Linux

48115 readers

673 users here now

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Linux is a family of open source Unix-like operating systems based on the Linux kernel, an operating system kernel first released on September 17, 1991 by Linus Torvalds. Linux is typically packaged in a Linux distribution (or distro for short).

Distributions include the Linux kernel and supporting system software and libraries, many of which are provided by the GNU Project. Many Linux distributions use the word "Linux" in their name, but the Free Software Foundation uses the name GNU/Linux to emphasize the importance of GNU software, causing some controversy.

Rules

Posts must be relevant to operating systems running the Linux kernel. GNU/Linux or otherwise.
No misinformation
No NSFW content
No hate speech, bigotry, etc

Related Communities

Community icon by Alpár-Etele Méder, licensed under CC BY 3.0

founded 5 years ago

MODERATORS

[email protected]

Comparison between NixOS vs blendOS vs Vanilla OS: what to pick and why? (lemmy.blahaj.zone)

submitted 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

68 comments fedilink hide all child comments

So I've recently taken an interest in these three distros:

All of these offer something very interesting:
Access to (basically) all Linux-capable software, no matter from what repo.

Both NixOS and blendOS are based on config files, from which your system is basically derived from, and Vanilla OS uses a package manager apx to install from any given repo, regardless of distribution.

While I've looked into Fedora Silverblue, that distro is limited to only install Flatpaks (edit: no, not really), which is fine for "apps", but seems to be more of a problem with managing system- and CLI tools.

I haven't distro hopped yet, as I'm still on Manjaro GNOME on my devices.

What are your thoughts on the three distros mentioned above?
Which ones are the most interesting, and for what reasons?

Personally, I'm mostly interested in NixOS & blendOS, as I believe they may have more advantages compared to Arch;

What do you think?

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 year ago

In regular FHS distros, an upgrade to libxyz can be done without an update to its dependants a, b and c. The libxyz.so is updated in-place and newly run processes of a, b and c will use the new shared object code.

In Nix' model, changing a dependency in any way changes all of its dependants too. The package a that depends on libxyz 1.0.0 is treated as entirely different from the otherwise same package a that depends on libxyz 1.0.1 or libxyz 1.0.0 with a patch applied/new dependency/patch applied to the compiler/anything.

Nix encodes everything that could in any way influence a package's content into that package's "version". That's the hash in every Nix store path (i.e. /nix/store/5jlfqjgr34crcljr8r93kwg2rk5psj9a-bash-interactive-5.2-p15/bin/bash). The version number in the end is just there to inform humans of a path's contents; as far as Nix is concerned, it's just an arbitrary name string.

Therefore, any update to "core" dependencies requires a rebuild of all dependants. For very central core packages such as glibc, that means almost all packages in existence. Because those packages are "different" from the packages on your system without the update, you must download them all again and, because they have different hashes, they will be in separate paths in your Nix store.

This is what allows Nix to have parallel "installation" of any version of any package and roll back your entire config to a previous state because your entire system is treated as a "package" with the same semantics as described above.

Unless you have harsh data caps, extremely slow connections or are extremely tight on disk space, this isn't much of a concern though.
Additionally, you can always "garbage collect" old paths that are no longer referenced and Nix can deduplicate whole files that are 1:1 the same across the whole Nix store.