Would you say it's a front end aspect? If user driven system changes were as simple as using a Software Center UI?
A similar [desktop] experience sounds relative, what the comparison? Windows, MacOS, linux?

[+] just_another_person@lemmy.world -9 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Yeah, so LITERALLY ANY OTHER DISTRO, that says it's a Desktop Edition is a better choice.

What are we doing here? This isn't even an argument. It's a settled fact based on the documentation alone. You're trying to push a square before into a circle hole.

[–] ruffsl@programming.dev 5 points 1 week ago (1 children)

What are we doing here? This isn’t even an argument.

Correct, this isn't an argument, or at least I'm not trying to argue.
All I wanted to learn what exact properties you though makes for a better desktop OS.

I'm in agreement that NixOS isn't the best for mainstream desktop user base, but like any decent inquiry or survey, if I just preemptively bias someone's responses with my own observations on NixOS defecenties, then there wouldn't be as much of a case to before ask what they think other Linux Distro do better in the first place.

Not everyone who strikes up a convo online for a debate, and not all (but quite a few) who ask questions are trolls.

[+] just_another_person@lemmy.world -8 points 1 week ago (1 children)

You're being told over and over that Mix is not that. Move on.

[–] ruffsl@programming.dev 4 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Well let me at least leave why I think Nix is not it at the moment:

Software Center - browsing search.nixos.org isn't quite the same in terms low friction and discoverability
- You already have to know what you're looking for, and it can't make system config on your behalf
- Debian or conventional package managers usually offer a native GUI for package selection and deployment
System Defaults - the minimality of a basic default install can cause a lot of papercuts
- the default boot partition is rather small given the OS's prepecity to add new kernels with new generations
- and without any garbage collection service enabled by default, user first encounter switch failures due to this
External Binaries Compatibility - Linux also suffers from this in general as compared to MacOS or Windows
- in addition to being much more niche, reuse of existing binaries from more prevalent distros becomes complicated
- the desktop ISO could suggest a nix-ld config with default libs most binary distributes expect, easing in new users
The Nix language - much more complex than conventional cong markup langs, being more of a turing complete DSL
- partial working LSP impare introspection while writing, and the runtime error messages are poorly formatted
- most desktop users (in debian or fedora) have little need to learn their OS's packaging schemas, but NixOS users do

[–] just_another_person@lemmy.world -5 points 1 week ago

You're speaking subjectively. Thays the first problem.

Nix was built for people like me who need a binary compatible build system to be replicable every single time, and present no false positives.

You're just...talking about a way you can customize it. It's a feature of major distro, you just didn't know. Do some research 😘