| 4 Apr 2024 |
 K900 | What do you mean by "single Hydra instance"? | 09:01:55 |
| K900 | Do you want to use a bunch of shitty machines as builders? | 09:02:11 |
| K900 | That can be done easily | 09:02:18 |
| K900 | But you will need a central Hydra server | 09:02:23 |
| K900 | The actual build workers just need Nix | 09:02:50 |
| K900 | They don't run any Hydra | 09:02:54 |
 darkwater4213 | In reply to @k900:0upti.me
But you will need a central Hydra server No. A bunch of kinda okay machines.
The key here is no central server. Has that been done before? If not, how feasible is it? | 09:02:58 |
| K900 | No | 09:03:02 |
| K900 | No central server will not happen | 09:03:05 |
| K900 | Without effectively rewriting Hydra entirely | 09:03:14 |
| K900 | And realistically it's just not a thing most people will want or need | 09:03:33 |
| darkwater4213 | In reply to @k900:0upti.me
No central server will not happen Why not? What does the central server provide that can't be decentralized? | 09:03:42 |
| K900 | It could be decentralized | 09:03:57 |
| darkwater4213 | In reply to @k900:0upti.me
And realistically it's just not a thing most people will want or need It'd be a proof-of-concept, to be sure. | 09:03:58 |
| K900 | It just won't be Hydra anymore | 09:04:02 |
| K900 | It'll be some other thing you make | 09:04:05 |
| K900 | And it'll be easier for you to make it from scratch | 09:04:10 |
| K900 | Than it would be to reuse any of Hydra | 09:04:14 |
| darkwater4213 | One could argue that it would be more aptly named Hydra, for obvious reasons. | 09:04:27 |
| K900 | Because Hydra was never designed for this kind of setup | 09:04:27 |
| K900 | I don't care about the philosophical implications of naming things here | 09:04:56 |
| K900 | We already have a thing called Hydra and that thing can't do what you want, and probably won't ever be able to | 09:05:10 |
| K900 | If you make a new thing, you're free to call it whatever you want, including Hydra | 09:05:20 |
| K900 | (though it would be confusing for everyone involved) | 09:05:26 |
| darkwater4213 | It's still a fascinating prospect.
I've been toying with the idea of NixOS-as-MDM for some time now. It just occurred to me as I was brushing my teeth that most MDM solutions require a central server (if not all) and that can get expensive and inconvenient. Decentralizing the entire thing makes it more portable, flexible, and frankly, way cooler.
I was thinking of a guy who installed some distributed-computation software on all his school's computers, so he could build an entire Gentoo system, DE and all, in ninety seconds flat (not counting transfer times). Then it occurred to me that if all those machines were the same architecture, there's no reason those compiled objects could not be reused with the exact same optimizations. And since there's already no "central server" (because all of them are servers), you could unify this entire mess into a NixOS config, and you've got yourself a hype train straight out of 2014.
I need sleep. | 09:10:17 |
| K900 | MDM has absolutely nothing to do with Hydra | 09:10:48 |
| K900 | And honestly you're just describing distcc | 09:11:06 |
| K900 | (though it's still not entirely Decentralized(tm), not that it needs to be) | 09:11:26 |
 @delroth:delroth.net | any time someone suggests using IPFS I just assume they have no clue about anything related to distributed computing, so far the heuristic has always worked | 09:12:41 |
| K900 | Also, MDM and Decentralized(tm) don't go together | 09:12:45 |
