Is docker a meme? How long until a viable alternative rolls over?

>I don't like GNU
I don't dislike

False. They use totally different languages for package declaration, and almost everyone who delves into both seems to agree that a Scheme implementation of declarative package management is the way to go, as opposed to Nix's own language.

>(also known as: nix manual tells you how to install proprietary drivers therefore it encourages using non-free software which is worse than hitler)
You understand very little about GNU, and seeing people like you with these retarded misconceptions is becoming tiring.

I am actually running GuixSD right now, and I am using proprietary software. In fact I am using the standard Linux kernel complete with proprietary blobs and I was ONLY able to do that because a GuixSD dev posted the code to make it happen.
I also find it very easy to make my own declarations for other proprietary software, such as Steam.

They aren't against people running proprietary software user. That is, and always has been, FUD.
They are only against you not having a choice, and their goal is to build a foundation of completely free software, because if they CAN'T do that then it means you still don't have a choice. It makes tons of sense for them to build purely free systems, because if they start mixing in proprietary software then how the hell can they really tell if they've met their goal in a _practical_ sense or not?
Plus it's THEIR repository, right? Aren't you the one who's trying to tell someone else what software they put on their machine now? There's nothing wrong with them building repositories of nothing but free software.
If someone wanted to they could make their own non-free Guix repository and we could all use that no problem.

It sucks that they chose Scheme, but the concept deserves more implementations. Nix is a bit of a mess on the CLI already anyhow.

> a viable alternative
k8s with rkt OR LXC with Ansible. Your choice.

>It sucks that they chose Scheme
Are you kidding?
LISP or Scheme are fucking perfect for a declarative system.

Running just docker by itself is kind a meme. Instead of starting up a container to run Tomcat on my laptop I could just install and run Tomcat.

Developing and deploying Docker images as part of a Kubernetes cluster is a good software deployment process where everything is on cloud hosted servers now.

The problem with scheme is that you add a huge and unnecessary dependency to the project

Nix and Guix absolutely BTFO any imperative solution. Deploying services with nixos containers is a dream.

Are you sure it really makes that much of a difference? I mean, it's not like we can really isolate Nix's language and benchmark it separately from its project. And it probably also doesn't get as much field testing, and bug reporting, from arbitrary use cases.
I suppose I could see your point though specifically in the case of Guile, but what about a more lightweight implementation of either LISP or Scheme? I still think that's much preferable to a custom language.

Or at the very least, even if not LISP/Scheme then some general purpose programming language is still preferable.
You want to really make sure you can do anything at all with it to make it as flexible and "hackable" as possible.

>docker
Who cares.

>using docker
They deserve it

Exactly.

Isn't docker easy to break out of? It's only for running applications for quick minute to test them, before properly deploying?

I've heard that Docker actually isn't good for isolating processes because it's not good security-wise and you can always get out of the sandbox.

Why is Scheme cooler than Nix though? Nix is a language made just for the purpose of writing configs so it has syntax and features to make it comfy. Do you actually need that flexibility of Scheme when writing configs? Also, Nix has lazy evaluation so you could check values of the config you're currently building. How does GuixSD handle that with Scheme?
>t. want to try GuixSD because it has no systemd unlike NixOS

>Do you actually need that flexibility of Scheme when writing configs?
Why wouldn't you want more flexibility though? I guess that falls back to my question of whether using a full programming language really hurts or not. If it doesn't then why not use it? All else being equal I'd rather have more.
Maybe this is a silly example, but what if I want to make a modified version of a package that runs some complex algorithms to generate custom artwork for it? Or for instance, if you wanted to make something like a "CloverOS" for based on guixsd instead of gentoo you might want more fine grained control to automate all that ricing starting from the vanilla packages you'd download on github.
Just off the top of my head, but the whole point really is that you'll never know what people might want to do with it, so the more flexibility the better.

Also scheme allows you to define syntax so it can be made pretty comfy too for configs:
(operating-system
(host-name "my-hostname")
(timezone "my-timezone")
(packages (list some-package
some-other-package
(package )))
(kernel-arguments '("modprobe.blacklist=pcspkr.snd_pcsp"))
Pretty similar feel to nixos as far as I can tell.

>Also, Nix has lazy evaluation so you could check values of the config you're currently building. How does GuixSD handle that with Scheme?
It can evaluate its own code from symbolic or string representations.
So if you'd normally write a function like
>(lambda () (display some-var))
you might instead have
>`((lambda () (display some-var)))
Basically just wrapping it up inside `() which makes it a list of symbols and "some-var" will be defined later before the list is evaluated as code

Or did I not understand the question correctly? Scheme also literally has lazy evaluation too: shido.info/lisp/scheme_lazy_e.html
But in all honesty I'm still fairly new to Scheme and Guix

>Why wouldn't you want more flexibility though?
Depends what kind of flexbility it is. Syntax manipulation might be nice but I'm not sure if it has much use in simple configs (well, for Scheme it's needed to have nice syntax but Nix tries to have suitable syntax by default). I don't really know what else can Scheme do that Nix can't. One important thing in Nix is that it has restrained side-effects
>you might want more fine grained control to automate all that ricing starting from the vanilla packages
I think Nix can do that just fine. You can define custom packages and you can make regular functions, that seems enough.
>Or did I not understand the question correctly?
Partially correctly, but my main point is that in Nix the whole config as a program is a lazy function (config -> config) and you obtain the system configuration by finding the (least) fixed point of that function (I'm not sure though). I have no idea how that works in GuixSD, I've seen configs similar to the example you presented where you have a single structure with a set of attributes. I wonder if GuixSD somehow uses laziness here as well (so you could check what packages you have when defining packages).