> My personal reasons for not going with Guix is that it is a GNU project
That's a high price to pay.
Look, the GNU project means different things to different people.
On of the goals of the GNU project is to give users the tools to
liberate themselves from arbitrary restrictions. The Hurd pretty much
does away with the concept of an all-powerful root user as the only
privileged account to alter settings such as network, file system
virtualization, drivers, etc.
Emacs is designed to be a collection of extensions; the Emacs paper
makes it a point to show that Emacs brings programming to people who
aren't traditionally seen (nor see themselves) as programmers.
Guile was designed to be the extension language for every part of the
GNU system that was still constrained by the dead systems programming
language C.
Likewise, Guix aims to give “end users” control over their software
environments and systems, privileges that used to be reserved for the
sysadmin class. All design decisions in Guix are aimed at extending
privileges to users: package transformations, package inheritance,
building packages from JSON descriptions for those averse to Scheme,
per-user channels, time machine, an extensive API to build and export
systems, virtual machines, containers, environments, etc.
That's what I feel the GNU project stands for, and that's why I work
on it and claim the name despite the PR problems that some GNU
contributors keep producing.
> you have to buy into the entire FSF philosophy
Hell no! I don't donate to the FSF, I'm not affiliated with the FSF. The FSF has no say on what happens with Guix (and when I was co-maintainer and rms tried to tell us to remove clang from the package collection we told him we disagree and that was that). Guix abides by the Free System Distribution Guidelines, which were published by the FSF. This means that Guix does not come with proprietary software by default.
Guix makes it trivial to add the nonguix repo (or any other repo for that matter): just add it to your channels and run `guix pull`. Now you've got the vanilla kernel and firmware packages and whatnot. You can chat about it all you like on #nonguix. We just ask to keep discussions of proprietary software out of the main channels. Doing that anyway is not "heresy" (I'm sick and tired of the religious vocabulary being applied to people who work on replacing proprietary software with free software) but just ... rude, I guess.
So, I welcome you to sample that greener grass up close. It might pale a little when you're debugging, but at least you get to use Scheme.
During the earliest days of Guix certain relatively voluble community members had a tendency to create an impression that you -did- have to buy into the entire philosophy or you were actively unwelcome as a user.
Things seem to be much more sensible these days but it's worth bearing in mind that a bunch of people who tried to be early adopters will have come away with that impression and plan your evangelism for the current state of the project accordingly.
First of all, you and all other of my fellow FLOSS developers have my respect. We may disagree on major or minute aspects of software design and philosophy, but ultimately we are a force for good in this world. I also admit that there are – as you say – nuances between GNU projects.
> I'm sick and tired of the religious vocabulary being applied to people who work on replacing proprietary software with free software
Well, I should have used quotes (“heresy”) to highlight the fact that I do not consider the usage to be entirely appropriate. But maybe instead of turning outwards it may be better to turn inwards and ask oneself why people such as myself, that have written less than about 10,000 lines of proprietary code in our entire lives, still draw upon such analogies to describe our GNU brethren?
One may think that following the Free System Distribution Guidelines only leads to the base system not shipping with proprietary nonsense. However, as you point out, there is also the fact that a chunk of the developer base find mentions of proprietary software offensive (?) and this necessitates shielding them with the #guix and #nonguix distinction. Perhaps naively, I find this counterproductive as I would rather have the “sinners” (sorry, I could not resist) on board and empower them to control the proprietary software that plenty of times is forced upon them because they have to make a living in a partially proprietary world. I want to allow them to transition cleanly to what we must ultimately turn into better non-proprietary alternatives. For example, I am happy that I can control and proud to have managed to keep my exceptions down to:
Accommodating a user’s ability to do this, in my mind, makes us stronger as we acknowledge a reality where compromises have to be struck. Yes, one could bring out nonguix to accomplish this, but it is very clear from how Guix is structured as a project that these people and the software they rely upon is at the very best a secondary concern to the project’s goal and the software they produce. In summary I want to engage with users of proprietary software rather than to shield myself from them, as I think this is more likely to lead to long-term success of and superior free software.
Note that all of this is regardless of whether you are a card carrying FSF member and my general dislike for the law-based approach that the GPL takes to free us from proprietary software.
That's a high price to pay.
Look, the GNU project means different things to different people.
On of the goals of the GNU project is to give users the tools to liberate themselves from arbitrary restrictions. The Hurd pretty much does away with the concept of an all-powerful root user as the only privileged account to alter settings such as network, file system virtualization, drivers, etc.
Emacs is designed to be a collection of extensions; the Emacs paper makes it a point to show that Emacs brings programming to people who aren't traditionally seen (nor see themselves) as programmers.
Guile was designed to be the extension language for every part of the GNU system that was still constrained by the dead systems programming language C.
Likewise, Guix aims to give “end users” control over their software environments and systems, privileges that used to be reserved for the sysadmin class. All design decisions in Guix are aimed at extending privileges to users: package transformations, package inheritance, building packages from JSON descriptions for those averse to Scheme, per-user channels, time machine, an extensive API to build and export systems, virtual machines, containers, environments, etc.
That's what I feel the GNU project stands for, and that's why I work on it and claim the name despite the PR problems that some GNU contributors keep producing.
> you have to buy into the entire FSF philosophy
Hell no! I don't donate to the FSF, I'm not affiliated with the FSF. The FSF has no say on what happens with Guix (and when I was co-maintainer and rms tried to tell us to remove clang from the package collection we told him we disagree and that was that). Guix abides by the Free System Distribution Guidelines, which were published by the FSF. This means that Guix does not come with proprietary software by default.
Guix makes it trivial to add the nonguix repo (or any other repo for that matter): just add it to your channels and run `guix pull`. Now you've got the vanilla kernel and firmware packages and whatnot. You can chat about it all you like on #nonguix. We just ask to keep discussions of proprietary software out of the main channels. Doing that anyway is not "heresy" (I'm sick and tired of the religious vocabulary being applied to people who work on replacing proprietary software with free software) but just ... rude, I guess.
So, I welcome you to sample that greener grass up close. It might pale a little when you're debugging, but at least you get to use Scheme.