• Mia@lemmy.blahaj.zone
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      4 months ago

      Definitely more stable than Arch. Plus, you can easily roll back if something breaks, and you can choose which packages should use the unstable branch while keeping the overall system stable, which I find amazing. I don’t think I’ve ever had a breaking update, which I can’t say about Arch.

      The problem I have with Nix is that you can effectively forget about running random programs or GitHub projects. You either package everything the Nix way or nothing works. As a developer and someone who often likes to try stuff out, that’s really annoying. And Nix, the language, is ass, so is the whole build system. Nobody can convince me otherwise.

        • Mia@lemmy.blahaj.zone
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          4 months ago

          It’s not really the same thing though, those are filesystem snapshots, not package registry snapshots. Think of Nix generations as blueprints of how to construct your OS and environment, not the files themselves (though those are certainly required). I’m not quite sure how to explain it, but it’s a lot more powerful than what basically amounts to a backup.

    • tatterdemalion@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      4 months ago

      You should say “unstable channel”. It’s literally just a rolling release that pulls from the nixpkgs master branch. So it’s only as stable as it needs to be to pass the Hydra CI tests.

      And if you get to a working version, you can pin that as a Nix flake to avoid anything breaking until the next time you nix flake update.