FSF for corporate interests through the equivalent of a color revolution. Not sure if you're being disingenuous just to win an argument, or if you actually believe the schlock you're spewing, which is even more despicable.
>Nix has nonfree and binary packages in the main repository.
See above
>It also repackages free software binaries, which Guix doesn't allow.
Literally doesn't matter for a functional OS, all it is is just a binary cache, you can easily compile for yourself a la gentoo with just the one config file.
>Nix is not a configuration language, it's a programming language. Guile is both, which makes it superior as you can manipulate the configuration as data using the programming language.
You are exceedingly stupid, and I will not waste any effort on refuting this insane cope.
>OP is a homosexual
Nice toothless redditor reply bro. I'm also not the OP. This entire thread was hijacked by rabid guix shills from the start. have a nice day, you obnoxious spergs, wished you losers stuck with arch

>Kek, nice larp you got there. No one gives a frick about whatever moronic braindead /misc/shit you believe,
Yeah "lefties" just decided to "dislike" stallman on a whim, huh. This is insane cope territory and I am not willing to discuss this any further. Just know that guix's only raison detre is to be the free software movement's very own nix, and it is clearly not up to the task and more.
>NixOS downloads binaries off the internet and presents them as regular packages. In Guix, everything has to be compilable from source from the bootstrap binaries in order to be allowed into the main repositories.
There is literally nothing wrong with a binary cache. No reason to gimp yourself to compile only, though nix still provides that option nontheless. What you have listed is yet another reason against guix.
>Let me guess, your first two weeks on IQfy have not taught you what Lisp is yet?
peak dunning kruger midwit moment
>Kys newbie, I've never used Arch in my life
Who cares? I'm saying you're no better than an archgay. As in guix Black folk are the new archgays.

>It was some troony twitter shit, I'm sure you know a whole lot more as a regular there.
I don't, I'm not even confident enough to say that it was some woman attempting to cancel him. All I know is it was a blatantly manufactured attempt at doing to stallman what they did to linus.
>Personally I don't really give a frick
Of course you didn't. You don't actually care about free software, you just enjoy the posturing and larping and the identity and self actualization it gives you.
>I'm talking about nixos packages being repackaged binaries. I.e., the package is fetching a prebuilt binary from the internet. You clearly have no idea what you're talking about.
Honestly I didn't bother to read this line of yours closely. Either way, I've never experienced it, you haven't shown any examples, and if you were that butthurt about it you'd just make a PR of your own. The source is there, you can write your own packages, I don't see the issue here, I do it for arbitrary github projects all the time already.
>You don't even know what these words mean newhomosexual
Real original there. I know exactly what they mean. Imagine being such a smug moron that you not only claim lisp(-likes) to be something as moronic as "both a configuration and programming language" then turn around and say that nix is somehow not just that.

No one's ever mentioned anything about troons but you. Cancel culture is not "troony shit", and the head of the FSF (so the potential writers of gplv4) does not have "nothing to do" with software. If all you cared about was the technical side of things, then as I said guix loses in every aspect hands down. I'd have respected you more if you just came out and said the only reason you use guix (and want guix to succeed) is because you're a rapid lispgay on par with the unix haters and enjoyed the choice of guile in guix.
>The entire point is that the code is data.
So? How does this make your claim of
>Nix is not a configuration language, it's a programming language. Guile is both, which makes it superior as you can manipulate the configuration as data using the programming language.
any more valid?

>https://search.nixos.org/packages?channel=22.05&from=0&size=50&sort=relevance&type=packages&query=-bin
Pretty much every package I've searched on that list has a non -bin equivalent. What it looks like is nix giving you a choice to trust nix's or the dev's version of the compiled binary. An actual nothingburger.
>I don't give a shit about Nix. I'm certainly not going to attempt to reason with these literal troony homosexuals.
It was a hypothetical. I'm not asking you to do it.

You will never be a woman.
>So? How does this make your claim of any more valid?
It's not a claim, it's simply the truth. Lisp is a data language, and configuration is data. You haven't actually said anything about why do you think what I said is incorrect so I must assume you don't actually know anything and you're just making shit up.
Guix is a technically superior project, btw. The only thing Nix has got going for it is a horde of mentally ill individuals.

>You will never be a woman
And thank god for that.
>You haven't actually said anything about why do you think what I said is incorrect so I must assume you don't actually know anything and you're just making shit up.
I already said I won't engage with you on this, at least until you've made a sound argument. But I will direct you to lua, a language its creators explicitly called a data descriptor language, though of course pretty much no one else has ever called it that. This is ignoring all the other haskell clones like dhall, and yes nix, the latter of which you have failed to show as to why it does not constitute a "configuration language" as much as guile is.
>Guix is a technically superior project, btw.
Blatantly untrue. Just for the surface level shit I have not heard of a guix alternative for nixops, userland nix, home-manager or flakes. Don't care to check but I'd guess the package count for guix would also be abysmally low compared to nix.

>vscode
I don't think you're able to compile a functional vscode yourself, I thought that was part of the reason for vscodium's existence. Same for chromium, though I'm even less sure on this.
>spotify
>since we're not allowed to re-distribute spotify ourselves:
Fair point on the others, guess no one's given enough of a frick about them

>But I will direct you to lua, a language its creators explicitly called a data descriptor language, though of course pretty much no one else has ever called it that. This is ignoring all the other haskell clones like dhall, and yes nix, the latter of which you have failed to show as to why it does not constitute a "configuration language" as much as guile is
You're actually braindead, look up homoiconicity
>nixops,
Guix deploy (built in)
>userland nix,
I don't know what this is so I can't tell you
>home-manager
guix home (built in, although it's beta at the moment)
>or flakes
Manifests, inferiors.
Nix doesn't have g-expressions, which makes it garbage.

>homoiconicity
Gay meme phrase invented for the sole use of lisptards. Has no practical implications let alone actual benefit as a characteristic outside of having lisptards gush over the primitive syntax of their language and stupid one liner quips like the one you just did.
All the alternatives you gave look like they have a couple of caveats each or more, but I don't know enough to comnent on them. Still, you can't just claim that guix is superior without providing an actual argument as to why. And no being lisp based is not an actual point.
>Nix doesn't have g-expressions, which makes it garbage.
Lmao frick off

I don't even have to make a comment on your spacing, that markdown style quoting tells me all I need to know about the place you need to go back to

>I see. I do have a soft spot for languages where I can pretty much have it do whatever I want it to.
I recommend you at least give it a try. Even if you don't end up using lisp for anything, I think the learning experience is worth it. Here's an actual example, say you want to write a lambda function, but have it be recursive. Obviously this doesn't seem possible since lambdas don't have names, so they can't call themselves. In some languages it might straight up be impossible. In others, you may be able to get a workaround. for example in haskell you can use a fancy Y combinator, and JS you could do something like this
function() {
function recursive() {
if (timeToStop())
return whatever();
recursive(moreWork);
}
return recursive;
})());

the equivalent in Common Lisp would be to use labels to create the inner function and return it
(lambda (some args)
(labels ((recursive (some args)
(if (time-to-stop) (whatever)
(recursive more-work*~~)
#'recursive))

the problem here is that now we've lost the convenience and simplicity of a lambda. it's no longer as short or readable, so there's little advantage over just writing the function at the toplevel. Luckily in lisp, we can do this (taken from the book On Lisp):
(defmacro alambda (parms &body body)
`(labels ((self ,parms ,@body))
#'self))

we've now added this new construct to the language, and can use it anywhere in our code. the same labels example from above becomes this, exactly the same as a regular lambda, but it can use the new self keyword to call itself:
(alambda (some args)
(if (time-to-stop) (whatever)
(self more-work*~~

we didn't have to learn any super fancy functional programming concepts to do this, and we compromise zero readability or simplicity. we just thought "hey i wish lisp could do this", and we added it, using the language itself, in literally 3 lines.

Damn that's really cool. Thanks for sharing anon, I definitely have to give this a try. Btw you actually can name lambdas in javascript, so no need for that iife.

>But I will direct you to lua, a language its creators explicitly called a data descriptor language, though of course pretty much no one else has ever called it that. This is ignoring all the other haskell clones like dhall, and yes nix, the latter of which you have failed to show as to why it does not constitute a "configuration language" as much as guile is
You're actually braindead, look up homoiconicity
>nixops,
Guix deploy (built in)
>userland nix,
I don't know what this is so I can't tell you
>home-manager
guix home (built in, although it's beta at the moment)
>or flakes
Manifests, inferiors.
Nix doesn't have g-expressions, which makes it garbage.

>nix-env
This looks somewhat like guix time-machine. The term used ("user environments") is very confusing and makes me think more of generations though.
>looks clunky
Manifests are a very clean and convenient interface, actually.
Though I do think that inferiors could get some more love in Guix.
>nix isn't lisp
That's the core problem with it. It's trash. How are build scripts even written in Nix, considering it's not a real programming language?

That's actually hilarious.

>vscode
I don't think you're able to compile a functional vscode yourself, I thought that was part of the reason for vscodium's existence. Same for chromium, though I'm even less sure on this.
>spotify
>since we're not allowed to re-distribute spotify ourselves:
Fair point on the others, guess no one's given enough of a frick about them
[...]
>homoiconicity
Gay meme phrase invented for the sole use of lisptards. Has no practical implications let alone actual benefit as a characteristic outside of having lisptards gush over the primitive syntax of their language and stupid one liner quips like the one you just did.
All the alternatives you gave look like they have a couple of caveats each or more, but I don't know enough to comnent on them. Still, you can't just claim that guix is superior without providing an actual argument as to why. And no being lisp based is not an actual point.
>Nix doesn't have g-expressions, which makes it garbage.
Lmao frick off

>Has no practical implications let alone actual benefit as a characteristic outside of having lisptards gush over the primitive syntax of their language and stupid one liner quips like the one you just did.
The practical implication and benefit is that I can directly read, write, evaluate and manipulate the code as data. For example, in Guix I can directly get various information about the system by (read)'ing certain files. I can also trivially rewrite files such as the channels.scm file just by (read)'ing.
This also applies to a lot of different things, because you can do some useful metaprogramming in Guix through modifying expressions.
>Still, you can't just claim that guix is superior without providing an actual argument as to why. And no being lisp based is not an actual point.
It has a better design, fundamentally. It learnt from Nix's mistakes and fixed them. Nix is just legacy cruft at this point.

>You can still do pretty much the same with a library that parses your language of choice into AST then perform your ad hoc rewrites that way
You can't. Lisp is defined in terms of data: a s-expression is a linked list. Other languages are not defined in this way.
Lisp is also just fine to write. It's a very nice and simple syntax, especially thanks to its lack of statements.
>You still haven't shown why.
It's much more cohesive. Everything in Guix is written in Guile Scheme, which is possible because it's a GPL. There's nothing else involved. The system is modified through a DAG of services rather than whatever the frick Nix does with it's weird configuration.shit.enabled. It's also less fragmented, guix home is integrated into the main Guix project rather than being some separate thing.
Guix has also integrated some more recent advances in technology, such as getting rid of package maintainers in favor of letting anyone submit a patch for any package.
The only thing Nix shills have over it is that Nix has more packages, which has honestly not been a problem for me a lot.
I run Guix on both of my laptop and server, and it's been very useful on both.

>For simple modifications like you would a json file, you definitely can. If you don't think it's possible then you don't know what an AST is.
No, you can't. A JSON file describes data. An AST describes code, a sequence of instructions. Lisp describes code in terms of its own data structures.
>It's precisely the lack of syntax that makes it inferior. Perhaps with enough of a hackjob you could implement "modern" SWE concepts like inheritance, async or type algebra but it would neither be nice, simple nor fun to write, however subjective this may already be.
The fact that you think this has anything to do with the syntax is hilarious. Have you ever used anything other than Python? Fricking moron.
By the way, CL is an OOP language with inheritance and async libraries.
>For scripting it's probably fine but I still think the syntax is needlessly clunky, hacky and restrictive.
It's actually very liberating.
>I fail to see how this is an improvement. You've got a long road ahead if you're looking to sell this to anyone who's not an npm baseddev
Spoken like a true moron who never had to deal with package maintainers. No idea what that has to do with NPM anyways.
>Considering how compilation of arbitrary programs is the biggest roadblock for most when using a purely functional OS yes it actually matters, regardless of how great you are at writing guile.
No, not at all. I rarely install additional software and the repos have everything I need.

>You both keep mentioning how lisp (and guix) is great and how it does this and blows that out of the water but I never see why. Guess I'll go give common lisp a better look then.
ill try to explain it the best i can:
basically the true power of lisp comes from the fact that the code itself is all lists. Lisp stands for LISt Processing, and you can probably already see where i'm going with this. Since any piece of code is literally just a list, you can modify it the same way you would any other list. You can literally write code that writes code. You can alter the order and number of times things are evaluated, effectively creating your own constructs no different than the ones included with the language. It's a language you can program and extend yourself as you see fit. This is what has allowed lisp to basically just absorb any feature it wants like it did with OOP. Lisp is one of the oldest languages, and many languages have copied many of it's features so they're not really special anymore, but to this day, no other language has been able to fully copy this feature.
That's right, ironically it's the parenthesis. Those things non-lispers seem to hate with a passion. They are the true power of lisp
Add to that the functional style, great support for higher order functions, a repl better than that of any other language, and every other language just starts to seem kinda meh

None of this is exclusive to lisp. Yes lisp is pretty much the easiest language to parse, which is different from interpreting. No being ignorant to the details of your pet language does not make me a non programmer. Printing functions is a cool gimmick but even fricking javascript can do it.
Everything lisp does can theoretically be done in any language that parses to an AST (so all of the serious ones except bash lol), they just don't do it because there's no worth in wasting the time on adding gimmicks no one will use in a serious setting. On the other hand the ease of doing this in lisp leads to haxors like you cooming yourself when you write your 2000th quine for the day.
Again, none of what you've shown is specific to lisp, guile and their syntax. When you write lisp, you're pretty much writing an AST. It stands to follow that you can do everything lisp does as long as you're able to modify the code in the form of an AST and freely convert between the two.
>it's like calling JSON data because it describes data structures.
JSON is javascript. All json is valid js. It's literally what spawned the idea of using it as a data format, that you could just do eval() on it and get your data in a js variable.

>You both keep mentioning how lisp (and guix) is great and how it does this and blows that out of the water but I never see why. Guess I'll go give common lisp a better look then.
ill try to explain it the best i can:
basically the true power of lisp comes from the fact that the code itself is all lists. Lisp stands for LISt Processing, and you can probably already see where i'm going with this. Since any piece of code is literally just a list, you can modify it the same way you would any other list. You can literally write code that writes code. You can alter the order and number of times things are evaluated, effectively creating your own constructs no different than the ones included with the language. It's a language you can program and extend yourself as you see fit. This is what has allowed lisp to basically just absorb any feature it wants like it did with OOP. Lisp is one of the oldest languages, and many languages have copied many of it's features so they're not really special anymore, but to this day, no other language has been able to fully copy this feature.
That's right, ironically it's the parenthesis. Those things non-lispers seem to hate with a passion. They are the true power of lisp
Add to that the functional style, great support for higher order functions, a repl better than that of any other language, and every other language just starts to seem kinda meh

I see. I do have a soft spot for languages where I can pretty much have it do whatever I want it to.

not him and i'm not a guixgay, just a lispchad
>It's precisely the lack of syntax that makes it inferior. Perhaps with enough of a hackjob you could implement "modern" SWE concepts like inheritance, async or type algebra but it would neither be nice, simple nor fun to write
CL isn't really an OOP language like the other anon said, but it has CLOS built in which btfos traditional OOP facilities like you see in c++ and python. Similarly guile has GOOPS which i've never used since i don't use guile but i imagine it's similar to CLOS
>but I still think the syntax is needlessly clunky, hacky and restrictive.
it's quite literally the opposite. the simplicity is pure freedom. i never realized how restrictive other languages are until i tried common lisp

i won't comment on the rest of your post since idc about nix or guix

>They participated in ousting stallman. Sorry but all the euphemisms and cope in the world will not change the fact that guix devs are traitors to the movement and the singular value proposition guix provides is already off the table before it was even on it.
Stallman isn't free software. Bizarre cope.
>Nix has a nonfree repo, guix has a nonfree repo.
Nix has nonfree and binary packages in the main repository. It also repackages free software binaries, which Guix doesn't allow.
>You knew what I meant with config language. Your pedantry doesn't even work here, config languages are not defined by how indirect and turing complete they are.
And yet that has nothing to do with what I said. Nix is not a configuration language, it's a programming language. Guile is both, which makes it superior as you can manipulate the configuration as data using the programming language. Useful in many situations.
>You don't have to be a genius to use arch.
Arch has nothing to do with Guix. The primary difficulty in using Guix is that you have to understand many of the concepts involved (services, derivations, the store) before you can utilize it well.
>This entire thread proves otherwise.
The only thing this thread proves is that OP is a homosexual

>build of nvidia driver fails
>screw off! just buy another gpu!

>why doesn't anyone use my distro 🙁

>you can only use my distro if you have a 10 year old cum stained stinkpad!!! and that's a good thing!!
kek freetards in denial as usual

Did i ever say that, or did i say that NixOS is shit for an end user because
- it uses systemd
- it has pre-made dockershit installed
...
I may have gotten a little lost in the sentence but i tried to specifically state those as two separate points.

I swear this board is full of
>BUT AKCHUALLY
morons, have a nice day

>systemd and the features it brings (like dockershit
You have no idea about what you're talking about.

systemd-nspawn

>he thinks source based = no systemd
Why do you even want to remove systemd? It's not like in void linux you can remove runit.

Can YOU read? I said the binaries are signed. You replied with something completely irrelevant. Not my problem.

I'd prefer my desktop to be SCA free, if it were the company's prod servers then yes I wouldn't give a single frick

>Niggs moron is angry
Did you shit your diaper again?

not him and i don't shill nix or guix but
>bro if we just say it's not part of the threat model, we're safe!
kek

your treat model is crappy if it doesn't include something as basic as verification
there is no reason not to sign commits, especially since git can be easily set up to sign your commits automatically

there is no good reason
i seriously question a workflow where typing in an extra password once a day "seriously complicates it"