uthredii

I haven't used tmux at all but I did look into it once. I have found zellij easy to learn so far while I had the impression that tnux would e lbe a hit difficult to learn.

Also zellij has footing panes (not sure if tmux does)

I also had trouble leaening vim and find helix more intuitive. Glad you like it!

Nice, I hadn't heard of that before, will check it out!

Up to you =)

I think it does fit here as it is python related

Might be worth posting this in !lemmy_dev@programming.dev as that is a community around Lemmy Bots and Tools

I just see it as less practical than maintaining a toolchain for devs to use.

There are definately some things preventing Nix adoption. What are the reasons you see it as less practical than the alternatives?

What are alternative ways of maintaining a toolchain that achieves the same thing?

I have personally used fedora and nixos on a gen 1 framework 13 and it works great.

Does Framework do anything regarding FOSS drivers or firmware?

Regarding your question they say this:

We deliberately selected components and modules that didn’t require new kernel driver development and have been providing distro maintainers with pre-release hardware to test to improve compatibility. We’re also working on enabling firmware updates through LVFS to complete the Linux experience.

source: https://frame.work/gb/en/linux

I think it depends on the website. There are some websites where chrome will work better either because chrome works better with certain libraries/technologies or because the developers put more time into optimizing for chrome.

On the other hand Firefox might have less bloat around telemetry that gives it an advantage too.

That seems like an argument for maintaining a frozen repo of packages, not against containers.

I am not arguing against containers, I am arguing that nix is more reproducible. Containers can be used with nix and are useful in other ways.

an argument for maintaining a frozen repo of packages

This is essentially what nix does. In addition it verifies that the packages are identical to the packages specified in your flake.nix file.

You can only have a truly fully-reproducible build environment if you setup your toolchain to keep copies of every piece of external software so that you can do hermetic builds.

This is essentially what Nix does, except Nix verifies the external software is the same with checksums. It also does hermetic builds.

Related, this article talks about combining nix and direnv: https://determinate.systems/posts/nix-direnv

Using these tools you are able to load a reproducible environment (defined in a nix flake) by simply cding into a directory.

Are you saying that nix will cache all the dependencies within itself/its “container,” or whatever its container replacement would be called?

Yep, sort of.

It saves each version of your dependencies to the /nix/store folder with a checksum prefixing the program name. For example you might have the following Firefox programs

/nix/store/l7ih0zcw2csi880kfcq37lnl295r44pj-firefox-100.0.2
/nix/store/cm1bdi4hp8g8ic5jxqjhzmm7gl3a6c46-firefox-108.0.1
/nix/store/rfr0n62z21ymi0ljj04qw2d7fgy2ckrq-firefox-114.0.1

Because of this you can largely avoid dependency conflicts. For example a program A could depend on /nix/store/cm1bdi4hp8g8ic5jxqjhzmm7gl3a6c46-firefox-108.0.1 and a program B could depend on /nix/store/rfr0n62z21ymi0ljj04qw2d7fgy2ckrq-firefox-114.0.1 and both programs would work as both have dependencies satisfied. AFAIK using other build systems you would have to break program A or program B (or find versions of program A and program B where both dependencies are satisfied).

You might be interested in this article that compares nix and docker. It explains why docker builds are not considered reproducible:

For example, a Dockerfile will run something like apt-get-update as one of the first steps. Resources are accessible over the network at build time, and these resources can change between docker build commands. There is no notion of immutability when it comes to source.

and why nix builds are reproducible a lot of the time:

Builds can be fully reproducible. Resources are only available over the network if a checksum is provided to identify what the resource is. All of a package's build time dependencies can be captured through a Nix expression, so the same steps and inputs (down to libc, gcc, etc.) can be repeated.

Containerization has other advantages though (security) and you can actually use nix's reproducible builds in combination with (docker) containers.