Re:Nixos-unstable’s ISO_minimal.x86_64-Linux is 100% reprodu...
by kixiQu on Sunday June 20, 2021 @07:44PM
(#27574825)
"except to nerds" was conversationally phrased shorthand for "except to people with rarefied technical skills".
Re:Nixos-unstable’s ISO_minimal.x86_64-Linux is 100% reprodu...
by kaba0 on Sunday June 20, 2021 @07:49PM
(#27574862)
You don’t use a browser or an office suite? Because those are a pain in the ass to compile (in terms of time).
Re:Nixos-unstable’s ISO_minimal.x86_64-Linux is 100% reprodu...
by 1vuio0pswjnm7 on Sunday June 20, 2021 @08:27PM
(#27575062)
Not just time, IME. Also 1. highly resource intensive, e.g., cannot compile on small form factor computers (easier for me to compile a kernel than a "modern" browser) and 2. brittle.
Re:Nixos-unstable’s ISO_minimal.x86_64-Linux is 100% reprodu...
by vore on Sunday June 20, 2021 @08:17PM
(#27575017)
I think using NetBSD might put you in the nerd camp ;-)
Re:Nixos-unstable’s ISO_minimal.x86_64-Linux is 100% reprodu...
by brigandish on Sunday June 20, 2021 @07:55PM
(#27574901)
Unfortunately, it's easy to break a lot of builds by things such as deciding not to install to /usr/local, or by building on a Mac. Pushing publishers to practices that aid reproducible builds would help both sides.
I'd love to try building NetBSD, btw, I must try that!
I prefer compiling from source to binary packages. For me it is neither slow, incovenient nor inaccessible.
Only with larger, more complex programs does compiling from source become a PITA.
The "solution" I take is to prefer smaller, less complex programs over larger, more complex ones.
If I cannot compile a program from source relatively quickly and easily, I do not voluntarily choose it as a program to use daily and depend on.
For compiling OS, I use NetBSD so perhaps I am spoiled because it is relatively easy to compile.
That said, I understand the value of reproducible builds and appreciate the work being done on such projects.