Yeah but people are still capable of using Arch and imo NixOS is much easier than Arch. Once you figure out how to do something on NixOS you don’t have to go through all the troubleshooting/learning over and over. With Arch it’s an active investment of your time all the time.
So if people are capable of using Arch, then they can handle NixOS. NixOS is hard but it’s not world ending hard.
There’s not a lot of competition in the bleeding edge rolling distro space, so I think it’s fair to compare them. Especially since you’re not forced to make it reproducible.
I wouldn’t suggest either to beginners either though.
Yeah, it does make sense that you can compare them in that sense, but as far as actual system setup goes, I don’t think they’re comparable. Don’t get me wrong, I love NixOS. When I was learning nixlang and setting up everything to be modular and reproducible, I was having a blast.
However, I also had a blast learning Arch and figuring out how my system works the way it does. I’ll be honest, though, NixOS helped me learn how Home was separate from Root. That alone really helped me learn how the general Linux system file hierarchy worked.
But there are also things I would have never learned about Linux if I never messed with Arch, such as essential system symlinks, how they work, and how to use chroot in the live environment to fix broken ones (thanks to a botched Arch update, lol).
If you like it, learn it-use it. All this comparing and inter-distro warring seems pointless. There’s not a distro I’ve used that I haven’t had things I really liked and really hated.
Great points about learning, but I’m just explaining what my original comment was about: daily experience of using a distro and reliability.
For me arch installation was the most educational Linux experience since after 10+ years of using Linux, that was the first time I clearly understood each part of the system. But tbh that knowledge has so far been mostly academic - knowledge for the sake of knowledge.
All this comparing and inter-distro warring seems pointless.
It’s got a point when every thread has people recommending arch, even when it’s not relevant in any way. We’re talking about arch in a thread about a nixos guide after all.
I feel like I learned more about linux and my computer by installing arch (before we had the neat installer we have now). So for me, arch is a better learning tool. I do really like nix (havent used it myself, but Im a functional programmer and declarative configuration is my jam) but it’s definitely a better way of managing an installation than arch I imagine. My next distro if arch ever fails me will be an immutable distro, Nix is definitely top 3 for me that I reach for
I’m talking about day to day usage. Arch installation is a good learning experience, but running it for me was more trouble than it’s worth.
The worst issue I’ve had so far with nix is an update failing before it’s applied because of some package. Meanwhile arch would regularly update, and then fail to boot or break something.
I gave up on arch after a few years when I had to literally weigh whether -S or -Syu would be more likely to mess up my system while I was working abroad.
Because there are people recommending it which is nuts
Yeah but people are still capable of using Arch and imo NixOS is much easier than Arch. Once you figure out how to do something on NixOS you don’t have to go through all the troubleshooting/learning over and over. With Arch it’s an active investment of your time all the time.
So if people are capable of using Arch, then they can handle NixOS. NixOS is hard but it’s not world ending hard.
That’s how learning works.
You should try it.iusearchbtw
Nixos > arch without a doubt
I’m more in the group of Nix != Arch. They’re just different. I love them both, tbh.
I would like to add that I have never recommended them to beginners. I usually like to recommend Pop!_OS.
I really have been wanting to try Bazzite lately, too.
There’s not a lot of competition in the bleeding edge rolling distro space, so I think it’s fair to compare them. Especially since you’re not forced to make it reproducible.
I wouldn’t suggest either to beginners either though.
Yeah, it does make sense that you can compare them in that sense, but as far as actual system setup goes, I don’t think they’re comparable. Don’t get me wrong, I love NixOS. When I was learning nixlang and setting up everything to be modular and reproducible, I was having a blast.
However, I also had a blast learning Arch and figuring out how my system works the way it does. I’ll be honest, though, NixOS helped me learn how Home was separate from Root. That alone really helped me learn how the general Linux system file hierarchy worked.
But there are also things I would have never learned about Linux if I never messed with Arch, such as essential system symlinks, how they work, and how to use chroot in the live environment to fix broken ones (thanks to a botched Arch update, lol).
If you like it, learn it-use it. All this comparing and inter-distro warring seems pointless. There’s not a distro I’ve used that I haven’t had things I really liked and really hated.
Great points about learning, but I’m just explaining what my original comment was about: daily experience of using a distro and reliability.
For me arch installation was the most educational Linux experience since after 10+ years of using Linux, that was the first time I clearly understood each part of the system. But tbh that knowledge has so far been mostly academic - knowledge for the sake of knowledge.
It’s got a point when every thread has people recommending arch, even when it’s not relevant in any way. We’re talking about arch in a thread about a nixos guide after all.
I feel like I learned more about linux and my computer by installing arch (before we had the neat installer we have now). So for me, arch is a better learning tool. I do really like nix (havent used it myself, but Im a functional programmer and declarative configuration is my jam) but it’s definitely a better way of managing an installation than arch I imagine. My next distro if arch ever fails me will be an immutable distro, Nix is definitely top 3 for me that I reach for
I’m talking about day to day usage. Arch installation is a good learning experience, but running it for me was more trouble than it’s worth.
The worst issue I’ve had so far with nix is an update failing before it’s applied because of some package. Meanwhile arch would regularly update, and then fail to boot or break something.
I gave up on arch after a few years when I had to literally weigh whether -S or -Syu would be more likely to mess up my system while I was working abroad.
Same