NixOS’ influence and importance at pushing Linux forward into the (previously) unexplored landscape of configuring your complete system through a single config file is undeniable. It’s been a wild ride, but it was well worth it.

And although it has only been relatively recently that it has lost its niche status, the recent influx of so-called ‘immutable’ distros springing up like mushrooms is undeniably linked to and inspired by NixOS.

However, unfortunately, while this should have been very exciting times for what’s yet to come, the recent drama surrounding the project has definitely tarnished how the project is perceived.

NixOS’ ideas will definitely live on regardless. But how do you envision NixOS’ own future? Any ETA’s for when this drama will end? Which lessons have we learned (so far) from this drama? Are there any winners as a result of this drama? Could something like this happen to any distro?


In case you’re out of the loop. Though, there’s a lot that has transpired since but which hasn’t been rigorously documented at a single place; like how 4 out of 5 NixOS board members have quit over the last 2 months or so.

  • Solar Bear@slrpnk.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    42
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    1 month ago

    You should know that the guy you cited in the second link, Srid, is a well-known right-wing shit-stirrer who is banned from basically all NixOS spaces because he cannot peacefully coexist. He literally gets up day after day with the seemingly sole purpose of fueling drama and causing problems. Don’t take his opinion at face value, he wants to see the project burn down and this colors his interpretation of events.

    NixOS is going through a rocky moment for sure, but there’s no indication it will implode currently.

      • Solar Bear@slrpnk.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 month ago

        I attacked his beliefs which is perfectly valid. You should critically examine the motives and biases of people who feed you information.

          • Solar Bear@slrpnk.net
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            1 month ago

            Criticizing people’s past and current actions relating to the subject and bringing up their direct history relavent to the subject is not a personal attack, nor is it out of line to point out he does his to advance his political agenda within the project, which is why he got banned in the first place. All of this directly relates to the subject at hand.

            You know what doesn’t relate to the subject at hand? Your random little “sjw gender terrorists” comment. But it does make it rather clear why you want to obfuscate the facts about Srid’s history with the project, subsequent ban, and continued amplification of drama and general shit-stirring ever since.

    • refalo@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      8
      ·
      1 month ago

      He literally gets up day after day with the seemingly sole purpose of fueling drama and causing problems

      That’s funny because I feel like that’s exactly what all these self-proclaimed “gender terrorist” SJWs are doing to projects in the first place.

      • Solar Bear@slrpnk.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 month ago

        You made one reply to me whining that I attacked the person by pointing out his beliefs, and then made another reply to me about “gender terrorist SJWs”. Do you just lack any form of self-awareness?

        • refalo@programming.dev
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          1 month ago

          I had to look up what that word means. It sounds like calling something whataboutism could itself be considered whataboutism. Anyways, I was merely making an observation with no ulterior motive, I was not trying to discredit or shift any focus away from the original argument. Apologies if that wasn’t clear.