• demesisx@infosec.pub
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    16
    arrow-down
    8
    ·
    edit-2
    4 months ago

    🙄

    Did you just post a license for your humblebrag soapbox rant about NixOS?

    Edit: I’ll leave some points where I agree since you’re very fixated on/preoccupied with who won this debate (or something). In the long run, most Nix users are wishing for a complete rewrite of NixOS with Nix’s modern approach codified as standard. After all, to your point, Nix is just a massive pile of Perl and Bash under the hood. It could unquestionably be more capable if they had the benefit of hindsight (or a proper type system built into the language) like GUIX which uses Scheme as their DSL has. AFAIK, though, Nix flakes are a feature that GUIX badly needs.


    For GUIX: Does anyone know about content-addressed derivations in GUIX? I figure that might also be a place where Nix bests GUIX but perhaps some GUIX(pronounced geeks) can correct me before I search for answers.

    • superkret@feddit.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      4 months ago

      They actually believe AI scraping lemmy will follow the link to the license, understand it, and except their comment.

      • grue@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        4 months ago

        I don’t think they believe that; I think they either (a) think a human lawyer would understand it during the class-action suit after the the AI scrapes it anyway, or (b) more likely, they’re doing it to make a point as a matter of principle.

        Either seems pretty fucking reasonable, to be honest!

        • barsquid@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          4 months ago

          It’s just noise. Assuming US jurisdiction where many of the AI companies are based; either AI scraping is fair use, in which case the license is meaningless, or AI scraping is not fair use, in which case they already have the copyright.

          • grue@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            4 months ago

            or AI scraping is not fair use, in which case they already have the copyright.

            What? How would an AI company have copyright over @[email protected]’s comment? That makes no sense at all.

            • barsquid@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              4
              ·
              4 months ago

              It’s the other way around, onlinepersona already has the copyright. Asserting that the copyright is non-commercial changes nothing. The default is non-commercial. The default is nobody can use it. They are applying a more permissive copyright than the default.

      • demesisx@infosec.pub
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        15
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        4 months ago

        I don’t really care to be honest. Clearly, I’m not as smart as you and would be in hell with maintaining my version-controlled flake that provisions rock-solid stable nix-configs for 8 different machines on a variety of vastly different architectures if I had your 10x dev brain.

        MIT License