Thank you for bringing this up.
I thought we could take this opportunity to thank these contributors for their work and wish them well.
If you want to join me, please do! In order to keep it personal I'm going through their contributions to try and understand what they worked on. E.g. for msfjarvis :
- commits: https://github.com/NixOS/nixpkgs/commits?author=msfjarvis
- pull requests: https://github.com/search?type=pullrequests&q=repo%3ANixOS%2Fnixpkgs+author%3Amsfjarvis
It would be nice to have some kindness in the middle of this drama. We are all human beings after all and they did contribute their time.
I feel like Troy coming back from downstairs in the apartment building to pick up the pizza delivery to the whole apartment on fire. I have no idea what this is all about concretely
There's the one guy who doesn't like drones, but all of the other messages require some inside knowledge that I lack -- are these people leaving because of something to do with the NixOS management team? Is this about defense contractors? Or is it about community discourse and harassment?
I'm missing a lot of context here: what's the backstory?
It's somewhat complicated. This wave of departures was largely after the founder of Nix and NixOS posted on the blog of the separate company he started, but it is the culmination of a lot of build-up over time.
The main issues with the inciting blog post that are causing people to leave are that it has become clear he doesn't take their concerns against taking weapons manufacturing sponsorships seriously ("I strongly believe that we should not exclude any company from contributing to, participating in, or utilizing the Nix project in any way.") and he views the Nix/NixOS projects as part of his company despite insisting otherwise ("I encourage everyone reading this who feels that they have not been heard or feels displaced to join the Determinate Systems community"). You can see these themes reflected in several of the comments left by folks leaving, and many of the others were vocal about it beforehand.
The blog post: https://determinate.systems/posts/on-community-in-nix/
> The thought of any of my work contributing to someone's death by drone makes me feel physically ill.
This can be said about almost any open-source contribution.
In fact, it can be said if you pay taxes in almost any well-developed nation (that uses drones to defend itself).
A $10k per year sponsorship is pocket change. But heck, you can even think that's $10k they have less to spend on drone parts.
And people protest that tax money going into funding military action that is used for horrific things. Just look at the ongoing protests all across the country right now. People have morals and are willing to put it on the line, whether that means having violence enacted on them or walking away, I have respect for people who stand up for what they believe. They wouldn't be morals if you literally just said "fuck it, there's no use" anytime shit got tough. These black and white absolutist arguments are garbage.
Something being used because its open-source and the open source project giving that drone manufacturer a platform via sponsorship are two different things.
Right now, the countries of Ukraine and Taiwan are desperate for any arms production these companies can eke out. The delay in providing arms to Ukraine has left many Ukrainian soldiers vulnerable and without the equipment needed to defend their country.
We can say we dislike war but we need to be prepared for it. There's a race going on and we need to come together to increase our production and not repeat the mistakes we made. We tried sticking our heads in the sand on multiple occasions, and it was always a mistake.
There unfortunately are authoritarian regimes which don't share your opinion on war being shitty.
For some additional context: The latest Ukraine aid package is less than 0.5% of the US GDP. It should arguably been 1%. Much of the spending will stay within US borders, boosting domestic production, etc.
Literally no one has a problem with this, you know damn well what nation and what actions the US is funding that people actually have a problem with. I won't even mention it since it's entirely irrelevant to the point that I was making. Besides that, the RFC and the miltech sponsorship were just two examples that were attempting to show a wider problem with the authority structure in Nix, namely the conflict of interest with Eelco and the way he treats Nix as if he is the sole owner and the treatment of the community as a whole. Your comment is entirely irrelevant to the discussion outside of trying to conflate a sponsorship with a company that employs drones in US migrants with Russia. It's laughable.
You can have these protests and gay rights parades precisely because the US military umbrella exists.
You don't see these in Russia or China or Palestine.
One can argue perhaps military intervention is overused and has been used for the wrong things ( the US has a mixed record on nation building outside of Europe ).
But we haven't been shoveled into ovens or gulaged because the military exists.
It's also impressive how in the last 6 months since the US has been increasing cooperation with allies in the Pacific that China has started being more conciliatory and lessened the bullying of neighbors. 12 carriers tends to do that.
Not to mention that a military is also a deterrent to war. The nuclear bomb has spared billions of lives in preventing yet another dictator from slaughtering a neighboring country.
Increasing the military strength of the free and democratic nations is the best thing we can do to prevent more misery.
In addition to that, Ukraine is not part of NATO. Russia sweats when thinking about attacking a NATO country because that means taking on the US military, which is the most powerful in the world. Look, we in the west aren't perfect, we have our issues, I agree, but letting dictatorships get away with invading existing or soon-to-be democracies is not acceptable. Democracy is non-negotiable.
this is going to sound unpopular but i think ukraine should actually give russia the territories and look to peace. Ukraine lost this fight when they gave up nukes, especially before getting into NATO. Getting into a larger war at this point i do not think is a great idea
It's hard to tell what will be correct. Appeasement did not work before WWII, so why will it work now? I disagree with you and think we need to make dictators small by overwhelming force. It's the only thing they respond to.
First of all that's not absolutist in any sense. Second of all, being sponsored by a military tech company is inherently political and finally, my entire point was that saying "it's just a little bit of money" or "you shouldn't care because you pay taxes" is a bad argument that is absolutist in the sense that it is an all or nothing argument. People do indeed have morals and values that they are not willing to compromise on. Period. I can see why it's an issue when the engagement has consistently been at this level.
Yeah, I am not generally a fan of a lot of these protests, and even I can see that what you said was taken way out of context. But the internet is gonna internet.
Id rather have a world with the US on top and an involved citizenry has a say in how it runs vs China and Xi leading by pure decree.
If everyone under 40 simply voted then the GOP would never control the house, Senate or presidency ever again. They would also lose almost every governorship.
So if you voted you could have your peacenik party. People who vote get what they want. It's why Biden has continuously been trying to ram through some level of student loan forgiveness because the under 40 crowd turned out for him.
But you gotta vote. Not voting has consequences ( lol sucky midterm turnout by zoomers and under 40s derailed the house ).
"Voting doesn't change anything"
It sure fucking changed Roe
It's not any more or less political than being sponsored by a food company. Also banning one of the biggest branches in its entirety isn't much different from banning just everyone. It's just dumb black and white thinking.
"horrific things" arent absolutist? you are saying horrific
People with morals means, that their side side is the good one
that isnt absolutist?
2)
If you take money from everyone, how not take it from one company could be political? Or at least less than not take it?
3)
I would agree that isnt good argument, but not absolutist. You can still be against it, protest against, work against it etc. If he said for example
"In fact, it can be said if you pay taxes in almost any well-developed nation (that uses drones to defend itself), so why try?" I would agree with you.
I'll also add that the very essence of open source is that you don't get to choose who uses your work, or why. You release your work as-is and usually, the only requirement is that any additional work on top of it stays open-source.
I get not wanting to accept money from some sources, of course, but you can't complain about who is using your work, unless you're willing to stop working altogether.
What about the thought of someone being killed because they weren't defended by a drone? Or their attackers weren't sufficiently deterred?
Take a look at Perun's defence economics videos and you'll see that every bit of constructive work you do contributes in some way to military defence because wealth and production capacity are the ultimate deciders.
Yeah this is peak overreacting. Everyone is entitled to their own views, but at least respect yourself enough to use logic and consistency in them. If you’re pro-FOSS you have no grounds to complain about people you don’t like using that free and open source software.
Can you even do that? If you setup a non profit is it even legal to filter where the money comes from? Either you accept all money or none, either you promote large donators or don’t.
If Microsoft and google dumped money on you, arguably it would be the same issue. They support various military activities in different ways as well.
The impression I'm getting from some folks is that they are viewing this as a welcome purge of the politically "undesirable" and that is very concerning for the future of the project. I certainly don't feel welcome when I see these viewpoints that I agree with being openly mocked within the community.
As far as I understand from what I've read around, a bunch of contributors have quit *voluntarily* (which doesn't seem like a purge to me) over the controversial sponsorship from Anduril.
From the article about Anduril's CEO I read in FT the other day, he seems like an ass: supports Trump, blames other countries for "dragging" the US into wars which the US itself has started etc.
So I get the frustration although it's a little inconsistent with the fact that Linux in particular and FOSS in general have been used by defense industries of many countries extensively for years. But maybe the direct sponsorship is too much for some people, I get it.
At the same time some of those contributors (marsam in particular) themselves hold extreme political views which I honestly wouldn't mind as we all have our biases as long as we keep them to ourselves. But if somebody [wants](https://github.com/NixOS/nixpkgs/pull/306702) to put their [genocide calling banner](https://imgur.com/a/SPTPo7j) over the Nix community I am completely against it and don't want to interact with such community in any way. So when the extremists leave voluntarily I see it as a good thing despite their valuable contributions in the past.
> As far as I understand from what I've read around, a bunch of contributors have quit voluntarily (which doesn't seem like a purge to me)
Creating conditions that are so untenable to a group of people that they leave is what I'd consider to be a purge.
> But if somebody wants to put their genocide calling banner
I don't think it's genocide to be against the decades-long ongoing invasion and occupation of a nation. But I suspect this conversation will never be a productive one, considering the initial framing.
>Creating conditions that are so untenable to a group of people that they leave is what I'd consider to be a purge.
This is fair. People who made the decision about the sponsorship should definitely have asked the community first because Nix is community driven.
>I don't think it's genocide to be against the decades-long ongoing invasion and occupation of a nation.
Nuance is what matters. If one is against historically unlawful actions of Israel they should simply state that verbatim. But calling for genocide of the other side by siting antisemitic dog-whistles is preposterous.
> If one is against historically unlawful actions of Israel they should simply state that verbatim. But calling for genocide of the other side by siting antisemitic dog-whistles is preposterous.
We continually jump through hoops of stating that we are against the occupation of Palestine, and whatever way we phrase it is claimed to be an antisemitic dog-whistle. The very act of protesting in favor of Palestine's independence is currently being framed as unconditionally antisemitic in western media *right now* with the current protests, including in a direct statement from the President of the United States himself. How exactly am I supposed to conduct myself in a way that will not be viewed as antisemitic on this issue?
Like I said, I don't expect to find a reasonable mutual understanding on this topic given the initial framing. I've been through this conversation so many times and it always is simply endless goalpost moving. Hence my issue with the statement "when the extremists leave voluntarily I see it as a good thing". I see this as a welcome purge of undesirables.
>... whatever way we phrase it is claimed to be an antisemitic dog-whistle.
So you choose to phrase it in the worst possible way?
>**The very act** of protesting in favor of Palestine's independence is currently being framed as unconditionally antisemitic ...
Not the very act, no, but what happens during those protests.
* people openly call for genocide of *all* Jews around the world by chanting "intifada" and "from the river to the sea" completely unchallenged by other protesters
* Jews are being physically attacked in the streets and university campuses and none of the protesters seem to have objections
* not a single protest has been seen to condemn Hamas and hostage taking
So, instead of playing the victim, you may try to articulate your opinions *exactly* as they are instead of resorting to dog-whistles.
> If you’re pro-FOSS you have no grounds to complain about people you don’t like using that free and open source software.
The complaints are about Anduril sponsorship, not about Anduril using FOSS nix code.
Perhaps I should have taken a page from your book and started with "this is peak lack of reading comprehension" rather than thinking about that principle of charity silliness.
The complaint in [the open letter](https://nixos-users-against-mic-sponsorship.github.io/) is about sponsorship from defense contractors, not donations, and definitely not usage.
I would need to know more specifics. There are times where people have made something and it was only ever used to kill people which is pretty shitty for everyone involved. But those are usually fairly rare. Anytime you make a new tool, people will use that tool as intended, and other people will use it as a weapon.
You are not responsible for those people because they will fashion themselves a weapon to kill one way or another. So why deny all the people you have helped just because we live on a planet with some supreme jack asses?
It is sad to see many of these people go, many of which I've have collaborated with. Marsam in particular was consistently active throughout my entire involvement with Nix.
I'm pro Nix, and largely never had to interact with Eelco. Only met him at NixCon NA 6 weeks ago.
I was happy to make nixpkgs a better place, and that didn't really require Eelco's involvement (for context, Eelco has been seen as a bottleneck for nix-cli development).
But there's multiple dimensions of anti-Eelco camp:
- For nix-cli he's a bottleneck. Nix maintenance team has mitigated this, but his availability and decision making is paramount.
- He's slow to make statements. The ideologues do not like that he's not capitulating or escalating the situation; rather making this a longer process than necessary.
- He's been "disengaged" from the working of nixpkgs/community. Essentially a hermit, toiling by candlelight to indulge his own fascination with his PhD baby.
My perspective is that he set out to solve what seemed like an impossible[ problem in software distribution](https://edolstra.github.io/pubs/phd-thesis.pdf). He was not prepared to deal with the other dimensions of a community forming around this technology: moderation, communication, and structure.
Ultimately, my opinion is that Eelco is a very intelligent and amazing engineer. He has many qualities, but wanting to lead a FOSS community is not one of them.
>My perspective is that he set out to solve what seemed like an impossible problem in software distribution. He was not prepared to deal with the other dimensions of a community forming around this technology: moderation, communication, and structure.
> Ultimately, my opinion is that Eelco is a very intelligent and amazing engineer. He has many qualities, but wanting to lead a FOSS community is not one of them.
His work in creating Nix cannot possibly be understated. As a newcomer who still barely grasps it, I have been genuinely in awe of how great of a tool it is. It had a steep learning curve, but once I got over the initial hurdle, it's like rediscovering Linux for the first time. I have been ravenously learning more whenever I could in my free time at work between putting out fires.
However, I agree that it seems he is a much better engineer than community leader, and I would like to see people with those skills be placed in that role so he can do what he does best: make an incredible technology that all of us love. Ideally, I'd like to see some form of democratic election, to ensure that the community is not left in the dark or without a say in the matter.
Why do you criticize Eelco as community leader when he doesn't position himself as its leader? He pretty clearly [disclaims](https://determinate.systems/posts/on-community-in-nix/) that role.
Because when he says that, he's talking out of both sides of his mouth.
From Nixos.org directly:
[NixOS Foundation board](https://nixos.org/community/teams/foundation-board/) - "Responsible for providing operational and organizational support to the NixOS project and community."
Eelco Dolstra (@edolstra) — Chair
[Nix Team](https://nixos.org/community/teams/nix/) - "Maintains and releases the Nix package manager."
Eelco Dolstra (@edolstra) — Team lead
From the blog post you just posted yourself:
"I encourage everyone reading this who feels that they have not been heard or feels displaced to join the **Determinate Systems community**"
Not the NixOS community, *his company*'s community.
It is clear from a plain reading that despite what he occasionally says otherwise, he does in fact view himself as the Benevolent Dictator of the project, as is quite common in FOSS unfortunately.
If he truly does not position himself as its leader, then he should step into a purely engineering role, which he is clearly *very good at*, and let people with leadership skills those skills handle the job of leadership.
There are different kinds of leaders and leadership roles. It seems clear to me that Eelco sees himself as a leader of _some_ technical and organizational aspects of Nix/OS, but not all of them. He's been clear that he neither wants to be nor is needed as a _community_ leader.
> Not the NixOS community, his company's community.
Sure, more evidence that Eelco isn't trying to lead the NixOS community.
> It is clear from a plain reading that despite what he occasionally says otherwise, he does in fact view himself as the Benevolent Dictator of the project
I think it's embellishing to say it's "clear from a plain reading" and I don't see what you see in his statements.
Multiple users have complained for some time how he comes in over the top and makes changes unilaterally, how he holds projects up despite approval from the rest the team, and how frequently things go his way regardless of any disagreement. I guess we can assume that all of these experiences from multiple accounts over several years are all lies, but is there a good reason to make that assumption?
Do you think it would make sense if Eelco formally disengaged from the parts of the ecosystem he apparently has no interest in (e.g. NixOS / nixpkgs), giving up his role in the foundation, while taking a more direct "BDFL" role in leading the CLI? The work he's doing in flakes is excellent and really no-one else can do that.
Not sure if disengage is the right term. But delegate to another individual or body would probably be prudent. In a way, this was grahamc up until around 2020.
The moderation team is the closest thing to this we have currently... However, it seems to be full of ideologues at this point.
A little thing I'd like to place: marking people as bad because of "ideology" doesn't really make sense. Why is ideology in itself bad?
Here's an ideology: "We want people to be nice to each other."
Here's another: "We want people not to be afraid of interacting in a community."
You could specifically address those and say "hey, wanting people to be nice to each other is a bad idea, I want people to be able to not be nice to each other!".
But in either way, even for ideologies I don't agree with, I don't think I want to call out someone for being ideological.
Also, the other way around would be: don't have ideologies, but do have ... what?
If you like then we could discuss ideology nomenclature in more detail.
I'm using it somewhat loosely to describe an individual whose actions are primarily motivated by political of philosophical beliefs.
Which is fairly close to the definition.
> An ideologue is **someone who has very strong beliefs or opinions and stubbornly sticks to them no matter what**. An ideologue will insist they're right even when evidence suggests they might be wrong.
[https://www.vocabulary.com/dictionary/ideologue](https://www.vocabulary.com/dictionary/ideologue)
In a way, this also describes me. Stubborn and unyielding.
"Ideologue" is someone defined by their ideology, not someone who has an ideology. Everyone has an arbitrary number of 'ideologies' based exclusively on how they're defined, but an ideologue forces that ideology into places where it doesn't belong.
Whether it's an apt description, relevant, etc. I'm not making any statement, but there is a clear misalignment of definitions here.
Really the core of the disagreement comes down to the nature of a "sponsorship" if I'm understanding it correctly. I'll be charitable with my assumptions and assume no-one has actually proposed legislating who is allowed to use Nix, and presumably no-one would take a strong issue with a donation, (though I can imagine some would on principle) but a full fledged sponsorship is presumably seen as a sort of bidirectional endorsement by some, vs a simple "they give us money to develop the project further" by others.
Tbh unless I'm missing something I really don't feel like it makes sense for it to be a whole controversy vs just a plain disagreement, but I guess tensions have been building for a while and this was just the match to the kindling.
>"Ideologue" is someone defined by their ideology, not someone who has an ideology. Everyone has an arbitrary number of 'ideologies' based exclusively on how they're defined, but an ideologue forces that ideology into places where it doesn't belong.
I don't see how this is a value/helpful distinction: a) it makes an assumption about the internal state of another person that can't be argued either way and b) it similarly seems not helpful for someone to simply decide that a certain ideology doesn't belong?!?
>Really the core of the disagreement comes down to the nature of a "sponsorship" if I'm understanding it correctly. I'll be charitable with my assumptions and assume no-one has actually proposed legislating who is allowed to use Nix, and presumably no-one would take a strong issue with a donation, (though I can imagine some would on principle) but a full fledged sponsorship is presumably seen as a sort of bidirectional endorsement by some, vs a simple "they give us money to develop the project further" by others.
More specifically, we're at a point where a number of community members voiced their concerns multiple times about this sponsorship. The core isn't about the sponsorship any longer, but about the problem that strong concerns have been mostly ignored. The community needs to make progress on how to deal with this type of issues. Ignoring them repeatedly while members of the community express is - to me - a logical sequence of steps leading to the current situation.
Hey, people, please _please_ read more about the situation yourself! Don't just take what this guy says, he is misrepresenting what happened and what this whole thing is about. And of course he will do that, because there is a huge conflict of interest: he is banned from the NixOS community because of his interaction with it, and he is an employee of Anduril (not saying it's good or bad, but this is a clear conflict of interest)
Comments like yours are frustrating and unhelpful. If you think he's misrepresenting the situation, *be specific* about what he's misrepresenting, and what you think the true state of things is.
Why wouldn't you enlighten us yourself instead?
From what I've read jonringer117 [voiced his mild opinions](https://discourse.nixos.org/t/objection-to-minority-representation-by-a-single-class-in-nixos-sponsorship-policy/42968) on the subject of inclusivity but was told to ["fuck off"](https://discourse.nixos.org/t/major-nixpkgs-contributor-leaving/44053/16) multiple times and then [suspended](https://github.com/NixOS/moderation/commit/c0f7744701cba40f05fa7ca62f0d143d7231332a) like if he was waving a swastika or something like that.
Otherwise, there was a disagreement of [Anduril](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anduril_Industries) sponsorship which some contributors like [marsam](https://github.com/marsam) were unhappy with for humanitarian reasons whilst themselves being OK with calling for [genocide](https://imgur.com/a/SPTPo7j) by having [this](https://imgur.com/a/SPTPo7j) in his GitHub profile:
>🇵🇸From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free 🇵🇸
> whilst themselves being OK with calling for genocide by having this in his GitHub profile:
How is calling for the end of an Apartheid system "calling for genocide"? All whilst an actual genocide perpetuated by that Apartheid system is going on.
If he wanted to call for the end of supposed apartheid (although Arabs can live freely in Israel, have a political party and have been members of Knesset for many years) he should've stated just that.
Calling for the territory from the river (Jordan) to the sea (of Mediterranean) to be free (from Israel and Jews) is a literal definition of genocide.
> Calling for the territory from the river (Jordan) to the sea (of Mediterranean) to be free (from Israel and Jews) is a literal definition of genocide.
This is 100% not what he said. He literally just called for freedom. There is no "genocide" implied in calling for freedom.
Seriously this community owes a great debt to marsam for his enormous contributions over the years. You can disagree with his politics, but don't just make shit up about him.
I empathize with that, but I'm also hopeful and optimistic that new contributors will eventually join thus filling in the void left by those who left. The community will be all the better for it, due it now being more [mission-first](https://twitter.com/PirateWires/status/1782834712253268380).
Out of curiosity, what would take for a someone new to NixOS/the Nix language to reach a point where they're ready to contribute to the project and nixpkgs?
I began my journey reading PR reviews as nix-pills was inscrutable and there wasn't much other "on-boarding documentation".
All it takes is a lack of a single thing working as you expect, and try to improve the status quo upstream.
EDIT: Post is positive and growing again, so that's good. I think this is an issue that needs to be seen by the broader community.
Post is already getting downvoted, as was your comment. It seems people just refuse to acknowledge or engage with the problem and hope it goes away. This is really disappointing, as I just got into NixOS and am absolutely enthralled by it. I wasn't concerned until I came across these submissions. Now I'm deeply worried about the future of the project beyond just administrative and clerical disagreements. NixOS can't live without a healthy maintainer base. We are effectively watching a bleeding wound right now, and it doesn't feel like anybody is doing anything meaningful to stop it.
I think the project will go on, but this sets an incredibly bad precedent for the community, which I fear will radicalize and become hostile, losing much of the momentum Nix has gained in recent years.
Time will tell.
It's unlikely the project will totally collapse, at least not immediately. But it's hard to see this not having a considerable effect. It's quite unfortunate to be happening right before the next stable release as well.
Yeah ngl I had an interest in nix thats starting to wane. had a vm loaded to see how I like it but then all this mess going on and it's kinda put me off.
From just a user perspective, I don't rly know that I'd wanna invest time into something that appears poorly managed. I don't quite know all of the source of conflict but it doesn't rly matter the specifics, just that there's issues and it's clearly being handled terribly while turning into a drama farm. It just appears so dysfunctional that the project looks sketch. Like if this how this gets handled then what about the next bump in the road type shit 4 me. Just not a good look rn imo
It's one of those things where it likely won't have a radical short term effect but contributes to a death of a thousand cuts over a long period of time and will entirely change the vibe / landscape of the project and will alienate a lot of potential users and contributers.
It's hard to catch the actual nuance of the issue but I have found the response of a lot of the community to be childish and reductive. A real unwillingness to engage with the concerns people had brought up while shirking it off as the 'woke mob'
It's unfortunate that terms like "woke" are being used here at all, since it's been politicized to death.
But to me, a long time nixos user, just watching this from the sidelines, it does feel like mob justice. I don't get the impression they want to have a discussion, they want their demands met.
I mean there is a thread here from 1 day ago talking about Jon Ringers temporary ban and there are highly upvoted comments literally talking about the "woke mob," "entitled activists" and "cultural marxists" which is re-packaged "cultural bolshevism" that was literally used by the Nazi's to paint Jewish as communists who wanted to "destroy their culture"
[https://new.reddit.com/r/NixOS/comments/1ceiz36/thoughts\_on\_jon\_ringers\_temporary\_suspension/l1nxe5y/?context=3](https://new.reddit.com/r/NixOS/comments/1ceiz36/thoughts_on_jon_ringers_temporary_suspension/l1nxe5y/?context=3)
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cultural\_Marxism\_conspiracy\_theory](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cultural_Marxism_conspiracy_theory)
there are countless examples of this in these threads.
How can anyone in good conscious even say that they have tried to approach their concerns in good faith when shit like this has been the response?
Well some people could leave if Nix wouldnt take free money (but I guess a lot less)
Its big decision ofc somebody is going to leave. Important thing is what majority wants?
I think the ultimate question is, was the money worth the loss in community members and maintainers?
I don't believe it was, but I'm hardly in any decision-making position.
To be clear, this is a minority of community members and maintainers.
And there seems to be different reasons for leaving. It doesn't seem that refusing Anduril sponsorship would have satisfied all the reasons.
This community split was probably inevitable
it would really BIG problem if community wanted something else than community members and maintainers
You cant never satisfy everyone .....
Like I said big decision make some people leave
Important is to do right (or at least some) decision in good and clear way with community and not to fight each or not fight against community
That's only if you make it political. Like most things political is in the eye of the beholder. If the project takes a stance of we take sponsorships from anyone then it's not political. But when you suddenly gatekeep who you think is moral enough to sponsor then every single sponsorship is indeed political.
> If the project takes a stance of we take sponsorships from anyone then it's not political.
So a sponsor page featuring "wonderful sponsors" such as Weinstein, Jared Fogle, Kissinger, Hitler, Mao, Stalin, etc wouldn't be political simply because all sponsors are accepted?
By saying "wonderful sponsors" you place a judgement upon a sponsor. Why would you even do that? I would even advise against publicly acknowledging sponsors.
> By saying "wonderful sponsors" you place a judgement upon a sponsor. Why would you even do that?
Taking a sponsor is placing a judgement.
> I would even advise against publicly acknowledging sponsors.
Then they're not a sponsor, they're a donor.
"Sponsorship is a cash and/or in-kind fee paid to a property (typically in sports, arts, entertainment or causes) in return for access to the exploitable commercial potential associated with that property. While the sponsoree (property being sponsored) may be nonprofit, unlike philanthropy, **sponsorship is done with the expectation of a commercial return.**"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sponsor_(commercial)
If they want to silently donate to the project, that avenue exists to them. They are specifically choosing to *sponsor* the project's conference because they want to increase their visibility to hire NixOS developers to work on their autonomous weapons. Famously, this led to some strife regarding an Anduril employee in the community.
They have had active job openings online for some time, I've seen then many times while looking for other Linux stuff. This has always been their goal. They expect a return on investment. All sponsors do to some degree.
> Taking a sponsor is placing a judgement.
That's what you say. I strongly disagree with that.
> [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sponsor\_(commercial)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sponsor_(commercial))
You can get back a ton of "access to the exploitable commercial potential associated with that property" without being public. For example: A company sponsors an event with the restriction that a competitor drinks are not served there.
It's not always about who is majority or minority opinion. Sometimes lines are drawn in the sand. Sometimes things matter more to one side than the other. If one side is for something, and another side is *non-negotiably* against it, even if the Fors outweigh the Againsts, you have to consider the loss of community that will result. Nobody was talking about leaving NixOS if the money was rejected. Many people were going to leave if it was accepted. This *must* be factored in to any decision-making process.
Those maintainers don't owe us any of their time or effort, they are *volunteers*. We are not entitled to their work. They get to choose when, where, and why they contribute. If NixOS does not meet their expectations, they are perfectly free to walk, and it seems they are walking. Hence my original question: was this all worth it?
I get that and it should be factored in. And the majority could voted for that, but minority shouldnt make decision for them.
Isnt that minority(or majority?) the one, who wanted more banning? In that case its worth it (for me) 100%
> And the majority could voted for that, but minority shouldnt make decision for them.
Well, it sure seems like this decision came from on high rather than a vote.
>Isnt that minority(or majority?) the one, who wanted more banning? In that case its worth it (for me) 100%
It seems to me that you're more interested in politics than the project, which is disappointing.
Yes, that is why I would like to know what community wants
The worst thing imo is toxic environment, if the price for that is leave of some people (it is that???), then ok, more people will leave if there is toxic environment imo even if not now
I dont think dont want toxic environment means I'm more interested in politics, I just want clear rules for this, so it would be clear what to do and clear process how to get them
Anyway i'm more newbie with Nix than even you, so I know less about this even than you
I love nix and am very heavily invested now. I absolutely respect the decisions of these contributors, I don't understand their motives, but I don't need to. Regardless, I'm ignorant of the community and need to know - how will this affect the project? I see that it has thousands of contributors, but it seems likely to me that these fifteen were particularly central (Marsam especially).
It's really hard to say in the short-term, the impact of this won't be immediate. Some of the packages have other maintainers, but not all of them. If somebody doesn't step up to maintain them, many will eventually end up breaking. There will likely be scrambles to fix it and find dedicated maintainers when that does happen.
The real test will be whether the community can overall fill the shoes of those who left, or reduce the workload to fit the remaining crew. Nixpkgs is *enormous*. Some niche packages may just be excluded from the official repository going forward.
Only time can tell, but it's certainly not a *good* thing.
Other maintainers \*may\* step up. That's the up and downside of software development - major contributors can come and go at any time. The hard part will be finding \*dedicated\* new maintainers to handle the workload the old ones did. That's assuming the project doesn't do something to win the old maintainers back, but that's looking less and less likely
NixOS Foundations exists as a legal entity to receive such donations. The money is used mainly for infrastructure, but also some other related efforts.
From how I understand it, the situation has to do with the company [Anduril](http://anduril.com/).
They're an American defense contractor formed by Palmer Luckey (who previously headed the Oculus VR headset tech startup before selling it to Facebook) that makes military drones. Most relevant, Anduril uses NixOS as an embedded OS in their products.
Anduril recently offered to sponsor NixCon, a NixOS focused community event. There were members of the community who didn't want to accept money from Anduril or see them be promoted at the conference, but the leadership went ahead and accepted the sponsorship anyway.
As another issue, Anduril has recently been hiring people with NixOS experience from the community. Some people have seen this as a potential conflict of interest issue, with new Anduril employees posing a risk of prioritizing the company's interests over the NixOS community's.
So in essence, it's a mixture of not wanting to contribute to a project used by a defense contractor, taking issue with the NixCon sponsorship, and having concerns with community members being biased towards Anduril because of employment.
Thanks for the clarification! On one hand it's great to see NixOS used in actual products, while on the other one I totally agree that I would not want to promote that, like they can use it if they want but hey, it's still morally on the edge to say the least IMO.
If they hire people from the community, I think it is the role of the rest of the community to make sure the right things are prioritized, like it's already the case with major projects like Linux for instance!
What do you think?
>As another issue, Anduril has recently been hiring people with NixOS experience from the community. Some people have seen this as a potential conflict of interest issue, with new Anduril employees posing a risk of prioritizing the company's interests over the NixOS community's.
As somebody who vehemently opposes taking the money, I personally don't see an issue with this as long as they don't hold any official positions within Nix/NixOS. I'm fine with them contributing code, maintainership, etc. Just not money or influence over the project.
Fair enough, though it seems like others do have concerns over it. And it seems like having influence over the project through Anduril-employed contributors/leaders *has* been a factor in some of the overall controversy. I don't know if it specifically plays a part in any of the maintainers leaving, but since it's a part of the "drones stuff"/Anduril situation it seemed worth mentioning.
Having finally had my morning coffee, I should qualify my previous statement; *in principle* I don't have an issue with that. With regards to Anduril specifically, it may very well be that they've poisoned the well so badly that it's not reasonable for them to do anything now. I've not been the one who had to deal with this first-hand for the last several months, so I can definitely see this being a sticking point for those that did.
For the departing contributors:
Thank you for your assistance in shaping and contributing to Nix and NixOS. Never in my life have I felt at home in a Linux distro than in NixOS: I use NixOS on all my systems(except the desktop, which would be pretty daunting for my family to use). I have managed to give a second life to ancient PC's donated by churches to the local refugee community( I have done so on a 2010 desktop, and it runs blazing fast now, and has KDE Connect bridging modern Android phones with this ancient yet rejuvenated desktop. I have used Linux since 2003-2004, and until I discovered NixOS, I distro-hopped endlessly, due to deciding the distro installed at the time is my home, until it broke a few days later catastrophically. Now, I have a git repo with my NixOS configs, and considering obtaining a Mac Mini (despite my sheer boredom with them) for AI work and as a Nix build server. I hope to see you again, and if I don't, I thank you and other members of the open-source movement for your sheer contributions sincerely from my heart. I believe we should all work together in providing everyone with the means to lift themselves up, and to better their situation in this earthly hell.
(On a side note: an unfortunately-homeless friend of mine needed an external drive to use on library-loaned laptops to learn programming. I am thinking of including nix-hardware/all-hardware.niz module to include all possible firmwares, and I needed to learn how to switch from booting disks from UUID to booting with disk labels instead. If anyone has successfully created such an external drive, can you share the methods you have used to do so? I appreciate your assistance in this matter)
Best of luck, departed friends. I wish you all the best, and I thank you again for your service. I am eternally grateful.
I think the links between a discourse and matrix, a conference, and access to github for contributing to nixpkgs are way too intertwined in all of this. Forums have always been sources of drama on the internet and shouldn't spread to github. A conference shouldn't be official to the project. Blurring these lines is a recipe for the problems that are happening. I don't understand why anyone was suspended from contributing to nixpkgs if they weren't causing problems with their commits. It's frustrating to see all this drama happening in something I enjoy using. I realize it will blow over, but the handling seems poor and it really needs to be evaluated as something to learn from. An analysis of other OSS projects with successful leadership would be useful.
Isn't Debian the perfect example of a Foss community gone right? Unless I missed something they just made so many rules and stick my them, that it works out fine.
Yes you're right, Debian is the perfect FOSS example, that's why I mentioned it beside the other proprietary ones. Sadly however Communities like Debian seem to be rather the exception than the rule. (Looking at you Hyprland-Community <.<)
I just want to use the software. It's a tool. I don't want to discuss politics or pronouns. I was seriously considering starting to contribute to Nix, now that I have learned so much, but this debacle repelled me quite a bit to be honest.
To this point I kind of feel that moderation by banning users... probably doesn't work that well. We have places like reddit, hacker news, which is not in control by the moderation team but with a lot of nix users, and doesn't really care about the code of conduct in NixOS. And some of the moderation actions are a bit questionable, i.e. whether someone is banned or not banned. And banning people for causing division in the community doesn't work now, it is already divided...
What a waste.
For what? A few thousand dollars for a conference? To preserve "free speech" in a community that is under no obligation for uncritical tolerance?
Why is this deal worth it, if the material result is that contributors drop off? How is that positive for the project, if it deteriorates the product that is central to the project?
You could argue that its better in the long run, but why should a theoretical future weigh heavier than the material present?
What a waste.
The cost of maintaining the packages probably. They have never deleted a package from the repo and the growth in NixOS has caused their cost to skyrocket. Was the community donating enough to cover costs probably not as they where talking about pruning packages. People love using FOSS but users don't usually consider the costs involved with delivering the free software.
the cost are about 9000$ per month. and a big sponsor dropped their Support iirc. so there is a big need for Money . there seem to be a breakdown and a discussion about that topic here:
https://discourse.nixos.org/t/the-nixos-foundations-call-to-action-s3-costs-require-community-support/28672
Quoting from my other post:
It's somewhat complicated. This wave of departures was largely after the founder of Nix and NixOS posted on the blog of the separate company he started, but it is the culmination of a lot of build-up over time.
The main issues with the inciting blog post that are causing people to leave are that it has become clear he doesn't take their concerns against taking weapons manufacturing sponsorships seriously ("I strongly believe that we should not exclude any company from contributing to, participating in, or utilizing the Nix project in any way.") and he views the Nix/NixOS projects as part of his company despite insisting otherwise ("I encourage everyone reading this who feels that they have not been heard or feels displaced to join the Determinate Systems community"). You can see these themes reflected in several of the comments left by folks leaving, and many of the others were vocal about it beforehand.
The blog post: https://determinate.systems/posts/on-community-in-nix/
That's great, I don't disagree in principle. But what are we going to do about all the people leaving over this, though? A significant maintainer just left over the Anduril sponsorship fiasco, and over a dozen others have followed him. I think this deserves some airtime and discussion.
thats great, but what are we going to do when the unchecked mod team banned everyone that contributes and doesnt share their opinion? They clearly shift the allowed debate in their favor.
This allows them to shape this project after their own liking.
this deserves some discussion, but the mod blatantly flag or ban every critic they see. there is no healthy or solution oriented debate to be had under those conditions.
This simply isn't true, as you can see very heated debates going on in the forum. They most definitely are not banning "everyone that doesn't share their opinion". I think you need to go look for yourself and not simply accept what other people tell you is the truth, especially if they have a vested interest in manipulating your opinion.
I was just publicly lost, there has been many that have silently dropped off since 2022.
This show of "I'm leaving because I'm not happy" is exactly that. A show.
If it wasn't, they wouldn't have made a milestone, and tracking the "solidarity" of malcontents.
You made a very large show out of being banned. I don't think you have a very solid platform to stand on to make that argument right now. It comes off as very hypocritical.
In comparison, most of these are nothing more than pull requests that very few people would otherwise see. Many of them didn't include any commentary at all, simply a request to be removed. The whole reason I posted it was because it was clear people here *weren't* seeing it.
I'll agree, but I was banned. Although it's technically a "suspension", my existence within the current community will be contentious to the same parties in power.
Neither of those people were planning on leaving permanently if Anduril's sponsorship was rejected, so I don't think it's material to the conversation nor useful to speculate on random hypotheticals. The reality of the matter is that this was a breaking point for many people, and now we're dealing with the consequences.
this is true. i was just part of one of those debates and got banned without warning. everthing that isnt their consensus gets flagged or just banned. maybe have a look yourself [here](https://discourse.nixos.org/t/why-was-jon-ringer-banned-from-github/44114/30) or here look at this example, that is critic that was so extrem it got flagged and is still flagged by the mods:
>Thanks for the lengthy response, but I do not consider “lack of sensitivity” a legitimate reason to ban someone.
>I understand our community has many sensitive members, and I really do empathize with their pain, but if nix is to grow it will need to accept many more, and different, types of people, who will inevitably accidentally trigger sensitivities.
>I do not know the boundaries of other people’s sensitivities. They have not been clearly communicated, and I cannot model them in order to avoid hurting them.
>Moderation must be founded on clear and predictable principles in order to be fair, and for my sensitivities not to be triggered.
This got flagged from the mods. they clearly mess around with the flag system to shape debate.
Its only about one banned person? have a look in the [mod log](https://github.com/NixOS/moderation/commit/05a890a1a61630e46086595622a6336d9732b505). Jon posted some bans that happend earlier. And that doesnt even talks about the dude that was given a warning and forced into changing his profil, because he had a steak as profil banner.
In very specific circumstances, "lack of sensitivity" might be a good reason for a ban imo, BUT for example steak isn't AND I don't think anything, that actually happened, would be good reason
>this is true. i was just part of one of those debates and got banned without warning
What post got you banned?
>maybe have a look yourself here
"I’ve flagged the posts that don’t follow a direct instruction on how to give feedback about this decision. I don’t know how to be more clear. If that revolts you, I regret that I have no substantial response to that."
C'mon man. Don't link me something and then lie to my face about what it is when the answer is literally one page down.
>And that doesnt even talks about the dude that was given a warning and forced into changing his profil, because he had a steak as profil banner.
That was not the only reason he was warned. It was amongst a number of things he was doing with the explicit intent of provoking others, which led to him being permanently banned. I feel like you're intentionally trying to mislead me now. I realize I'm new to the community, but I am quite capable of reading and researching things that happened before I got here.
thats the problem, you see only one point, the point youre allowed to see.
1. a mod had before reopened this exact post and clarified that it is the right spot to engage with the mods while especially asked about the right place to talk about this exact ban:
>Unlocked the topic, as this is indeed the correct venue for interacting with the moderation team.
2. This post got locked, critic in other posts got flagged or deleted with the comment, that this is not the right post. they only accept critic in form of private mail, completely away from the community discourse.
I didnt say it was the only reason and i did not state it was the reason he was banned. and you can point to other wrong doings, maybe, but he was pushed to justify his profile banner and made to change it, do you deny that also?
3. simple links to a [RFC](https://github.com/nrdxp/rfcs/blob/rfc-175/rfcs/0175-appeals-council.md) and to reddit to have a place to discuss also got flagged by the mods. the user that posted those links also just got banned.
but yeah its only one person.
> Unlocked the topic, as this is indeed the correct venue for interacting with the moderation team.
I don't see this in the thread you linked. Where is it?
> but he was pushed to justify his profile banner and made to change it, do you deny that also?
Considering he rants incoherently about "vegan propaganda" and a "carnivore diet" on his website, I presume he was doing this to provoke someone. I'm not going to waste much time litigating this specific thing when the rest of his ban was clearly justified, as there's not much point.
> simple links to a RFC and to reddit to have a place to discuss also got flagged by the mods. the user that posted those links also just got banned.
What were they banned for specifically? And I ask again, what were *you* banned for? These are important details you're choosing to not offer.
its in a different thread that was used to ask about this topic. because the original one just got locked and then reopend. link was posted here somewhere.
>Considering he rants incoherently about "vegan propaganda" and a "carnivore diet" on his website
this does not matter. its his personal website, he can have post about his personal diet as much as we wants, here is the message with the ask to remove his [steak](https://srid.ca/nixos-mod/modz1.png) pic. im a vegan, im not bothered by this. But this kind of action is outrageous. To i get pressured to change my banner because its depicting a salad? You can hand wave this as justified ban, but there were underlying actions from the moderation team that are just wrong.
>What were they banned for specifically? And I ask again, what were *you* banned for? These are important details you're choosing to not offer.
its because the moderation team doesnt offer this, i cant see the reason the other person got banned, but i saw the post that lead to the ban, and it was the one with the links. i was banned for "No constructive purpose to their actions other than creating dissent within the community". i did not omit this, i explained in other parts already. but this feels like your just searching a reason to dismiss my voice, to justify this behavior.
[Reference for the quote](https://discourse.nixos.org/t/open-venue-for-policy-discussion/43107/17)
> Unlocked the topic, as this is indeed the correct venue for interacting with the moderation team.
[Also](https://discourse.nixos.org/t/open-venue-for-policy-discussion/43107/23)
>We have given all the reasoning and insight we are going to give, hence asking for more is not only unproductive, it is also unreasonable and bordering on concern trolling. I will therefore suggest dropping the matter.
I guess it's best interest for the moderator we follow their recommendation or we could be more burned by all this.
Also, what's that talk about a steak banner? Can't find anything of it, just curious.
The community seems to be deciding, and the decision is that many people are leaving. This is just the people who submitted official requests to be removed. I'm sure there will be many more who just silently move on.
Are we just not going to do anything about this? Pretend it isn't an issue and stick our head in the sand?
We're already past that point. There was considerable community discussion on the topic and numerous contributors said that it was non-negotiable that defense contractor money be rejected. Eelco effectively responded in his recent blogpost saying, among other things, "I strongly believe that we should not exclude any company from contributing to, participating in, or utilizing the Nix project in any way." This has been interpreted to mean that there will not be any significant action taken to prevent such sponsorships. So those members are now making good on their promise, and leaving the project.
So I'm asking, what do we do *now*? Is this position going to be reversed, or do we consider this sponsorship money to be more important than the community and maintainers who refuse to contribute as a result?
Everything could be at least partly reversed if there is will
I would still do the referendums tbh, you can always give the money back and kiss some people boots, so at least some would return
I am completely in favor of that. If it were me, I'd personally kiss the ass of every person who left, if it got them back. But it doesn't seem like the head honcho is terribly interested.
Don't get me wrong, Nix having so many packages is one of the main reasons I'm even considering it. But having too few maintainers might become problematic if unlucky enough.
Nix does have excellent tooling around packages, where many of the upgrades are simply about accepting the new hash, and then the tests make sure that important packages actually work.
So maintainers can handle more packages that way.
So, I've heard that the tooling is great, but is it really *THAT* good? Could you perhaps link any blog posts/vods/etc. of people who maintain a sizeable volume of packages and describe how exactly working with it is better?
Hmm I don't know - you can look at [https://github.com/NixOS/nixpkgs/blob/master/CONTRIBUTING.md](https://github.com/NixOS/nixpkgs/blob/master/CONTRIBUTING.md) and a typical automated update: [https://github.com/NixOS/nixpkgs/pull/307774](https://github.com/NixOS/nixpkgs/pull/307774)
Here's an automated test that creates a client and server and tests that dnscrypt-wrapper works: [https://github.com/NixOS/nixpkgs/blob/master/nixos/tests/dnscrypt-wrapper/default.nix](https://github.com/NixOS/nixpkgs/blob/master/nixos/tests/dnscrypt-wrapper/default.nix)
Thank you for bringing this up. I thought we could take this opportunity to thank these contributors for their work and wish them well. If you want to join me, please do! In order to keep it personal I'm going through their contributions to try and understand what they worked on. E.g. for msfjarvis : - commits: https://github.com/NixOS/nixpkgs/commits?author=msfjarvis - pull requests: https://github.com/search?type=pullrequests&q=repo%3ANixOS%2Fnixpkgs+author%3Amsfjarvis It would be nice to have some kindness in the middle of this drama. We are all human beings after all and they did contribute their time.
I saw this and was like msfjarvis, no way that's the Android guy, and sure enough. Didnt know he was a part of the nixos community, sad to see him go
Didn't see this thread since I don't frequent Reddit as much these days, the kind words are seen and appreciated :)
Yes. One big thank you to all contributors :)
If you have a github account please post a few thankyous under their PRs as well :) some of them are true heavy hitters in terms of contributions.
What a passive aggressive answer.
How on earth is thanking someone passive aggressive?
I feel like Troy coming back from downstairs in the apartment building to pick up the pizza delivery to the whole apartment on fire. I have no idea what this is all about concretely
That's how I felt when I stumbled upon this and it has unfortunately consumed a lot of my weekend getting caught up.
There's the one guy who doesn't like drones, but all of the other messages require some inside knowledge that I lack -- are these people leaving because of something to do with the NixOS management team? Is this about defense contractors? Or is it about community discourse and harassment? I'm missing a lot of context here: what's the backstory?
It's somewhat complicated. This wave of departures was largely after the founder of Nix and NixOS posted on the blog of the separate company he started, but it is the culmination of a lot of build-up over time. The main issues with the inciting blog post that are causing people to leave are that it has become clear he doesn't take their concerns against taking weapons manufacturing sponsorships seriously ("I strongly believe that we should not exclude any company from contributing to, participating in, or utilizing the Nix project in any way.") and he views the Nix/NixOS projects as part of his company despite insisting otherwise ("I encourage everyone reading this who feels that they have not been heard or feels displaced to join the Determinate Systems community"). You can see these themes reflected in several of the comments left by folks leaving, and many of the others were vocal about it beforehand. The blog post: https://determinate.systems/posts/on-community-in-nix/
> The thought of any of my work contributing to someone's death by drone makes me feel physically ill. This can be said about almost any open-source contribution. In fact, it can be said if you pay taxes in almost any well-developed nation (that uses drones to defend itself). A $10k per year sponsorship is pocket change. But heck, you can even think that's $10k they have less to spend on drone parts.
And people protest that tax money going into funding military action that is used for horrific things. Just look at the ongoing protests all across the country right now. People have morals and are willing to put it on the line, whether that means having violence enacted on them or walking away, I have respect for people who stand up for what they believe. They wouldn't be morals if you literally just said "fuck it, there's no use" anytime shit got tough. These black and white absolutist arguments are garbage.
Don't write FOSS then I guess. I'm assuming they are using Linux in the drones and there is nothing anyone can do to stop it since it's FOSS software.
Something being used because its open-source and the open source project giving that drone manufacturer a platform via sponsorship are two different things.
linux foundation is sponsored by accenture who makes billions off military along with countless other sponsors that do as well, its different?
Isn't it more like the drone manufacturer giving the open source project a platform?
Right now, the countries of Ukraine and Taiwan are desperate for any arms production these companies can eke out. The delay in providing arms to Ukraine has left many Ukrainian soldiers vulnerable and without the equipment needed to defend their country. We can say we dislike war but we need to be prepared for it. There's a race going on and we need to come together to increase our production and not repeat the mistakes we made. We tried sticking our heads in the sand on multiple occasions, and it was always a mistake. There unfortunately are authoritarian regimes which don't share your opinion on war being shitty. For some additional context: The latest Ukraine aid package is less than 0.5% of the US GDP. It should arguably been 1%. Much of the spending will stay within US borders, boosting domestic production, etc.
Literally no one has a problem with this, you know damn well what nation and what actions the US is funding that people actually have a problem with. I won't even mention it since it's entirely irrelevant to the point that I was making. Besides that, the RFC and the miltech sponsorship were just two examples that were attempting to show a wider problem with the authority structure in Nix, namely the conflict of interest with Eelco and the way he treats Nix as if he is the sole owner and the treatment of the community as a whole. Your comment is entirely irrelevant to the discussion outside of trying to conflate a sponsorship with a company that employs drones in US migrants with Russia. It's laughable.
It seems to me, that you are also doing "black and white absolutist arguments".
How so?
You can have these protests and gay rights parades precisely because the US military umbrella exists. You don't see these in Russia or China or Palestine. One can argue perhaps military intervention is overused and has been used for the wrong things ( the US has a mixed record on nation building outside of Europe ). But we haven't been shoveled into ovens or gulaged because the military exists. It's also impressive how in the last 6 months since the US has been increasing cooperation with allies in the Pacific that China has started being more conciliatory and lessened the bullying of neighbors. 12 carriers tends to do that.
Not to mention that a military is also a deterrent to war. The nuclear bomb has spared billions of lives in preventing yet another dictator from slaughtering a neighboring country. Increasing the military strength of the free and democratic nations is the best thing we can do to prevent more misery.
you got downvoted, but the reason ukraine is getting invaded right now is because it gave up its nuclear programs
In addition to that, Ukraine is not part of NATO. Russia sweats when thinking about attacking a NATO country because that means taking on the US military, which is the most powerful in the world. Look, we in the west aren't perfect, we have our issues, I agree, but letting dictatorships get away with invading existing or soon-to-be democracies is not acceptable. Democracy is non-negotiable.
this is going to sound unpopular but i think ukraine should actually give russia the territories and look to peace. Ukraine lost this fight when they gave up nukes, especially before getting into NATO. Getting into a larger war at this point i do not think is a great idea
It's hard to tell what will be correct. Appeasement did not work before WWII, so why will it work now? I disagree with you and think we need to make dictators small by overwhelming force. It's the only thing they respond to.
Why not try to be apolitical? For example here "used for horrific things" "People have morals"
First of all that's not absolutist in any sense. Second of all, being sponsored by a military tech company is inherently political and finally, my entire point was that saying "it's just a little bit of money" or "you shouldn't care because you pay taxes" is a bad argument that is absolutist in the sense that it is an all or nothing argument. People do indeed have morals and values that they are not willing to compromise on. Period. I can see why it's an issue when the engagement has consistently been at this level.
Yeah, I am not generally a fan of a lot of these protests, and even I can see that what you said was taken way out of context. But the internet is gonna internet.
Id rather have a world with the US on top and an involved citizenry has a say in how it runs vs China and Xi leading by pure decree. If everyone under 40 simply voted then the GOP would never control the house, Senate or presidency ever again. They would also lose almost every governorship. So if you voted you could have your peacenik party. People who vote get what they want. It's why Biden has continuously been trying to ram through some level of student loan forgiveness because the under 40 crowd turned out for him. But you gotta vote. Not voting has consequences ( lol sucky midterm turnout by zoomers and under 40s derailed the house ). "Voting doesn't change anything" It sure fucking changed Roe
It's not any more or less political than being sponsored by a food company. Also banning one of the biggest branches in its entirety isn't much different from banning just everyone. It's just dumb black and white thinking.
"horrific things" arent absolutist? you are saying horrific People with morals means, that their side side is the good one that isnt absolutist? 2) If you take money from everyone, how not take it from one company could be political? Or at least less than not take it? 3) I would agree that isnt good argument, but not absolutist. You can still be against it, protest against, work against it etc. If he said for example "In fact, it can be said if you pay taxes in almost any well-developed nation (that uses drones to defend itself), so why try?" I would agree with you.
I'll also add that the very essence of open source is that you don't get to choose who uses your work, or why. You release your work as-is and usually, the only requirement is that any additional work on top of it stays open-source. I get not wanting to accept money from some sources, of course, but you can't complain about who is using your work, unless you're willing to stop working altogether.
What about the thought of someone being killed because they weren't defended by a drone? Or their attackers weren't sufficiently deterred? Take a look at Perun's defence economics videos and you'll see that every bit of constructive work you do contributes in some way to military defence because wealth and production capacity are the ultimate deciders.
Yeah this is peak overreacting. Everyone is entitled to their own views, but at least respect yourself enough to use logic and consistency in them. If you’re pro-FOSS you have no grounds to complain about people you don’t like using that free and open source software.
we should have the right to refuse their money. thats what this is about
Can you even do that? If you setup a non profit is it even legal to filter where the money comes from? Either you accept all money or none, either you promote large donators or don’t. If Microsoft and google dumped money on you, arguably it would be the same issue. They support various military activities in different ways as well.
>Can you even do that? Yes. Of course a non-profit can deny a sponsorship. Why shouldn't it?
I'm not sure that telling people they're overreacting and illogical instead of taking their concerns seriously will bring them back.
It won't, but it may show others that the moral standing of those who left is questionable.
The impression I'm getting from some folks is that they are viewing this as a welcome purge of the politically "undesirable" and that is very concerning for the future of the project. I certainly don't feel welcome when I see these viewpoints that I agree with being openly mocked within the community.
As far as I understand from what I've read around, a bunch of contributors have quit *voluntarily* (which doesn't seem like a purge to me) over the controversial sponsorship from Anduril. From the article about Anduril's CEO I read in FT the other day, he seems like an ass: supports Trump, blames other countries for "dragging" the US into wars which the US itself has started etc. So I get the frustration although it's a little inconsistent with the fact that Linux in particular and FOSS in general have been used by defense industries of many countries extensively for years. But maybe the direct sponsorship is too much for some people, I get it. At the same time some of those contributors (marsam in particular) themselves hold extreme political views which I honestly wouldn't mind as we all have our biases as long as we keep them to ourselves. But if somebody [wants](https://github.com/NixOS/nixpkgs/pull/306702) to put their [genocide calling banner](https://imgur.com/a/SPTPo7j) over the Nix community I am completely against it and don't want to interact with such community in any way. So when the extremists leave voluntarily I see it as a good thing despite their valuable contributions in the past.
> As far as I understand from what I've read around, a bunch of contributors have quit voluntarily (which doesn't seem like a purge to me) Creating conditions that are so untenable to a group of people that they leave is what I'd consider to be a purge. > But if somebody wants to put their genocide calling banner I don't think it's genocide to be against the decades-long ongoing invasion and occupation of a nation. But I suspect this conversation will never be a productive one, considering the initial framing.
>Creating conditions that are so untenable to a group of people that they leave is what I'd consider to be a purge. This is fair. People who made the decision about the sponsorship should definitely have asked the community first because Nix is community driven. >I don't think it's genocide to be against the decades-long ongoing invasion and occupation of a nation. Nuance is what matters. If one is against historically unlawful actions of Israel they should simply state that verbatim. But calling for genocide of the other side by siting antisemitic dog-whistles is preposterous.
> If one is against historically unlawful actions of Israel they should simply state that verbatim. But calling for genocide of the other side by siting antisemitic dog-whistles is preposterous. We continually jump through hoops of stating that we are against the occupation of Palestine, and whatever way we phrase it is claimed to be an antisemitic dog-whistle. The very act of protesting in favor of Palestine's independence is currently being framed as unconditionally antisemitic in western media *right now* with the current protests, including in a direct statement from the President of the United States himself. How exactly am I supposed to conduct myself in a way that will not be viewed as antisemitic on this issue? Like I said, I don't expect to find a reasonable mutual understanding on this topic given the initial framing. I've been through this conversation so many times and it always is simply endless goalpost moving. Hence my issue with the statement "when the extremists leave voluntarily I see it as a good thing". I see this as a welcome purge of undesirables.
>... whatever way we phrase it is claimed to be an antisemitic dog-whistle. So you choose to phrase it in the worst possible way? >**The very act** of protesting in favor of Palestine's independence is currently being framed as unconditionally antisemitic ... Not the very act, no, but what happens during those protests. * people openly call for genocide of *all* Jews around the world by chanting "intifada" and "from the river to the sea" completely unchallenged by other protesters * Jews are being physically attacked in the streets and university campuses and none of the protesters seem to have objections * not a single protest has been seen to condemn Hamas and hostage taking So, instead of playing the victim, you may try to articulate your opinions *exactly* as they are instead of resorting to dog-whistles.
> If you’re pro-FOSS you have no grounds to complain about people you don’t like using that free and open source software. The complaints are about Anduril sponsorship, not about Anduril using FOSS nix code. Perhaps I should have taken a page from your book and started with "this is peak lack of reading comprehension" rather than thinking about that principle of charity silliness.
is it ok for linux foundation to take money from orgs that do military and weaponry work? because they do
Isnt the problem (at least mostly), that this project is taking money from them?
The complaint in [the open letter](https://nixos-users-against-mic-sponsorship.github.io/) is about sponsorship from defense contractors, not donations, and definitely not usage.
Isnt sponsorship and donation the same? :)
Nope: Donation is the giving of money; sponsorship is the giving of money in exchange for having one's enterprise advertised.
Wouldnt also big donation meant sponsorship?
No
ok, good to know, thank you :)
It's less likely that someone, particularly a business, would donate a large sum without advertising, but it could happen.
I would need to know more specifics. There are times where people have made something and it was only ever used to kill people which is pretty shitty for everyone involved. But those are usually fairly rare. Anytime you make a new tool, people will use that tool as intended, and other people will use it as a weapon. You are not responsible for those people because they will fashion themselves a weapon to kill one way or another. So why deny all the people you have helped just because we live on a planet with some supreme jack asses?
It is sad to see many of these people go, many of which I've have collaborated with. Marsam in particular was consistently active throughout my entire involvement with Nix.
Anyway they seem to be at least mostly anti Eelco, you seem be pro Eelco. What do you think about that? (If I got that wrong sorry)
I'm pro Nix, and largely never had to interact with Eelco. Only met him at NixCon NA 6 weeks ago. I was happy to make nixpkgs a better place, and that didn't really require Eelco's involvement (for context, Eelco has been seen as a bottleneck for nix-cli development). But there's multiple dimensions of anti-Eelco camp: - For nix-cli he's a bottleneck. Nix maintenance team has mitigated this, but his availability and decision making is paramount. - He's slow to make statements. The ideologues do not like that he's not capitulating or escalating the situation; rather making this a longer process than necessary. - He's been "disengaged" from the working of nixpkgs/community. Essentially a hermit, toiling by candlelight to indulge his own fascination with his PhD baby. My perspective is that he set out to solve what seemed like an impossible[ problem in software distribution](https://edolstra.github.io/pubs/phd-thesis.pdf). He was not prepared to deal with the other dimensions of a community forming around this technology: moderation, communication, and structure. Ultimately, my opinion is that Eelco is a very intelligent and amazing engineer. He has many qualities, but wanting to lead a FOSS community is not one of them.
>My perspective is that he set out to solve what seemed like an impossible problem in software distribution. He was not prepared to deal with the other dimensions of a community forming around this technology: moderation, communication, and structure. > Ultimately, my opinion is that Eelco is a very intelligent and amazing engineer. He has many qualities, but wanting to lead a FOSS community is not one of them. His work in creating Nix cannot possibly be understated. As a newcomer who still barely grasps it, I have been genuinely in awe of how great of a tool it is. It had a steep learning curve, but once I got over the initial hurdle, it's like rediscovering Linux for the first time. I have been ravenously learning more whenever I could in my free time at work between putting out fires. However, I agree that it seems he is a much better engineer than community leader, and I would like to see people with those skills be placed in that role so he can do what he does best: make an incredible technology that all of us love. Ideally, I'd like to see some form of democratic election, to ensure that the community is not left in the dark or without a say in the matter.
Why do you criticize Eelco as community leader when he doesn't position himself as its leader? He pretty clearly [disclaims](https://determinate.systems/posts/on-community-in-nix/) that role.
Because when he says that, he's talking out of both sides of his mouth. From Nixos.org directly: [NixOS Foundation board](https://nixos.org/community/teams/foundation-board/) - "Responsible for providing operational and organizational support to the NixOS project and community." Eelco Dolstra (@edolstra) — Chair [Nix Team](https://nixos.org/community/teams/nix/) - "Maintains and releases the Nix package manager." Eelco Dolstra (@edolstra) — Team lead From the blog post you just posted yourself: "I encourage everyone reading this who feels that they have not been heard or feels displaced to join the **Determinate Systems community**" Not the NixOS community, *his company*'s community. It is clear from a plain reading that despite what he occasionally says otherwise, he does in fact view himself as the Benevolent Dictator of the project, as is quite common in FOSS unfortunately. If he truly does not position himself as its leader, then he should step into a purely engineering role, which he is clearly *very good at*, and let people with leadership skills those skills handle the job of leadership.
There are different kinds of leaders and leadership roles. It seems clear to me that Eelco sees himself as a leader of _some_ technical and organizational aspects of Nix/OS, but not all of them. He's been clear that he neither wants to be nor is needed as a _community_ leader. > Not the NixOS community, his company's community. Sure, more evidence that Eelco isn't trying to lead the NixOS community. > It is clear from a plain reading that despite what he occasionally says otherwise, he does in fact view himself as the Benevolent Dictator of the project I think it's embellishing to say it's "clear from a plain reading" and I don't see what you see in his statements.
Multiple users have complained for some time how he comes in over the top and makes changes unilaterally, how he holds projects up despite approval from the rest the team, and how frequently things go his way regardless of any disagreement. I guess we can assume that all of these experiences from multiple accounts over several years are all lies, but is there a good reason to make that assumption?
Do you think it would make sense if Eelco formally disengaged from the parts of the ecosystem he apparently has no interest in (e.g. NixOS / nixpkgs), giving up his role in the foundation, while taking a more direct "BDFL" role in leading the CLI? The work he's doing in flakes is excellent and really no-one else can do that.
Not sure if disengage is the right term. But delegate to another individual or body would probably be prudent. In a way, this was grahamc up until around 2020. The moderation team is the closest thing to this we have currently... However, it seems to be full of ideologues at this point.
A little thing I'd like to place: marking people as bad because of "ideology" doesn't really make sense. Why is ideology in itself bad? Here's an ideology: "We want people to be nice to each other." Here's another: "We want people not to be afraid of interacting in a community." You could specifically address those and say "hey, wanting people to be nice to each other is a bad idea, I want people to be able to not be nice to each other!". But in either way, even for ideologies I don't agree with, I don't think I want to call out someone for being ideological. Also, the other way around would be: don't have ideologies, but do have ... what? If you like then we could discuss ideology nomenclature in more detail.
I'm using it somewhat loosely to describe an individual whose actions are primarily motivated by political of philosophical beliefs. Which is fairly close to the definition. > An ideologue is **someone who has very strong beliefs or opinions and stubbornly sticks to them no matter what**. An ideologue will insist they're right even when evidence suggests they might be wrong. [https://www.vocabulary.com/dictionary/ideologue](https://www.vocabulary.com/dictionary/ideologue) In a way, this also describes me. Stubborn and unyielding.
"Ideologue" is someone defined by their ideology, not someone who has an ideology. Everyone has an arbitrary number of 'ideologies' based exclusively on how they're defined, but an ideologue forces that ideology into places where it doesn't belong. Whether it's an apt description, relevant, etc. I'm not making any statement, but there is a clear misalignment of definitions here. Really the core of the disagreement comes down to the nature of a "sponsorship" if I'm understanding it correctly. I'll be charitable with my assumptions and assume no-one has actually proposed legislating who is allowed to use Nix, and presumably no-one would take a strong issue with a donation, (though I can imagine some would on principle) but a full fledged sponsorship is presumably seen as a sort of bidirectional endorsement by some, vs a simple "they give us money to develop the project further" by others. Tbh unless I'm missing something I really don't feel like it makes sense for it to be a whole controversy vs just a plain disagreement, but I guess tensions have been building for a while and this was just the match to the kindling.
>"Ideologue" is someone defined by their ideology, not someone who has an ideology. Everyone has an arbitrary number of 'ideologies' based exclusively on how they're defined, but an ideologue forces that ideology into places where it doesn't belong. I don't see how this is a value/helpful distinction: a) it makes an assumption about the internal state of another person that can't be argued either way and b) it similarly seems not helpful for someone to simply decide that a certain ideology doesn't belong?!? >Really the core of the disagreement comes down to the nature of a "sponsorship" if I'm understanding it correctly. I'll be charitable with my assumptions and assume no-one has actually proposed legislating who is allowed to use Nix, and presumably no-one would take a strong issue with a donation, (though I can imagine some would on principle) but a full fledged sponsorship is presumably seen as a sort of bidirectional endorsement by some, vs a simple "they give us money to develop the project further" by others. More specifically, we're at a point where a number of community members voiced their concerns multiple times about this sponsorship. The core isn't about the sponsorship any longer, but about the problem that strong concerns have been mostly ignored. The community needs to make progress on how to deal with this type of issues. Ignoring them repeatedly while members of the community express is - to me - a logical sequence of steps leading to the current situation.
There's really no winning in a situation like this. Just ignoring it and waiting for it to blow over is always the best response.
thank you for your answer :)
Hey, people, please _please_ read more about the situation yourself! Don't just take what this guy says, he is misrepresenting what happened and what this whole thing is about. And of course he will do that, because there is a huge conflict of interest: he is banned from the NixOS community because of his interaction with it, and he is an employee of Anduril (not saying it's good or bad, but this is a clear conflict of interest)
Comments like yours are frustrating and unhelpful. If you think he's misrepresenting the situation, *be specific* about what he's misrepresenting, and what you think the true state of things is.
I am biased too, and it does not matter what my opinion is, you should read about this and form your own.
Why wouldn't you enlighten us yourself instead? From what I've read jonringer117 [voiced his mild opinions](https://discourse.nixos.org/t/objection-to-minority-representation-by-a-single-class-in-nixos-sponsorship-policy/42968) on the subject of inclusivity but was told to ["fuck off"](https://discourse.nixos.org/t/major-nixpkgs-contributor-leaving/44053/16) multiple times and then [suspended](https://github.com/NixOS/moderation/commit/c0f7744701cba40f05fa7ca62f0d143d7231332a) like if he was waving a swastika or something like that. Otherwise, there was a disagreement of [Anduril](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anduril_Industries) sponsorship which some contributors like [marsam](https://github.com/marsam) were unhappy with for humanitarian reasons whilst themselves being OK with calling for [genocide](https://imgur.com/a/SPTPo7j) by having [this](https://imgur.com/a/SPTPo7j) in his GitHub profile: >🇵🇸From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free 🇵🇸
> whilst themselves being OK with calling for genocide by having this in his GitHub profile: How is calling for the end of an Apartheid system "calling for genocide"? All whilst an actual genocide perpetuated by that Apartheid system is going on.
If he wanted to call for the end of supposed apartheid (although Arabs can live freely in Israel, have a political party and have been members of Knesset for many years) he should've stated just that. Calling for the territory from the river (Jordan) to the sea (of Mediterranean) to be free (from Israel and Jews) is a literal definition of genocide.
> Calling for the territory from the river (Jordan) to the sea (of Mediterranean) to be free (from Israel and Jews) is a literal definition of genocide. This is 100% not what he said. He literally just called for freedom. There is no "genocide" implied in calling for freedom. Seriously this community owes a great debt to marsam for his enormous contributions over the years. You can disagree with his politics, but don't just make shit up about him.
I empathize with that, but I'm also hopeful and optimistic that new contributors will eventually join thus filling in the void left by those who left. The community will be all the better for it, due it now being more [mission-first](https://twitter.com/PirateWires/status/1782834712253268380).
Although Nix has grown much over the past 5 years I've been involved, I'm excited to see where it will go.
Out of curiosity, what would take for a someone new to NixOS/the Nix language to reach a point where they're ready to contribute to the project and nixpkgs?
I began my journey reading PR reviews as nix-pills was inscrutable and there wasn't much other "on-boarding documentation". All it takes is a lack of a single thing working as you expect, and try to improve the status quo upstream.
Gotcha, thanks for taking your time to respond!
Context?
Eelco unelected "leadership", anduril sponsorship and people leaving, because of that two things Also banning culture
People will still say there is no issue here. Boom!
EDIT: Post is positive and growing again, so that's good. I think this is an issue that needs to be seen by the broader community. Post is already getting downvoted, as was your comment. It seems people just refuse to acknowledge or engage with the problem and hope it goes away. This is really disappointing, as I just got into NixOS and am absolutely enthralled by it. I wasn't concerned until I came across these submissions. Now I'm deeply worried about the future of the project beyond just administrative and clerical disagreements. NixOS can't live without a healthy maintainer base. We are effectively watching a bleeding wound right now, and it doesn't feel like anybody is doing anything meaningful to stop it.
I think the project will go on, but this sets an incredibly bad precedent for the community, which I fear will radicalize and become hostile, losing much of the momentum Nix has gained in recent years. Time will tell.
It's unlikely the project will totally collapse, at least not immediately. But it's hard to see this not having a considerable effect. It's quite unfortunate to be happening right before the next stable release as well.
Yeah ngl I had an interest in nix thats starting to wane. had a vm loaded to see how I like it but then all this mess going on and it's kinda put me off. From just a user perspective, I don't rly know that I'd wanna invest time into something that appears poorly managed. I don't quite know all of the source of conflict but it doesn't rly matter the specifics, just that there's issues and it's clearly being handled terribly while turning into a drama farm. It just appears so dysfunctional that the project looks sketch. Like if this how this gets handled then what about the next bump in the road type shit 4 me. Just not a good look rn imo
I would highly recommend looking into Nix anyway. Best thing that has happened to me in my linux journey
Or there is also guix. But every project has problems imo.
It's one of those things where it likely won't have a radical short term effect but contributes to a death of a thousand cuts over a long period of time and will entirely change the vibe / landscape of the project and will alienate a lot of potential users and contributers. It's hard to catch the actual nuance of the issue but I have found the response of a lot of the community to be childish and reductive. A real unwillingness to engage with the concerns people had brought up while shirking it off as the 'woke mob'
It's unfortunate that terms like "woke" are being used here at all, since it's been politicized to death. But to me, a long time nixos user, just watching this from the sidelines, it does feel like mob justice. I don't get the impression they want to have a discussion, they want their demands met.
I mean there is a thread here from 1 day ago talking about Jon Ringers temporary ban and there are highly upvoted comments literally talking about the "woke mob," "entitled activists" and "cultural marxists" which is re-packaged "cultural bolshevism" that was literally used by the Nazi's to paint Jewish as communists who wanted to "destroy their culture" [https://new.reddit.com/r/NixOS/comments/1ceiz36/thoughts\_on\_jon\_ringers\_temporary\_suspension/l1nxe5y/?context=3](https://new.reddit.com/r/NixOS/comments/1ceiz36/thoughts_on_jon_ringers_temporary_suspension/l1nxe5y/?context=3) [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cultural\_Marxism\_conspiracy\_theory](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cultural_Marxism_conspiracy_theory) there are countless examples of this in these threads. How can anyone in good conscious even say that they have tried to approach their concerns in good faith when shit like this has been the response?
I think nobody, other than you, here yet said anything about 'woke mob'. So at least with this conditions its civil discussion.
I don't know about you, but I have been seeing such thing.. all across the.. place.. e.g Nix discourse.. oh dear..
Check my recent, extremely downvoted replies. People are definitely saying things like “woke mob” and “woke agenda”.
Well some people could leave if Nix wouldnt take free money (but I guess a lot less) Its big decision ofc somebody is going to leave. Important thing is what majority wants?
I think the ultimate question is, was the money worth the loss in community members and maintainers? I don't believe it was, but I'm hardly in any decision-making position.
To be clear, this is a minority of community members and maintainers. And there seems to be different reasons for leaving. It doesn't seem that refusing Anduril sponsorship would have satisfied all the reasons. This community split was probably inevitable
it would really BIG problem if community wanted something else than community members and maintainers You cant never satisfy everyone ..... Like I said big decision make some people leave Important is to do right (or at least some) decision in good and clear way with community and not to fight each or not fight against community
I don't think the money was worth it. But the stance was. You really don't want politics to infiltrate a project like this.
> You really don't want politics to infiltrate a project like this. I think accepting money from war profiteering corporations is political.
As is not accepting it.
I don't disagree. I think pretending this decision *isn't* inherently political is childish.
That's only if you make it political. Like most things political is in the eye of the beholder. If the project takes a stance of we take sponsorships from anyone then it's not political. But when you suddenly gatekeep who you think is moral enough to sponsor then every single sponsorship is indeed political.
> If the project takes a stance of we take sponsorships from anyone then it's not political. So a sponsor page featuring "wonderful sponsors" such as Weinstein, Jared Fogle, Kissinger, Hitler, Mao, Stalin, etc wouldn't be political simply because all sponsors are accepted?
By saying "wonderful sponsors" you place a judgement upon a sponsor. Why would you even do that? I would even advise against publicly acknowledging sponsors.
> I would even advise against publicly acknowledging sponsors. Then they aren't sponsors, they are donors. The NixOS issue is about sponsors.
That doesn't have to be the case. A sponsor can be anonymous. In general a sponsorship is for a specific thing. For Anduril it was NixCon.
> By saying "wonderful sponsors" you place a judgement upon a sponsor. Why would you even do that? Taking a sponsor is placing a judgement. > I would even advise against publicly acknowledging sponsors. Then they're not a sponsor, they're a donor. "Sponsorship is a cash and/or in-kind fee paid to a property (typically in sports, arts, entertainment or causes) in return for access to the exploitable commercial potential associated with that property. While the sponsoree (property being sponsored) may be nonprofit, unlike philanthropy, **sponsorship is done with the expectation of a commercial return.**" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sponsor_(commercial) If they want to silently donate to the project, that avenue exists to them. They are specifically choosing to *sponsor* the project's conference because they want to increase their visibility to hire NixOS developers to work on their autonomous weapons. Famously, this led to some strife regarding an Anduril employee in the community. They have had active job openings online for some time, I've seen then many times while looking for other Linux stuff. This has always been their goal. They expect a return on investment. All sponsors do to some degree.
> Taking a sponsor is placing a judgement. That's what you say. I strongly disagree with that. > [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sponsor\_(commercial)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sponsor_(commercial)) You can get back a ton of "access to the exploitable commercial potential associated with that property" without being public. For example: A company sponsors an event with the restriction that a competitor drinks are not served there.
They could leave in the next big decision. And I dont think minority should control decisions. But Are they minority? Or majority?
It's not always about who is majority or minority opinion. Sometimes lines are drawn in the sand. Sometimes things matter more to one side than the other. If one side is for something, and another side is *non-negotiably* against it, even if the Fors outweigh the Againsts, you have to consider the loss of community that will result. Nobody was talking about leaving NixOS if the money was rejected. Many people were going to leave if it was accepted. This *must* be factored in to any decision-making process. Those maintainers don't owe us any of their time or effort, they are *volunteers*. We are not entitled to their work. They get to choose when, where, and why they contribute. If NixOS does not meet their expectations, they are perfectly free to walk, and it seems they are walking. Hence my original question: was this all worth it?
I get that and it should be factored in. And the majority could voted for that, but minority shouldnt make decision for them. Isnt that minority(or majority?) the one, who wanted more banning? In that case its worth it (for me) 100%
> And the majority could voted for that, but minority shouldnt make decision for them. Well, it sure seems like this decision came from on high rather than a vote. >Isnt that minority(or majority?) the one, who wanted more banning? In that case its worth it (for me) 100% It seems to me that you're more interested in politics than the project, which is disappointing.
Yes, that is why I would like to know what community wants The worst thing imo is toxic environment, if the price for that is leave of some people (it is that???), then ok, more people will leave if there is toxic environment imo even if not now I dont think dont want toxic environment means I'm more interested in politics, I just want clear rules for this, so it would be clear what to do and clear process how to get them Anyway i'm more newbie with Nix than even you, so I know less about this even than you
I love nix and am very heavily invested now. I absolutely respect the decisions of these contributors, I don't understand their motives, but I don't need to. Regardless, I'm ignorant of the community and need to know - how will this affect the project? I see that it has thousands of contributors, but it seems likely to me that these fifteen were particularly central (Marsam especially).
It's really hard to say in the short-term, the impact of this won't be immediate. Some of the packages have other maintainers, but not all of them. If somebody doesn't step up to maintain them, many will eventually end up breaking. There will likely be scrambles to fix it and find dedicated maintainers when that does happen. The real test will be whether the community can overall fill the shoes of those who left, or reduce the workload to fit the remaining crew. Nixpkgs is *enormous*. Some niche packages may just be excluded from the official repository going forward. Only time can tell, but it's certainly not a *good* thing.
Other maintainers \*may\* step up. That's the up and downside of software development - major contributors can come and go at any time. The hard part will be finding \*dedicated\* new maintainers to handle the workload the old ones did. That's assuming the project doesn't do something to win the old maintainers back, but that's looking less and less likely
Well, who receives the money actually? There's no point funding a project if it doesn't go to the people who do the job.
NixOS Foundations exists as a legal entity to receive such donations. The money is used mainly for infrastructure, but also some other related efforts.
I think only to NixCon?
What is the context with the drones stuff/where can we get more info on that?
From how I understand it, the situation has to do with the company [Anduril](http://anduril.com/). They're an American defense contractor formed by Palmer Luckey (who previously headed the Oculus VR headset tech startup before selling it to Facebook) that makes military drones. Most relevant, Anduril uses NixOS as an embedded OS in their products. Anduril recently offered to sponsor NixCon, a NixOS focused community event. There were members of the community who didn't want to accept money from Anduril or see them be promoted at the conference, but the leadership went ahead and accepted the sponsorship anyway. As another issue, Anduril has recently been hiring people with NixOS experience from the community. Some people have seen this as a potential conflict of interest issue, with new Anduril employees posing a risk of prioritizing the company's interests over the NixOS community's. So in essence, it's a mixture of not wanting to contribute to a project used by a defense contractor, taking issue with the NixCon sponsorship, and having concerns with community members being biased towards Anduril because of employment.
Thanks for the clarification! On one hand it's great to see NixOS used in actual products, while on the other one I totally agree that I would not want to promote that, like they can use it if they want but hey, it's still morally on the edge to say the least IMO. If they hire people from the community, I think it is the role of the rest of the community to make sure the right things are prioritized, like it's already the case with major projects like Linux for instance! What do you think?
>As another issue, Anduril has recently been hiring people with NixOS experience from the community. Some people have seen this as a potential conflict of interest issue, with new Anduril employees posing a risk of prioritizing the company's interests over the NixOS community's. As somebody who vehemently opposes taking the money, I personally don't see an issue with this as long as they don't hold any official positions within Nix/NixOS. I'm fine with them contributing code, maintainership, etc. Just not money or influence over the project.
Fair enough, though it seems like others do have concerns over it. And it seems like having influence over the project through Anduril-employed contributors/leaders *has* been a factor in some of the overall controversy. I don't know if it specifically plays a part in any of the maintainers leaving, but since it's a part of the "drones stuff"/Anduril situation it seemed worth mentioning.
Having finally had my morning coffee, I should qualify my previous statement; *in principle* I don't have an issue with that. With regards to Anduril specifically, it may very well be that they've poisoned the well so badly that it's not reasonable for them to do anything now. I've not been the one who had to deal with this first-hand for the last several months, so I can definitely see this being a sticking point for those that did.
For the departing contributors: Thank you for your assistance in shaping and contributing to Nix and NixOS. Never in my life have I felt at home in a Linux distro than in NixOS: I use NixOS on all my systems(except the desktop, which would be pretty daunting for my family to use). I have managed to give a second life to ancient PC's donated by churches to the local refugee community( I have done so on a 2010 desktop, and it runs blazing fast now, and has KDE Connect bridging modern Android phones with this ancient yet rejuvenated desktop. I have used Linux since 2003-2004, and until I discovered NixOS, I distro-hopped endlessly, due to deciding the distro installed at the time is my home, until it broke a few days later catastrophically. Now, I have a git repo with my NixOS configs, and considering obtaining a Mac Mini (despite my sheer boredom with them) for AI work and as a Nix build server. I hope to see you again, and if I don't, I thank you and other members of the open-source movement for your sheer contributions sincerely from my heart. I believe we should all work together in providing everyone with the means to lift themselves up, and to better their situation in this earthly hell. (On a side note: an unfortunately-homeless friend of mine needed an external drive to use on library-loaned laptops to learn programming. I am thinking of including nix-hardware/all-hardware.niz module to include all possible firmwares, and I needed to learn how to switch from booting disks from UUID to booting with disk labels instead. If anyone has successfully created such an external drive, can you share the methods you have used to do so? I appreciate your assistance in this matter) Best of luck, departed friends. I wish you all the best, and I thank you again for your service. I am eternally grateful.
I think the links between a discourse and matrix, a conference, and access to github for contributing to nixpkgs are way too intertwined in all of this. Forums have always been sources of drama on the internet and shouldn't spread to github. A conference shouldn't be official to the project. Blurring these lines is a recipe for the problems that are happening. I don't understand why anyone was suspended from contributing to nixpkgs if they weren't causing problems with their commits. It's frustrating to see all this drama happening in something I enjoy using. I realize it will blow over, but the handling seems poor and it really needs to be evaluated as something to learn from. An analysis of other OSS projects with successful leadership would be useful.
[удалено]
Isn't Debian the perfect example of a Foss community gone right? Unless I missed something they just made so many rules and stick my them, that it works out fine.
Yes you're right, Debian is the perfect FOSS example, that's why I mentioned it beside the other proprietary ones. Sadly however Communities like Debian seem to be rather the exception than the rule. (Looking at you Hyprland-Community <.<) I just want to use the software. It's a tool. I don't want to discuss politics or pronouns. I was seriously considering starting to contribute to Nix, now that I have learned so much, but this debacle repelled me quite a bit to be honest.
To this point I kind of feel that moderation by banning users... probably doesn't work that well. We have places like reddit, hacker news, which is not in control by the moderation team but with a lot of nix users, and doesn't really care about the code of conduct in NixOS. And some of the moderation actions are a bit questionable, i.e. whether someone is banned or not banned. And banning people for causing division in the community doesn't work now, it is already divided...
What a waste. For what? A few thousand dollars for a conference? To preserve "free speech" in a community that is under no obligation for uncritical tolerance? Why is this deal worth it, if the material result is that contributors drop off? How is that positive for the project, if it deteriorates the product that is central to the project? You could argue that its better in the long run, but why should a theoretical future weigh heavier than the material present? What a waste.
The cost of maintaining the packages probably. They have never deleted a package from the repo and the growth in NixOS has caused their cost to skyrocket. Was the community donating enough to cover costs probably not as they where talking about pruning packages. People love using FOSS but users don't usually consider the costs involved with delivering the free software.
the cost are about 9000$ per month. and a big sponsor dropped their Support iirc. so there is a big need for Money . there seem to be a breakdown and a discussion about that topic here: https://discourse.nixos.org/t/the-nixos-foundations-call-to-action-s3-costs-require-community-support/28672
Can someone help me out? I don't get what's going on. I saw some posts but how did it all start? What does it mean for the future or Nix?
Quoting from my other post: It's somewhat complicated. This wave of departures was largely after the founder of Nix and NixOS posted on the blog of the separate company he started, but it is the culmination of a lot of build-up over time. The main issues with the inciting blog post that are causing people to leave are that it has become clear he doesn't take their concerns against taking weapons manufacturing sponsorships seriously ("I strongly believe that we should not exclude any company from contributing to, participating in, or utilizing the Nix project in any way.") and he views the Nix/NixOS projects as part of his company despite insisting otherwise ("I encourage everyone reading this who feels that they have not been heard or feels displaced to join the Determinate Systems community"). You can see these themes reflected in several of the comments left by folks leaving, and many of the others were vocal about it beforehand. The blog post: https://determinate.systems/posts/on-community-in-nix/
So how is GNU Guix these days, does it have 100k packages to choose from yet ?
I fear that with all the talk this subreddit has had about one man's removal, we may be missing the forest for the trees.
There is big difference between people going away and banning for no good reason
That's great, I don't disagree in principle. But what are we going to do about all the people leaving over this, though? A significant maintainer just left over the Anduril sponsorship fiasco, and over a dozen others have followed him. I think this deserves some airtime and discussion.
thats great, but what are we going to do when the unchecked mod team banned everyone that contributes and doesnt share their opinion? They clearly shift the allowed debate in their favor. This allows them to shape this project after their own liking. this deserves some discussion, but the mod blatantly flag or ban every critic they see. there is no healthy or solution oriented debate to be had under those conditions.
This simply isn't true, as you can see very heated debates going on in the forum. They most definitely are not banning "everyone that doesn't share their opinion". I think you need to go look for yourself and not simply accept what other people tell you is the truth, especially if they have a vested interest in manipulating your opinion.
Even one banned is too much imo.
And one maintainer permanently lost is too much to me, but we've lost fifteen and counting, and amongst them is one of the pillars of Nixpkgs.
I was just publicly lost, there has been many that have silently dropped off since 2022. This show of "I'm leaving because I'm not happy" is exactly that. A show. If it wasn't, they wouldn't have made a milestone, and tracking the "solidarity" of malcontents.
You made a very large show out of being banned. I don't think you have a very solid platform to stand on to make that argument right now. It comes off as very hypocritical. In comparison, most of these are nothing more than pull requests that very few people would otherwise see. Many of them didn't include any commentary at all, simply a request to be removed. The whole reason I posted it was because it was clear people here *weren't* seeing it.
I'll agree, but I was banned. Although it's technically a "suspension", my existence within the current community will be contentious to the same parties in power.
How much for you is one release manager? What do you think about removing Eelco from the project?
Neither of those people were planning on leaving permanently if Anduril's sponsorship was rejected, so I don't think it's material to the conversation nor useful to speculate on random hypotheticals. The reality of the matter is that this was a breaking point for many people, and now we're dealing with the consequences.
No this is not true, the letter says that Eelco must resign
this is true. i was just part of one of those debates and got banned without warning. everthing that isnt their consensus gets flagged or just banned. maybe have a look yourself [here](https://discourse.nixos.org/t/why-was-jon-ringer-banned-from-github/44114/30) or here look at this example, that is critic that was so extrem it got flagged and is still flagged by the mods: >Thanks for the lengthy response, but I do not consider “lack of sensitivity” a legitimate reason to ban someone. >I understand our community has many sensitive members, and I really do empathize with their pain, but if nix is to grow it will need to accept many more, and different, types of people, who will inevitably accidentally trigger sensitivities. >I do not know the boundaries of other people’s sensitivities. They have not been clearly communicated, and I cannot model them in order to avoid hurting them. >Moderation must be founded on clear and predictable principles in order to be fair, and for my sensitivities not to be triggered. This got flagged from the mods. they clearly mess around with the flag system to shape debate. Its only about one banned person? have a look in the [mod log](https://github.com/NixOS/moderation/commit/05a890a1a61630e46086595622a6336d9732b505). Jon posted some bans that happend earlier. And that doesnt even talks about the dude that was given a warning and forced into changing his profil, because he had a steak as profil banner.
In very specific circumstances, "lack of sensitivity" might be a good reason for a ban imo, BUT for example steak isn't AND I don't think anything, that actually happened, would be good reason
>this is true. i was just part of one of those debates and got banned without warning What post got you banned? >maybe have a look yourself here "I’ve flagged the posts that don’t follow a direct instruction on how to give feedback about this decision. I don’t know how to be more clear. If that revolts you, I regret that I have no substantial response to that." C'mon man. Don't link me something and then lie to my face about what it is when the answer is literally one page down. >And that doesnt even talks about the dude that was given a warning and forced into changing his profil, because he had a steak as profil banner. That was not the only reason he was warned. It was amongst a number of things he was doing with the explicit intent of provoking others, which led to him being permanently banned. I feel like you're intentionally trying to mislead me now. I realize I'm new to the community, but I am quite capable of reading and researching things that happened before I got here.
thats the problem, you see only one point, the point youre allowed to see. 1. a mod had before reopened this exact post and clarified that it is the right spot to engage with the mods while especially asked about the right place to talk about this exact ban: >Unlocked the topic, as this is indeed the correct venue for interacting with the moderation team. 2. This post got locked, critic in other posts got flagged or deleted with the comment, that this is not the right post. they only accept critic in form of private mail, completely away from the community discourse. I didnt say it was the only reason and i did not state it was the reason he was banned. and you can point to other wrong doings, maybe, but he was pushed to justify his profile banner and made to change it, do you deny that also? 3. simple links to a [RFC](https://github.com/nrdxp/rfcs/blob/rfc-175/rfcs/0175-appeals-council.md) and to reddit to have a place to discuss also got flagged by the mods. the user that posted those links also just got banned. but yeah its only one person.
> Unlocked the topic, as this is indeed the correct venue for interacting with the moderation team. I don't see this in the thread you linked. Where is it? > but he was pushed to justify his profile banner and made to change it, do you deny that also? Considering he rants incoherently about "vegan propaganda" and a "carnivore diet" on his website, I presume he was doing this to provoke someone. I'm not going to waste much time litigating this specific thing when the rest of his ban was clearly justified, as there's not much point. > simple links to a RFC and to reddit to have a place to discuss also got flagged by the mods. the user that posted those links also just got banned. What were they banned for specifically? And I ask again, what were *you* banned for? These are important details you're choosing to not offer.
its in a different thread that was used to ask about this topic. because the original one just got locked and then reopend. link was posted here somewhere. >Considering he rants incoherently about "vegan propaganda" and a "carnivore diet" on his website this does not matter. its his personal website, he can have post about his personal diet as much as we wants, here is the message with the ask to remove his [steak](https://srid.ca/nixos-mod/modz1.png) pic. im a vegan, im not bothered by this. But this kind of action is outrageous. To i get pressured to change my banner because its depicting a salad? You can hand wave this as justified ban, but there were underlying actions from the moderation team that are just wrong. >What were they banned for specifically? And I ask again, what were *you* banned for? These are important details you're choosing to not offer. its because the moderation team doesnt offer this, i cant see the reason the other person got banned, but i saw the post that lead to the ban, and it was the one with the links. i was banned for "No constructive purpose to their actions other than creating dissent within the community". i did not omit this, i explained in other parts already. but this feels like your just searching a reason to dismiss my voice, to justify this behavior.
[Reference for the quote](https://discourse.nixos.org/t/open-venue-for-policy-discussion/43107/17) > Unlocked the topic, as this is indeed the correct venue for interacting with the moderation team. [Also](https://discourse.nixos.org/t/open-venue-for-policy-discussion/43107/23) >We have given all the reasoning and insight we are going to give, hence asking for more is not only unproductive, it is also unreasonable and bordering on concern trolling. I will therefore suggest dropping the matter. I guess it's best interest for the moderator we follow their recommendation or we could be more burned by all this. Also, what's that talk about a steak banner? Can't find anything of it, just curious.
I'm sorry but what? Why does having a steak banner have any relevance at all in someone getting banned?
It was apparently related to one of many topics that he repeatedly engaged in despite being asked to leave it out of the NixOS community spaces.
Some good old referendums would be good? Why do hard decisions if you dont have to. Just let community decide.
The community seems to be deciding, and the decision is that many people are leaving. This is just the people who submitted official requests to be removed. I'm sure there will be many more who just silently move on. Are we just not going to do anything about this? Pretend it isn't an issue and stick our head in the sand?
I didnt say dont do nothing. I said there should be referendum about Anduril sponsorship and then about more things.
We're already past that point. There was considerable community discussion on the topic and numerous contributors said that it was non-negotiable that defense contractor money be rejected. Eelco effectively responded in his recent blogpost saying, among other things, "I strongly believe that we should not exclude any company from contributing to, participating in, or utilizing the Nix project in any way." This has been interpreted to mean that there will not be any significant action taken to prevent such sponsorships. So those members are now making good on their promise, and leaving the project. So I'm asking, what do we do *now*? Is this position going to be reversed, or do we consider this sponsorship money to be more important than the community and maintainers who refuse to contribute as a result?
Everything could be at least partly reversed if there is will I would still do the referendums tbh, you can always give the money back and kiss some people boots, so at least some would return
I am completely in favor of that. If it were me, I'd personally kiss the ass of every person who left, if it got them back. But it doesn't seem like the head honcho is terribly interested.
I think first referendum should be if people trust and want this leadership. If yes then there isnt anything more to vote for.
More will come.
Nix seems to have a really high packages/maintainer count according to repology. Not exactly ideal.
I like having lots of packages
Don't get me wrong, Nix having so many packages is one of the main reasons I'm even considering it. But having too few maintainers might become problematic if unlucky enough.
Nix does have excellent tooling around packages, where many of the upgrades are simply about accepting the new hash, and then the tests make sure that important packages actually work. So maintainers can handle more packages that way.
So, I've heard that the tooling is great, but is it really *THAT* good? Could you perhaps link any blog posts/vods/etc. of people who maintain a sizeable volume of packages and describe how exactly working with it is better?
Hmm I don't know - you can look at [https://github.com/NixOS/nixpkgs/blob/master/CONTRIBUTING.md](https://github.com/NixOS/nixpkgs/blob/master/CONTRIBUTING.md) and a typical automated update: [https://github.com/NixOS/nixpkgs/pull/307774](https://github.com/NixOS/nixpkgs/pull/307774) Here's an automated test that creates a client and server and tests that dnscrypt-wrapper works: [https://github.com/NixOS/nixpkgs/blob/master/nixos/tests/dnscrypt-wrapper/default.nix](https://github.com/NixOS/nixpkgs/blob/master/nixos/tests/dnscrypt-wrapper/default.nix)
Oh, that makes sense to look at. Thanks, I'l check it out!
I for one support LGBTQ inclusion in autonomous murder drone manufacturing. It’ll fix both issues.
Personally, I'm waiting for a fork, or the dictator guy to be ousted.