gchristensen changed the topic of #nixos-chat to: NixOS but much less topical || https://logs.nix.samueldr.com/nixos-chat
jackdk has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
jasongrossman has joined #nixos-chat
jackdk has joined #nixos-chat
lassulus_ has joined #nixos-chat
lassulus has quit [Ping timeout: 252 seconds]
lassulus_ is now known as lassulus
lopsided98 has quit [Quit: Disconnected]
lopsided98 has joined #nixos-chat
jasongrossman has quit [Ping timeout: 252 seconds]
sir_guy_carleton has quit [Quit: WeeChat 2.0]
Ericson2314 has quit [Ping timeout: 264 seconds]
jtojnar has quit [Ping timeout: 252 seconds]
sir_guy_carleton has joined #nixos-chat
sir_guy_carleton has quit [Quit: WeeChat 2.0]
sir_guy_carleton has joined #nixos-chat
jackdk has quit [Ping timeout: 245 seconds]
sir_guy_carleton has quit [Quit: WeeChat 2.0]
<andi-> What a lovely morning. Having discussions (with a Debian guy) why we should use `/usr/bin/env bash` rather then `/usr/bin/bash` or `/bin/bash`... He argues with simplicity but for me that is simplicity since I donot have to care about the location of bash.. (same argument for python interpreters...). Certainly helps me establish a good negative mood for the this week. :)
<manveru> yeah...
<manveru> i think i first tried NixOS back in 2010 as well, i was super excited about it but in the end it had so few packages that i couldn't keep using it :|
<manveru> was around the time i learned functional programming too, going through SICP and the little schemer and such
jasongrossman has joined #nixos-chat
obadz has joined #nixos-chat
lassulus has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
lassulus has joined #nixos-chat
__monty__ has joined #nixos-chat
<joepie91> andi-: "Having discussions (with a Debian guy) why we should use `/usr/bin/env bash`"
<joepie91> use for what?
<andi-> joepie91: shebangs
<joepie91> andi-: in... nixpkgs? or what?
<andi-> joepie91: no, for our internal stuff
<joepie91> ah, righjt
<joepie91> right*
<andi-> I am the NixOS user that needs such changes and he argues that nobody would ever need that...
<joepie91> heh
<joepie91> there's quite a lot of those "everybody uses..." assumptions in Linux-land where "everybody" evaluates down to "people using Ubuntu and CentOS"
<andi-> yep
<jasongrossman> andi-: Indirection is always good!
<sphalerite> not necessarily
<manveru> andi-: we got a ton of those too, mostly because 95% of devs are using macs :(
<manveru> maybe even more, hard to get numbers
Lisanna has joined #nixos-chat
<manveru> they got me a macbook too, i use it like once a month for some cisco video conference because there's no client for linux and all the voip hardware in the offices is cisco...
adisbladis has quit [Ping timeout: 245 seconds]
<manveru> maybe i should just use a VM for it, but then i'd have to deal with windows :(
<manveru> </rant>
<elvishjerricco> Obviously we don't like putting secrets in the nix store. But what about encrypted secrets? I'm starting to be tempted to just put encrypted secrets in the store and get some kind of password prompt at activation time.
<gchristensen> sure
<gchristensen> I wouldn't want that in <nixpkgs/nixos> but for your own stuff i see no problem
<joepie91> thanks to the release notes for NixOS 18.09 for helping me discover that Elastic earns a spot on my shitlist, I guess :/
<elvishjerricco> joepie91: Why's that?
<joepie91> elvishjerricco: misleading fake-open-source marketing
<joepie91> with a good dose of "we technically said open, not open-source!" bullshit
<elvishjerricco> Hm. I don't really know the distinction
<etu> elvishjerricco: They say that they are open, but they maybe don't distribute the source, they maybe don't accept patches, etc.
<elvishjerricco> Oh. Hard to call it open if you don't distribute the source :P
<joepie91> elvishjerricco: 'open-source' has a very specific meaning, providing particular guarantees/rights; lately a few companies trying to do 'open-source' commercially (usually actually doing open-core, where only part of their stuff is OSS) have been producing misleading marketing materials that technically never outright _say_ that it's open-source, but that still heavily implies it...
<joepie91> elvishjerricco: distributing source does not make something open-source, that's the point
<joepie91> https://opensource.org/osd-annotated explains more
<elvishjerricco> Right, I was just responding to "but they maybe don't distribute the source" in regards to "open" vs "open source"
<joepie91> and even leaving aside the discussion of "can people use the term without adhering to the rules if it's not a trademark" (which I'm not sure it is) -- these are the guarantees that people implicitly *expect* when they see something being open-source, and it's grossly unethical to try and gain the goodwill of people by advertising something that doesn't provide those guarantees :)
<gchristensen> open source means nothing if it just means you get the code: the license could say you can read the code, but not compile it. or compile it, but not execute it. or execute it, but not execute it on a system with more than 2 cores.
<joepie91> also, quoting Elastic on this
<joepie91> "The interaction model for open X-Pack will be identical to the open source Elastic Stack, including the ability to inspect code, create issues and open pull requests via our existing GitHub repositories. "
<joepie91> which sounds a loooooot like a looksies-only license
<gchristensen> hah.......
<etu> free software on the other hand is an entierly different beast
<joepie91> etu: the difference is a lot smaller than people often like to claim
<joepie91> it's more of a philosophical difference on how to approach open-source than anything else
<joepie91> not so much a difference in what is *considered* open-source / free software
<joepie91> (key point: "free software" involves self-perpetuating licenses with the philosophy that to provide a public commons of software, users of code must be required to contribute back in the same manner; "open-source" only covers the 'first-degree' licensing where people choose to contribute to that commons voluntarily)
<etu> joepie91: The main difference is that you have to give back to the community
<etu> In certain cases
<joepie91> that's what I'm saying - it's a philosophical difference in how to accomplish the goals
<joepie91> but the goals themselves, the guarantees/rights/etc. given to users are more or less the same
<etu> I see that difference as a quite big difference though
<joepie91> not in the context of the above complaint :P
<joepie91> anyway, time to read the elastic license
<etu> If you benefit from something you use you'll have to give back stuff that you change. With open source that ain't the case
<joepie91> yes, that is what I said
<joepie91> Subject to the terms and conditions of Section 2.2 of this Agreement, Elastic hereby grants to You, AT NO CHARGE and for so long as you are not in breach of any provision of this Agreement, a limited, non-exclusive, non-transferable, fully paid up royalty free right and license to the Commercial Software in Source Code format, without the right to grant or authorize sublicenses, to prepare Derivative Works of the Commercial Software, provided You
<joepie91> (i) do not hack the licensing mechanism, or otherwise circumvent the intended limitations on the use of Elastic Software to enable features other than Basic Features and Functions or those features You are entitled to as part of a Subscription, and (ii) use the resulting object code only for reasonable testing purposes.
<joepie91> DRM provision, "modified code only for testing purposes"
<joepie91> no-reverse-engineering clause
<joepie91> (higher up)
<joepie91> also an explicit anti-SaaS clause
<__monty__> I'm pretty sure you don't need a license to be allowed to reverse engineer. So that clause does exactly nothing. But IANAL.
<joepie91> "Nothing in Section 2.1 grants You the right to (i) use the Commercial Software Source Code other than in accordance with Section 2.1 above, [...], or (iii) transfer, sell, rent, lease, distribute, sublicense, loan or otherwise make available the Commercial Software Source Code, in whole or in part, to any third party."
<joepie91> no source redistribution
<joepie91> so yeah, exactly what I expected
<joepie91> more or less
<__monty__> Also, (i) doesn't sound like a sensible clause. You can't write up a contract that says "You have to adhere to this contract, not what it says but what I mean."
<joepie91> a looksies-and-testing-only license, nothing "open" about it whatsoever
<joepie91> __monty__: the fact that it talks about "hacking the licensing mechanism" tells me that this was probably not written by a legal professional
<joepie91> "circumventing" is the common legal description for this
<__monty__> joepie91: Yes, but even if you translate it into legalese I'm pretty sure it still wouldn't be binding.
<joepie91> __monty__: sure; point being that it doesn't surprise me that there's nonsensical terms in here :)
<joepie91> eer
<joepie91> clauses
<joepie91> er*
jasongrossman has quit [Quit: ERC (IRC client for Emacs 26.1)]
jtojnar has joined #nixos-chat
jD91mZM2 has joined #nixos-chat
Ericson2314 has joined #nixos-chat
<samueldr> real thanksgiving is great, I am thankful for another day where I can laze around
nckx has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer]
<__monty__> Join islam and come live in a christian european country. You get state, catholic *and* islamic holidays.
<samueldr> hmm, at first without reading the nickname I was about to sigh and say "the bots are at it again"
<samueldr> my comment was aimed at americans, which have their tanksgiving at a different date than canadians
<__monty__> I'm not spamming. It's just facts.
<__monty__> Look at it as satire. Cause I don't think it's fair for some people to get more paid holidays than others. That's discrimination based on religion, literally.
<simpson> Happens.
<__monty__> Note that my solution wouldn't be only having state+christian holidays. Not hating on Islam here. Although I do have issues with it. It's just that everyone should have an equal amount of holidays imo, which days are holidays I care less about.
<simpson> I dunno if there's any easy solution which preserves religious holidays.
jD91mZM2 has quit [Quit: WeeChat 2.2]
<__monty__> simpson: Yeah, I wouldn't retain all of them. Every religion gets the same amount or something. Must be some reasonable proportion people can agree on.
<simpson> __monty__: As a Pastafarian, I get *one* per year and I don't understand why anybody else needs more.
<__monty__> Note that *everyone* would get all of the holidays. It's just that now everyone'll get a free day at the end of ramadan.
<__monty__> Pretty sure europe doesn't recognize pastafarianism.
<joepie91> __monty__: "europe" isn't one country :)
<simpson> __monty__: Yes, I am extremely used to folks discriminating against me on the basis of not recognizing my religion, calling it a joke, etc. Doesn't matter.
<__monty__> joepie91: No shit sherlock. : p
<__monty__> I'd expect the EU to determine what counts as a religion though.
<simpson> I guess? I'm from the USA; I don't understand how the EU thinks about religion.
<joepie91> __monty__: not afaik
<joepie91> the EU primarily concerns itself with trade-related things
<joepie91> (in particular, things that govern trade and person movement between countries, and things where EU-level regulation would yield a significant benefit to the economies of its member countries, eg. by streamlining regulation such that vendors don't need to navigate a maze of deviating national legislation)
<__monty__> joepie91: Doesn't the EU stipulate things like freedom of religion? That'd require a definition of what is deemed a religion afaik.
<joepie91> __monty__: that's more a UN thing :)
<__monty__> Pretty sure there was something about a student wanting to be allowed to wear their religious head garb (strainer because she was pastafarian) and she wasn't allowed.
<joepie91> __monty__: in NL, it was disallowed on a national level to wear a strainer on your ID photo
<__monty__> The EU has guidelines on tons of stuff.
<joepie91> there have been a few similar national cases
<joepie91> __monty__: guidelines are not laws
<joepie91> they're more 'guiding principles', to be used in the creation of directives and regulations
<__monty__> Didn't mention laws even once.
<joepie91> where regulations apply on an EU-wide level directly, and directives are rather acts that define goals for countries to implement in their national legislation (potentially with deviations)
<joepie91> __monty__: you said "stipulate"
<joepie91> guidelines don't stipulate
<joepie91> they're merely internal policy to the EU legislative process
<joepie91> (afaik)
<__monty__> You can totally stipulate guidelines.
<joepie91> we're talking about the EU here.
<joepie91> 'guidelines' are not stipulations; they carry no legal weight in and of themselves
<joepie91> within the legislative part of the EU.
<__monty__> You're reading way too much into my usage of the word stipulate.
<gchristensen> I'll stiplate to that
<joepie91> stipulate: demand or specify (a requirement), typically as part of an agreement.
<__monty__> And I don't care it's not an EU concern. I'm still not gonna list all the countries I'm talking about one by one. In general european countries are more alike than not imo.
<joepie91> there's no requirement here, therefore not a stipulation, therefore the EU does not define freedom of religion :P
<joepie91> hence why I generally say 'many European countries' in contexts like this
<__monty__> Too pedantic for my taste. No need to be precise in everything you do.
<joepie91> there's a difference between not bothering to be precise, and actively arguing against somebody else *being* precise :)
<gchristensen> sure
<__monty__> joepie91: If you reread you'll notice I wasn't arguing against you. I was asking you questions.
sir_guy_carleton has joined #nixos-chat
sir_guy_carleton has quit [Disconnected by services]
nckx has joined #nixos-chat
sir_guy_carleton has joined #nixos-chat
jasongrossman has joined #nixos-chat
__monty__ has quit [Quit: leaving]
Ericson2314 has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
jtojnar has quit [Quit: jtojnar]
jtojnar has joined #nixos-chat
jtojnar has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
jasongrossman has quit [Ping timeout: 268 seconds]