Is NixOS at the advent of an implosion? | Community inquiry on recent drama
Is NixOS at the advent of an implosion? | Community inquiry on recent drama
NixOS' influence and importance at pushing Linux forward into the (previously) unexplored landscape of configuring your complete system through a single config file is undeniable. It's been a wild ride, but it was well worth it.
And although it has only been relatively recently that it has lost its niche status, the recent influx of so-called 'immutable' distros springing up like mushrooms is undeniably linked to and inspired by NixOS.
However, unfortunately, while this should have been very exciting times for what's yet to come, the recent drama surrounding the project has definitely tarnished how the project is perceived.
NixOS' ideas will definitely live on regardless. But how do you envision NixOS' own future? Any ETA's for when this drama will end? Which lessons have we learned (so far) from this drama? Are there any winners as a result of this drama? Could something like this happen to any distro?
In case you're out of the loop. Though, there's a lot that has transpired since but which hasn't been rigorously documented at a single place; like how 4 out of 5 NixOS board members have quit over the last 2 months or so.
You're viewing a single thread.
I believe there is a much larger, silent majority of nix users, contributors and enthusiasts that are not affected by this drama. Here’s a post that resonates with me: https://nrd.sh/blog/nixos-policy-breakdown/
Over 20 years in this technology space, I’ve come to recognize software built on very solid foundational concepts. Nix is one of those. It’s not going anywhere and neither is NixOS. I encourage anyone interested in Nix to read Eelco Dolstra’s thesis: https://edolstra.github.io/pubs/phd-thesis.pdf
That's a thought-provoking article you linked. Thanks. Unfortunately, ideological purity testing is a major problem across all sectors and spans the political spectrum. I was particularly struck by the part of the article that discussed whether "marginalized" status should be considered permanent or temporary.
I've worked in social services for a long time. Social activism is a double-edged sword. On the one hand, marginalized groups need activists to push their agenda. On the other, activists often adopt that social activism as their primary identity and sometimes even their career. This sets up an incentive structure whereby they don't actually want to solve the problem of marginalization. Instead, they focus on ideological purity rather than pragmatically solving whatever problems they face.
Sexual orientation, indigenous rights, trans rights, disability rights, race, gender, even recreational drug use, are all marginalization issues that have all received a reasonable degree of social acknowledgement and formal protection.
In all the years I've worked in social services, the one issue that never goes away and is never solved or even seriously tackled is the intersection of poverty and mental illness. We are getting better as a society with treatable mental illness like depression and anxiety. However, major mental illness or untreatable/undiagnosed conditions like lack of impulse control that make it hard or impossible to work lead almost inexorably to poverty, addiction, and involvement with the criminal justice system. The activism on that front is itself marginalized because the "fix" isn't a matter of changing language or mind set, but rather a massive investment of resources. It is easier to sit behind a keyboard and advocate online for nebulous issues like representation than to get out there and make people care about issues that cost real money.
As someone who works with seriously impoverished and mentally ill people, I find the sometimes extreme drama associated with identity politics, representation, pronouns, etc. rather ridiculous. A lot of it is just people trying to externalize their personal issues and force others to acknowledge them, which is unfortunate when it poisons a project or community. It is a form of narcissism, essentially. People who do that should go down to the tent cities, homeless shelters, and jails to get some perspective on just how "marginalized" they actually are and whether publicly exorcising their personal demons is worth destroying the enjoyment of others in a project or community. Their energy could almost certainly be better spent in less narcissistic pursuits.
When I see posts like this and suggest keeping politics out of technical communities, my comment just gets removed by the mods for "transphobia". I can't even wrap my head around that one...
Other (multiple) times I've had different people respond with "a person's right to exist is not a political issue, it's a human rights issue"... as if I was ever talking about anyone's right to exist.
Then I get the people who say that it's impossible to not have politics in a community, as eventually someone will come along and do things like the SerenityOS drive-by PR and now any action or inaction by the owner that doesn't fit their narrative is labeled as some kind of personal attack against them and they call on their friends to go full-on SJW war against the project because someone had an opinion they don't like.
For you to understand: when you say "keep politics out of tech" that is an explicit political position and you are basically saying "politics for me, but not for you". Or to put it in different terms: unspoken support for the status quo, is a deeply reactionary political position and you are trying to enforce this by "keeping politics out of tech".
I disagree. But I think the overall intention with saying that is simply that we/I don't want to have that discussion or it's off-topic/not the right place. I guess that could be said instead although I doubt it would really make much difference. People will still find a way to complain and boycott even if you do nothing i.e. "silence is violence".
I think a lot of people will simply stay away from your project if you invite that kind of discussion, regardless of who is right or wrong. More people than might otherwise be attracted by arguably more explicit and inclusive stances.
a person’s right to exist is not a political issue, it’s a human rights issue
The funny part is that you forget or ignore the fact that human rights is a political issue, thus the right to exist is political.
I wasn't the one who said that, but I agree with you.
To be fair, one person's "politics" is another person's life. When you say "politics" in the sense and context we have here, what does it really mean? It probably means something like "controversial topics related to gender, race, or sexual preference". When you think of it that way, it is easy to see that excluding discussion of these topics could be seen as excluding or devaluing people with non-mainstream characteristics. An example of that would be the "Don't Say Gay" law in Florida, or the US military's "Don't Ask Don't Tell" policy whereby they would allow homosexuals in the military as long as they kept quiet about it.
However, those conversations can be delicate and fraught, so I can see why many people want to keep them to a minimum in certain communities. I have a lot of sympathy for mods that have to moderate such conversations. In general, though, I don't think it makes sense to remove comments or people unless they are clearly malicious. There are plenty of people for whom topics related to identity are alien or controversial or too painful and personal. Simply calling people "sealions" or "concern trolls" or "transphobic" or whatever and removing them from the conversation is not only wrong, but counter-productive, in my humble opinion. I think the vast majority of people come to conversations with good intentions, but different levels of knowledge, conflict tolerance, and interest in perceived off-topic digressions.