News for hackers. Stuff that matters.

A comment on A brief history of LLaMA models. Parent comment

Re:A brief history of LLaMA models by alchemist1e9 on Sunday April 30, 2023 @09:10AM (#35762222)
One point you have I absolutely agree with:

> Conda is at fault here

Conda is so so bad. But trying to explain why to people who have fallen into it’s trap is difficult. People don’t realize the packages are not signed on enough information to reproduce them. The optimizer to find matching versions to make an environment that satisfies your constraints is really bad idea.

As an experienced C++ developer unfortunately and fortunately I’ve concluded the most “correct” solution is to use nixpkgs.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:A brief history of LLaMA models by dventimi on Sunday April 30, 2023 @11:47AM (#35763680)
What's a good alternative? No, really. Conda has caused me so much pain.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:A brief history of LLaMA models by alchemist1e9 on Sunday April 30, 2023 @07:28PM (#35767506)
As I mentioned I’ve settled on Nix with nixpkgs however it’s got a steep learning curve and really isn’t appropriate for anyone but fairly experienced unix hackers.

It’s a problem.

[ Parent | on HN ]