127
Why aren't more people using NixPKGs?
(lemmy.world)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 18 Feb 2024
127 points (93.8% liked)
Linux
48236 readers
501 users here now
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Linux is a family of open source Unix-like operating systems based on the Linux kernel, an operating system kernel first released on September 17, 1991 by Linus Torvalds. Linux is typically packaged in a Linux distribution (or distro for short).
Distributions include the Linux kernel and supporting system software and libraries, many of which are provided by the GNU Project. Many Linux distributions use the word "Linux" in their name, but the Free Software Foundation uses the name GNU/Linux to emphasize the importance of GNU software, causing some controversy.
Rules
- Posts must be relevant to operating systems running the Linux kernel. GNU/Linux or otherwise.
- No misinformation
- No NSFW content
- No hate speech, bigotry, etc
Related Communities
Community icon by Alpár-Etele Méder, licensed under CC BY 3.0
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
How does it solve the problem of dependencies without becoming bloated?
From what I gather it goes something like this:
Which solves DLL hell as far as i understand it.
By not being a universal packaging format. It uses your system libraries, which completely eliminates the main reason devs are pushing for things like Flatpak, Snap, or Appimage.
It doesn't use the system libraries, unless the system in question is NixOS. It still provides its own dependencies. Arguably in a more elegant and less wasteful manner, but they are still distinct from the ones used by the rest of the system.
EDIT: typo
To be more clear, it uses a weird combination of your system libraries, installing its own libraries into your system on its own without informing your primary package manager, and using some specific library versions separate from your system libraries for some apps.
If you want to call that more "elegant" than other solutions... Well, I can't tell you how to feel about something. It still doesn't actually solve the problem that universal package formats are trying to solve unless the package dev explicitly requires so many specific library versions that the whole thing just ends up being an AppImage with extra steps though.
The packager always should "explicitly require" what are the dependencies in a Nix package... it's not like it's a choice, if there are missing dependencies then that'd be a bug.
If the package is not declaring its dependencies properly then it might not run properly in NixOS, since there are no "system libraries" in that OS other than the ones that were installed from Nix packages.
And one of its advantages over AppImages is that instead of bundling everything together causing redundancies and inefficient use of resources, you actually have shared libraries with Nix (not the system ones, but Nix dependencies). If you have multiple AppImages that bundle the same libraries you can end up having the exact same version of the library installed multiple times (or loaded in memory, when running). Appimages do not scale, you would be wasting a lot of resources if you were to make heavy use of them, whereas with Nix you can run an entire OS built with Nix packages.
That is not at all true.
There is one explicit case where "system libraries" are used by Nix programs and that is graphics drivers. This is not done outside of NixOS as it does not trivially work there; it's still an open problem. We can discuss about the reasons for this impurity's existance and its intricacies but all that is important here that this impurity is the sole exception, not the norm.
Apart from that, Nix will never under any circumstances load (much less modify) libraries of any kind from any global path; system-controlled, user-controlled or otherwise. That'd be contrary to the fundamental principles of Nix.
It will always use "specific library versions separate from your system libraries" aka. the explicitly and exhaustively precisely declared dependencies in the Nix store. That's the whole point of it.
I'd recommend you read up on Nix again and revise your opinion once you understand what it actually does because it's clear that whatever source you had for information on Nix was entirely wrong.
Huh? as far as I know it has its own libraries and dependency system. What do you mean?