@Janik Yeah, let's not let that happen. I'm also not a fan. They said they'd support upstreaming their installer but made virtually no effort to do it.
That's fine; they're free to do whatever they want, but that also makes me free to remind people that they don't always follow through on their promises.
Anyway, upstream is what matters and we'll have to make sure the community understands that.
Would they be tempted to use a perhaps slightly more stable Nix that's top-down corporate controlled? Idk...
@roberth @Janik@chaos.social I don't know. I've seen this play up close in a *lot* of FOSS communities, including the same "make sure the community understands that upstream is what matters", and I have literally never seen this work, ever. Anywhere.
The only thing that has worked reliably and without significant collateral damage, has been a governance-level solution - ranging from outright banning proprietary companies, to in milder cases deliberately de-emphasizing them and setting extremely strict rules about how they can participate, to in a rare case setting up internal competition through multi-corp governance (but Nix is probably not in a position to make that last one work for various reasons).
None of these things are happening in Nix, not even anything that looks remotely similar. The outcome of this path is that the effort to protect upstream will fail, and in 10 years there will be retrospectives asking "how could this have happened?"
@roberth @Janik@chaos.social Oops, to clarify, when I say "happening in Nix", I mean in the broader community. This is the kind of thing that requires pretty wide community support to have any hope of dealing with in this manner, and I don't think this broad support base exists in Nix.
