> some rando's

This is a GNU-approved fork

> weakly motivated

Has lots of strong motivation, like a stricter stance on non-free software, the usage of a "real", more expressive language (Guile) instead of a niche, poorly undocumented DSL (Nix), use of GNU Shepherd instead of SystemD for the init system, among other

> niche NIH rehash

It shares most of the codebase with Nix, so to say it's NIH is missing the point. Nix improvements are shared with Guix, and Guix improvements are shared with Nix

> unless you're already victim to lisp-induced stockholm syndrome

Different lisp offer different syntaxes, features, and use-cases. That you cannot see it makes me think you didn't try too much, and are probably just trolling.

Guix doesn't really share any of the codebase with Nix. Guix uses a modified version of the Nix daemon, but that is a tiny fraction of the total source code. Guix is an alternative implementation of the packaging model pioneered by Nix, plus additional features not found in Nix.

> It shares most of the codebase with Nix, so to say it's NIH is missing the point. Nix improvements are shared with Guix, and Guix improvements are shared with Nix.

In Guix, the only code from Nix is the Nix daemon. There is not really much code going back and forth, mostly just bug fixes.

I'm curious if you'd like to elaborate on what makes Guile more expressive than Nix for writing package definitions.

I’d just like to interject for a moment. What you’re refering to as Guix, is in fact, Nix/Guile, or as I’ve recently taken to calling it, Nix plus Guile.