One aspect of Guix I found to be really fascinating: That there is basically no conceptual difference between defining a package as a private build script, and using a package as part of the system.
Let me explain: Say you wrote a little program in Python which uses a C library (or a Rust library with C ABI) which is in the distribution. Then, in Guix you would put that librarie's name and needed version into a manifest.scm file which lists your dependency, and makes it available if you run guix shell in that folder. It does not matter whether you run the full Guix System, or just use Guix as s package manager.
Now, if you want to install your little python program as part of your system, you'll write an install script or package definition, which is nothing else than a litle piece of Scheme code which contains the name of your program, your dependency, and the information needed to call python's build tool.
The point I am making is now that the only thing which is different between your local package and a distributed package in Guix is that distributed packages are package definitions hosted in public git repos, called 'channels'. So, if you put your package's source into a github or codeberg repo, and the package definition into another repo, you now have published a package which is a part of Guix (in your own channel). Anybody who wants to install and run your package just needs your channel's URL and the packages name. It is a fully decentral system.
In short, in Guix you have built-in something like Arch's AUR, just in a much more elegant and clean manner - and in a fully decentralized way.
The main disadvantages I've faced when trying it a few years ago:
At the time it was a great concept, but essentially useless for anything not Emacs/Haskell related.
Yep. I feel like Guix is surprisingly awesome and polished in a couple places, but mostly it's a very DIY distro, much more so than even NixOS.
Yeah. See, drivers are part of the hardware abstraction layer which in a Linux system is the Kernel. The kernel is GPL, so it is hard to get support for hardware with drivers without GPL, it does not conform Linux' license.
I, too, had also nothing but hassle with an NVidia graphics card in Debian. It was a happy day when I finally ditched it for a supported card and had a fully supported system!
The other thing... let's turn the question around. Would you:
If not - why do some people expect equivalent things from free software projects?
It's a violation that's not enforced, as almost all distros provide proprietary blobs. They balance ideology with usability, since they realised most people aren't going to use a librebooted ThinkPad from the 90s. If everyone enforced libre purism like GNU, desktop Linux would've been completely dead long ago. If you need proof, check usage statistics for any of the free distros.
And did you need to install a modified iso to have WiFi? Did maybe Debian provide those nvidia drivers?
How is any of that relevant? This is not a question of additional software or services, but basic usability. Guixos as is, is for example essentially useless on a laptop unless you're willing to carry an external WiFi card in your pocket.
The only expectation I have for an OS is to work on my devices, guixos does not. And even when I jumped through all of the hoops to get it working, I still needed to use nix to install most packages I need to work. So why would I use guixos+nix+flatpak instead of just running nixos?
So maybe Guix System is not a good choice for you?
It has top-priority goals like reproducibility, capability to inspect and verify all source code, and providing a fully free system. These specific goals are not compatible with providing nonfree binary blobs in Guix-core. For example, depending on non-free binary blobs will block exactly reconstructing a system years later if these binaries are not available any more. Guix has scientific applications where reproducibility absolutely matters.
Also, I can unterstand if companies are hating it which just want to have a free ride and monetize efforts of other people. But for users, there are many many other options and distributions available. Why not chose one that matches your need better?
Why get mad about people comparing nix and guix, in a thread comparing nix and guix? Pointing out legitimate disadvantages is not hating. Maybe get off the internet for a bit and touch grass.
So does nix, nobody is forcing you to opt-in into non-free packages. And guix most certainly is compatible with non-free blobs, as that's how most people are using it. The only difference is that nix is supporting non-free packages instead of banning even talking about them.
~~I am not sure about that one and somewhat doubt there is hard data showing that.~~ The 2024 user survey also shows that a lot of people are using Guix as a package manager on top of another distribution, like Arch or Ubuntu or even NixOS. . If you have hardware that is not directly supported, this fixes the driver problem.
This
I use Guix as my "default" distro because I value software-freedom and reproducibility. It fits my needs very well, and I make sure to buy hardware that works with it instead of expecting it to work with whatever I throw at it. For my Windows gaming machine I use PopOS as the replacement OS instead of trying to beat Guix into serving that purpose, because PopOS is better suited for that role, and I have different expectations for it.
It's okay if something doesn't meet your needs, that doesn't make it bad, just means it's not the right thing for you. There's like hundreds of distros for Windows gamers, let us free software zealots have ours too please.
This is the way. Trying to get unsupported hardware to work under Linux in general is such a useless expense of time. In my experience, it is almost never worth it.
1,000 times this.
looks at laptops with hidpi displays 👀
It's very easy to add additional channels and non-official channels integrate pretty well into everything. I don't really notice if a package comes from an "official" channel or "non-official" channel.
I didn't like using AUR when I ran arch, let alone some random repo with absolutely no oversight.
https://toys.where-is.social/
Find different channels and substitute servers or create your own
Address not found.
Also, it doesn't change the fact you're depending on some random person's repo that is not moderated in any way.
https://toys.whereis.social/ is the correct link