Functional package managers (FPM) to me are a viable solution to (cloud) deployment: what is the difference between a FPM controlling the totality of inputs and outputs of an application, and modern containerization solutions such as Docker, really?
I've played with Docker (and rkt) and there's something off putting about using this stuff in production, to me at least, while I'm itching to see how Nix and Guix grow; waiting for someone with more free time than me to really cultivate this potential.
Nix is more mature, but I dislike the Haskell syntax. I love Scheme, but I hate the free-software-only-religion around GNU Guix: I appreciate what GNU does, I'm a regular GNU/Linux user, but at this stage of development religious beliefs are just a hindrance to adoption and it makes me sad.
EDIT: and let's not forget about node provisioning, something you can already do with NixOS (no idea about GuixSD): forget Ansible and its declarative configuration, but define the totality of the system state and configuration in a single file. Tell the machine "OK configure yourself like this", and voilà, you have a node which is (formally?) proven to be exactly like you've described. That's the future.
Among functional languages, I wouldn't call nix anywhere close to haskell. As for the free software, sounds like a typical baseless meme I've heard many times.
> sounds like a typical baseless meme I've heard many times
Is it though? I'd probably install GuixSD on a virtual machine if I knew most of the non-free software are used are packaged or at least accepted [1]. This means more users, which means more contributions and it's realistic for the project to go somewhere.
I can give you a baseless opinion I don't have any fact to show for but I don't think it's so hard to see: many GNU projects are very cool but for some reason they fail to reach critical mass and they just seem to grow very slowly (or die a slow death, depending on the point of view.)
1:
> [...] the GNU distribution follow the free software distribution guidelines. Among other things, these guidelines reject non-free firmware, recommendations of non-free software, and discuss ways to deal with trademarks and patents.
There is adoption & attraction of development because software has freedom.
There is adoption & attraction of development because software does not have freedom.
They are not mutually exclusive. gnu, debian, etc are fundamentally driven by the goal of making a completely free operating system, and they would have much much less adoption and development if they weren't. We now have and are gaining more hardware which is completely free. If we don't make software distributions which are completely free, we will never have completely free operating systems, and we won't be encouraging people to use completely free operating systems.
I've played with Docker (and rkt) and there's something off putting about using this stuff in production, to me at least, while I'm itching to see how Nix and Guix grow; waiting for someone with more free time than me to really cultivate this potential.
Nix is more mature, but I dislike the Haskell syntax. I love Scheme, but I hate the free-software-only-religion around GNU Guix: I appreciate what GNU does, I'm a regular GNU/Linux user, but at this stage of development religious beliefs are just a hindrance to adoption and it makes me sad.
EDIT: and let's not forget about node provisioning, something you can already do with NixOS (no idea about GuixSD): forget Ansible and its declarative configuration, but define the totality of the system state and configuration in a single file. Tell the machine "OK configure yourself like this", and voilà, you have a node which is (formally?) proven to be exactly like you've described. That's the future.