| 16 Nov 2023 |
 raitobezarius | FWIW, https://sleepmap.de/2023/operating-system-bias-in-next-generation-internet-and-nlnet/ | 13:00:30 |
| raitobezarius | (Also, full disclosure, I was reached out by David and some Archlinux folks regarding this and I did say what I knew about NLnet on this matter) | 13:07:29 |
 Ilan Joselevich (Kranzes) | Hmm, so suddenly it's not okay for someone to fund something that they're convinced is better and that anything else is already too far behind and would be a waste of their money? | 19:15:49 |
| Ilan Joselevich (Kranzes) | I like to believe that the grants are given on the bases of meritocracy and NGI and NLnet just see Arch as a waste of their time because (in their mind) they already have a better technology to push forward and fund (Nix) | 19:17:53 |
 Arian | But that _is_ a political position so I'm fine with somebody calling it out | 19:19:44 |
 @joepie91:pixie.town | I had a conversation with the author on fedi, and the concern seems to be that funding would be disproportionately allocated to Nix projects due to (some perception of) the NixOS Foundation having backchannel access to NGI via a 'partnership' | 19:19:40 |
| Ilan Joselevich (Kranzes) | * I like to believe that the grants are given on the bases of meritocracy and NGI and NLnet just see Arch as a waste of their time and money because (in their mind) they already have a better technology to push forward and fund (Nix) | 19:19:46 |
| @joepie91:pixie.town | (as opposed to the funding being allocated based on merit) | 19:19:59 |
| @joepie91:pixie.town | well, that, and more broadly issues with a lack of upfront communication about the selection criteria and what does and doesn't qualify for funding, or why | 19:21:20 |
| @joepie91:pixie.town | (which is a valid complaint IMO) | 19:21:30 |
| Ilan Joselevich (Kranzes) | It might not be fully based on merit. I just know that if I'm convinced that Nix is the superior technology, why would I fund something that I think is fundamentally flawed? That very much could be how NGI and NLNet feel. | 19:21:54 |
| @joepie91:pixie.town | it could be, but the author's frustration is understandable in that they do not seem to specify this anywhere | 19:22:24 |
| Ilan Joselevich (Kranzes) | I guess, I mean I don't think they should specify that they like Nix | 19:23:26 |
 problems | well like, this boils down to preferences of individuals in the orgs. on its face the funding is impartial, but if in reality it doesn't accurately reflect the community around it then that should be addressed | 19:23:47 |
| @joepie91:pixie.town | if this is indeed the case (and I suspect it is, given the circumstances, but don't know for sure), it would probably be a good idea for NGI to flatly state "we are unlikely to accept funding applications for package managers that are not built around a Nix-like model, as we believe that a Nix-like model is an important component of our broader goals" | 19:23:48 |
| @joepie91:pixie.town | or something along those lines | 19:23:59 |
| problems | to be honest, i do not think it's a good idea to abandon other distros like that. whether or not nix is currently the agreed-upon better approach, creating a monoculture is always bad | 19:24:52 |
| Ilan Joselevich (Kranzes) | In reply to @joepie91:pixie.town
if this is indeed the case (and I suspect it is, given the circumstances, but don't know for sure), it would probably be a good idea for NGI to flatly state "we are unlikely to accept funding applications for package managers that are not built around a Nix-like model, as we believe that a Nix-like model is an important component of our broader goals" I personally think that's unneeded and can even be harmful, that can discourage innovation of things that might not follow Nix-like model but very much could be better. | 19:25:32 |
| @joepie91:pixie.town | I mean, that's certainly a valid topic of discussion, but what I'm saying is that if this is already their policy, then it would probably be a good idea to say that out loud | 19:25:48 |
| Ilan Joselevich (Kranzes) | I think you just have to offer something that is good | 19:25:50 |
| Ilan Joselevich (Kranzes) | if it's not, well... too bad 🤷♂️ | 19:26:01 |
| problems | it would be a good idea to say it out loud because then we could have the drama in its lesser form now, vs worse drama that alienates a lot more people later | 19:26:18 |
| @joepie91:pixie.town | "monoculture" may well be undesirable, but if "monoculture" has been set in stone for one reason or another, then "unstated monoculture" is worse than "documented monoculture" | 19:26:30 |
| Ilan Joselevich (Kranzes) | The arch thing felt like a complete cope to me idk | 19:26:42 |
| @joepie91:pixie.town | (it's also worth noting that NGI projects only run for a few years, typically, and that each program has its own focus and criteria, and so even if funding is restricted to a particular package manager design within a particular program, that does not necessarily mean that it will forever become a monoculture) | 19:27:59 |
| problems | In reply to@kranzes:matrix.org
I think you just have to offer something that is good the issue here is that people can only recognize as "good" what is comprehensible to them. if nix is easier for them to understand the advantage of, then other options will not receive the same level of consideration. | 19:28:01 |
| Ilan Joselevich (Kranzes) | I, Ilan, don't personally think that their Arch technology is a better use of time and money than a Nix thing, that's because I think the Arch way of doing things is just flawed. | 19:28:16 |
| Ilan Joselevich (Kranzes) | So I would do exactly what NGI/NLNet did, which is not spending money on something like Arch and spend it on Nix or Guix. | 19:28:41 |
| @joepie91:pixie.town | for me that would depend on the purpose of the fund | 19:28:55 |
| problems | that's one of the issues inside valve for example. minorities have a much harder time with everything because their issues are harder for the majority to understand. | 19:29:05 |
