| 16 Nov 2023 |
 @joepie91:pixie.town | (sidenote: NGI is EU-funded, and as such it is IMO reasonable-by-default to expect transparency on decisionmaking, even if I don't expect it to be 'objective') | 19:35:34 |
 Ilan Joselevich (Kranzes) | In reply to @kity:kity.wtf
Ilan, i really don't like that you keep straw-manning the arch proposals without having read them. none of us know what they were or why they were rejected, and making stuff up about how you think they're garbage is just rude Criticism acknowledged. | 19:35:56 |
 problems | In reply to@kranzes:matrix.org
It's hard to point the finger and say "look, they have some unspoken connections with the NixOS foundation" when it very much could be just merit-based and that they just think Nix is better. it could be but it could also not be, and the point is to figure out which. | 19:35:57 |
| problems | to presume the answer is idiotic | 19:36:26 |
| problems | sorry, i don't know a better word right now than that | 19:36:44 |
| problems | i don't mean to call you an idiot | 19:37:16 |
| Ilan Joselevich (Kranzes) | As you said, I know and contribute to Nix, so of course I am more likely to assume it's just merit-based because in my opinion nix is solution. | 19:37:30 |
| Ilan Joselevich (Kranzes) | In reply to @kity:kity.wtf
i don't mean to call you an idiot For a moment I did not think that you're calling me that. | 19:38:01 |
| Ilan Joselevich (Kranzes) | * As you said, I know and contribute to Nix, so of course I am more likely to assume it's just merit-based because in my opinion nix is the better technology. | 19:38:19 |
| problems | In reply to@kranzes:matrix.org
As you said, I know and contribute to Nix, so of course I am more likely to assume it's just merit-based because in my opinion nix is the better technology. yep, that's exactly why we have to always take criticism like this seriously, because we are blinded by our biases | 19:38:45 |
| Ilan Joselevich (Kranzes) | Arch vs Nix biasness, let's bring out OpenBSD or Windows as the judge 😆 | 19:39:48 |
| problems | i dunno about openbsd but i would love to see a windows user's face melt off from linux exposure | 19:41:23 |
| problems | you try to explain to them what is declarative and what is imperative and they just go "can it play valorant?" | 19:42:19 |
| problems | you explain fervently that valorant would work just great if they didn't have that panoptical, fascistic anticheat but their eyes are already glazed over. then they ask you if you know anything about voicemeeter banana | 19:44:32 |
| Ilan Joselevich (Kranzes) | That's concerningly on-point | 19:46:52 |
| Ilan Joselevich (Kranzes) | Some of the calculations of how many Nix projects got funding are not exactly accurate I think | 19:53:09 |
| Ilan Joselevich (Kranzes) | Like there's dream2nix and dream2nix-python | 19:53:28 |
| Ilan Joselevich (Kranzes) | They're probably under the same project | 19:53:43 |
| Ilan Joselevich (Kranzes) | It's best to ask @DavHau for confirmation though | 19:54:17 |
| Ilan Joselevich (Kranzes) | How many of those listed are actually tied to each other | 19:56:14 |
| Ilan Joselevich (Kranzes) | For example, | 19:56:50 |
| Ilan Joselevich (Kranzes) | 
Download Screenshot_20231116-195632_Mull.png | 19:56:54 |
 Julien | I don’t think technology bias is a problem for founds that aim to create « next generation internet » or basically focus on innovative technology. It’s fine for them to say « we believe that the functional software deployment model is the future and we want to invest in it ». The tone of the article in a bit like if the author thinks that because it’s public money, nlnet has to balance their money between the different approach to package management, which I don’t think it true. They also imply that unbalanced repartition of the grants constitute a conflict of interest, which I also don’t think is true. The only fair point I think is that if nlnet has a technology bias — which I think is fair to say they have, Michiel himself has told me « we are following Nix since its beginning, Eelco’s thesis happened to land on my desk just after he wrote it » — they should probably publicly disclose it and justify it. | 20:30:24 |
| Julien | * I don’t think technology bias is a problem for founds that aim to create « next generation internet » or basically focus on innovative technology. It’s fine for them to say « we believe that the functional software deployment model is the future and we want to invest in it ». The tone of the article in a bit like if the author thinks that because it’s public money, nlnet has to balance their money between the different approach to package management, which I don’t think is true. They also imply that unbalanced repartition of the grants constitute a conflict of interest, which I also don’t think is true. The only fair point I think is that if nlnet has a technology bias — which I think is fair to say they have, Michiel himself has told me « we are following Nix since its beginning, Eelco’s thesis happened to land on my desk just after he wrote it » — they should probably publicly disclose it and justify it. | 20:31:05 |
| Julien | I would think a bigger reason to worry would be if some nlnet found would start to use a major part of their grant money to found only functional package managers and cease to found other innovative technology in other sectors. But to make strategic decisions of technology to bet on, for each sector, is kinda what they’re paid for | 20:34:09 |
| Julien | Still, I understand that when you’re a arch developer receive « just use nix » as an answer is kinda harsh | 20:35:29 |
 Arian | Also when you acknowledge that the arch wiki is the next NixOS documentation out there x) | 20:36:40 |
| Julien | Which is also strange because when I asked clarifications about certains nlnet decisions I received clear and well argued rationals from nlnet | 20:37:08 |
 raitobezarius | s/found/fund | 20:40:32 |
| raitobezarius | My fellow Frenchie :-) | 20:40:48 |
