Hello! Luis Felipe <sirga...@zoho.com> writes: > El 12/10/23 a las 20:30, pinoaffe escribió: >> I think it's important to clarify what Guix is (and I really like your >> mockups/some of the concrete proposed changes), but I don't quite agree >> with the idea behind your proposal. >> >> I think it would be more useful to produce and maintain a clear list of >> what guix can do than to bifurcate guix into a package manager and an >> operating system, especially since many of the aspects of Guix don't >> cleanly fall in either of those two categories. > > In this proposal, that clear list of what Guix can do would be the > feature list, linked early in the home page, right after Guix's > definition. The features list already exists in the manual, but I > think it could provide more information. > > Regarding the separation of both products, as I see it, it already > exists, it is just that it is not that clear. There are separate > downloads for both products and the manual, for example, has specific > sections for the package manager and the operating system.
It kind-of exists, but it kind-of doesn't either - guix and guix system are developed as one joint project, you interact with both through a common interface, there is no clear division between what is part of what, etc > > Now, I do agree that "package manager" and "operating system" don't > quite make potential users picture the whole range of features > provided by Guix... Would you still disagree with the differentiation > of both products if the definition of Guix changed from "package > manager" to, say, "a tool for reproducible deployment at every level > of scale", as Ricardo suggest > (https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/guix-devel/2023-10/msg00142.html)? > Or something along those lines? I personally really like that definition, though "guix system" could also fall under that definition, so that may be an issue or a benefit depending on your point of view :) [omitted] > I may be misreading you, but I think your points are in line with the > idea of changing the definition of Guix to better communicate its many > other features, instead of simply calling it a "package manager". My points are very much in line with that, my opposition is solely with categorizing Guix/Guix System into a package manager and an operating system > If I read you correctly, I think having an additional presentation and > definition for the Guix System (the OS), as suggested in this > proposal, would not conflict with a possible change to Guix's > definition. Yeah, I really support that [omitted] Kind regards, pinoaffe