why is there both trisquel and guix?
- Inicie sesión o regístrese para enviar comentarios
guix and trisquel provide a desktop system. Assuming
both guix and trisquel lack resources,
intuitively it seems a waste of resources developing in parallel
if that is what is happening. Do guix and trisquel
officials cooperate? Why are there 2
systems?
Thanks.
Very different audiences:
- Here is the first subsection ("Managing Software the Guix Way") of the first section ("Introduction") of Guix's manual: https://guix.gnu.org/en/manual/devel/en/html_node/Managing-Software-the-Guix-Way.html
- In contrast, here is Trisquel's documentation on "Installing, Updating and Removing Software": https://trisquel.info/en/wiki/installing-updating-and-removing-software
Those different audiences want different systems. I mean an "extensible" and "customizable" "functional package management" with "command-line utilities" and "Scheme programming interfaces" is great to have "transactional package upgrade and rollback, per-user installation, and garbage collection of packages"... but not to most users, who do not have the time (and will!) to understand what that even means and just want to be able to install a missing application in half a dozen clicks, what Trisquel provides by default.
>"Assuming both guix and trisquel lack resources"
They both seem to be doing quite well right now, as well as ever if not better than ever. Maybe they both have sufficient resources?
Your comment only emphasizes that Trisquel does lack resources to fix the duplicate thread problem from the mailing list:
https://trisquel.info/en/forum/re-why-there-both-trisquel-and-guix
As things stand, Trisquel is mostly a two-people work, with a handful of little helpers for reporting small glitches, updating the documentation, and the likes. The call for additional workforce is permanent, for instance currently some help may be appreciated for the website, which is planned for an upgrade. This would probably happen faster if someone stepped in. The good state of Trisquel is mostly due to the hard work of an overstretched team, not to an influx of volunteers.
Duplicate threads is a feature, not a bug.
Trisquel has Guix the package manager that you can rollback packages with, and Guix System, is a system you can rollback, like git has rollbacks for commits.
I like a large amount of both Trisquel and Guix,
but I found 3 blocked javascripts with Gnu LibreJS on
after reporting 17 blocked javascripts on Trisquel.
https://trisquel.info/en/forum/abrowser-rebranding-issues
https://gnu.org has an article that talks about the javascript-trap so maybe checking Guix source code on Trisquel can help, or "reporting/fixing bugs" and maybe earning gnu bucks.
https://www.gnu.org/help/gnu-bucks.html
Though reporting or/and fixing problems with not having freedom in computing can be a reward in itself, even without getting gnu bucks also.
https://trisquel.info/en/forum/missing-program-and-other-problems
shows a missing xiphos and minetest pointing to a repository with non-floss software.
https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/javascript-trap.html
blocked scripts in https://ci.guix.gnu.org/machine/hydra-guix-104:
at line 3 of https://ci.guix.gnu.org/machine/hydra-guix-104:
NONTRIVIAL: nontrivial token: 'document'
at line 4 of https://ci.guix.gnu.org/machine/hydra-guix-104:
NONTRIVIAL: nontrivial token: 'document'
at line 5 of https://ci.guix.gnu.org/machine/hydra-guix-104:
NONTRIVIAL: nontrivial token: 'document'
I think it is unlikely that both guix
and trisquel would not be able to
move faster in terms of versions and updates
had they more resources.
Why is trisquel in its newest
version not based on debian 12?
Trisquel and guix have different approaches.
Instead trisquel and guix should come
together. Providing one fsf approved free software
system. If debian was a fsf approved free software system
I would not have written this post. Because I then
would know I had the option of a resourceful free software
system. Debian does not say free software or nothing.
As long as resources are scarce resources should
be directed at providing one fsf free software approved system.
Even if it requires that technical compromises has to
be made and agreed upon. And it should be organized by
an entity that never will provide anything than
free software. Like gnu. I prefer having one strong
resourceful free software system option over
having the option to choose between
various minuscule free software systems forwarding their
own technical approach.
I am a translator!
> Trisquel and guix have different approaches. Instead trisquel and guix should come together.
In my understanding, Guix needs and is using a lot more resources than Trisquel and yet, it is less usable than Trisquel for most users (if usable at all). If Trisquel developers would work on Guix instead, it would perhaps make not much different on Guix, so that would not help. You could ask Guix developers to work on Trisquel maybe.
Actually, it seems most of the contributors to Guix are not strongly freedom-oriented. Many of them in fact post to the mailing lists from Gmail addresses (including some of the most active developers...). Guix — due to its hackability and functional package management features — happens to be practically useful to lots of people, that's why they are contributing to it. They wouldn't be interested in even using Trisquel, let alone contributing to it.
I actually like using Guix since its underlying design turns out to be more practical than that of traditional distros. Had Guix not existed, it would probably make sense to make a libre distro based on Nix (which also features a functional package manager) and focus on improving that. I say this because functional distros can be modified in a way more efficient fashion