Re: How to present Guix to a wider audience
Not a bad idea. There is still a need for general content for guix. I'd think it fits as a blog post. On Tue, Feb 11, 2020, 02:46 Pierre Neidhardt wrote: > Friendly ping! > > What do you people think of posting this article on > https://guix.gnu.org? > Either as a blog post or as a dedicated page? > > -- > Pierre Neidhardt > https://ambrevar.xyz/ >
Re: How to present Guix to a wider audience
Friendly ping! What do you people think of posting this article on https://guix.gnu.org? Either as a blog post or as a dedicated page? -- Pierre Neidhardt https://ambrevar.xyz/ signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: How to present Guix to a wider audience
Hi Pierre Thanks for the thought. i'll leave it up to you. Sherab On 22/01/2020 17:35, Pierre Neidhardt wrote: > I've published the article on my website in the meantime: > > https://ambrevar.xyz/guix-matters/index.html > > Sherab, ndre, let me know if you want to be included in the "Special > thanks" section. >
Re: How to present Guix to a wider audience
Hi ndre, Thanks, those are great suggestions! Some comments below: > "Applications are /written/ in programming languages, which are specialized > human > languages made up to give instructions to computers. As such, they are > usually a > subset of English language with a special syntax which purports to avoid > ambiguity. > But computers cannot understand these human languages, in fact they can only > /understand/ machine language, which are series of operating instructions > coded > with numbers. > > So, in order to run an application on a computer, someone has to translate it > from the programming language in which it was written to the target machine > language which the computer /understands/. This is the work of /compilers/, > which are specialized software that automate the translation task. The result > of their translation to machine language is called /compiled code/. The > program > as expressed on a programming language is called /source code/." Hmmm, maybe a bit too long in my opinion. While this is educational, I don't want to drown the fish either :) The phrasing is good though and I've included half of it into the text. > "Now while the source code is intelligible to humans and offers a pretty high > level of transparency of its logic, compiled code is a virtualy unreadable > sequence of numbers. In order to understand it, a human would have to decode > the numbers to the appropriate instructions, do the binary arithmetic they > represent and have intimate knowledge of the hardware. Moreover, one > instruction > on source code translates to several coded instructions on machine language. > Thus, they are effectively /black boxes/." Included. > compile the source code twice, chances are that you'll get slightly different > sequences of numbers. So how can you know that the compiled software you've > downloaded is in fact a proper translation of the source code instead of some > modified version of it? Included. > Notice that it's enough that merely one 0 or 1 got flipped for the behaviour Included. >> It is actually possible: if we go up the chain of compilers far enough, we >> reach > > a level where have a trivial "machine level" compiler that can build a simple > compiler from source. Included. >> This machine-readable file is small enough that it is no longer a black box >> and > > can be inspected by humans and it is also the only piece of software which > needs > the tedious decoding process done. This simpler compiler can in turn build > a more I'm not sure this part adds much to the explanation. I haven't included it because I fear it sounds too complicated. Thanks! Updated version attached. To the maintainers: what do you think of publishing this on guix.gnu.org? -- Pierre Neidhardt https://ambrevar.xyz/ signature.asc Description: PGP signature #+TITLE: Why GNU Guix matters Have you ever installed an application on a computer, a smartphone or your favourite smart device? Can you trust that it does its job instead of doing the opposite of what it displays on screen or, worse, compromise your data and your private life? How can you know? You might think "Let's use free and open source software!" The bad news: it's far, very far from being enough. This is a hard and yet very real problem that hits our everyday life constantly. Consider this: the digital pictures of our loved ones, banking operations, the (political?) news feed that we read, our contacts and the communication with our friends and colleagues; all of it happens through applications. How can we protect ourselves from deceit? How can we guarantee trust in the machines that we use? First, we need to understand how applications are made. * The assembly line of software Applications are /written/ in the form of /source code/, which are specialized human languages made up to give instructions to computers. But the machine cannot understand this source code directly: it must first be /compiled/ into /machine code/, which are series of operating instructions coded with numbers. The program responsible for translating source code into machine code is called a /compiler/. The resulting /compiled application/ can then be run by the user. While the source code is intelligible to humans and offers a pretty high level of transparency of its logic, compiled code is a virtually unreadable sequence of numbers. Moreover, one instruction on source code translates to several coded instructions on machine language. Thus, they are effectively /black boxes/. * Open source is not enough We might be tempted to think that free open source software gives us transparency about what's in the application. While the compiled application we download from the Internet is a black box, we could just compile the source code ourselves and compare the result with the downloaded application, right? If it's identical, then we are good. So why is free, open source software not trustworthy then? B
Re: How to present Guix to a wider audience
Hello, ter 14 jan 2020 às 12:23:37 (1579015417), m...@ambrevar.xyz enviou: > I just wrote a short draft which hopefully should explain in layman > terms why Guix matters. > > I tried to keep short (< 1000 words) and to stick to non-technical vocabulary. > > Let me know what you think! Nice work Pierre. I have only some small suggestions. Even though I've increased the number of characters, I think the result is more friendly on the reader. > #+TITLE: Why Guix matters ---> SNIP unmodified text. > * The assembly line of software > > Applications are /written/ in the form of /source code/, which is a series of > instructions for the computer stored as text files. But the machine cannot > read > theses files directly: it must first be /compiled/ into /machine code/. The > resulting /compiled application/ can then be run by the user. I'd slightly change this introduction to present source code, machine code and compilers in more familiar terms if we are targeting a broader audience, since they might sound as tech jargon at first. Thus the above text could be something like: "Applications are /written/ in programming languages, which are specialized human languages made up to give instructions to computers. As such, they are usually a subset of English language with a special syntax which purports to avoid ambiguity. But computers cannot understand these human languages, in fact they can only /understand/ machine language, which are series of operating instructions coded with numbers. So, in order to run an application on a computer, someone has to translate it from the programming language in which it was written to the target machine language which the computer /understands/. This is the work of /compilers/, which are specialized software that automate the translation task. The result of their translation to machine language is called /compiled code/. The program as expressed on a programming language is called /source code/." > While source code access gives you a pretty high level of transparency and > allows you to inspect what the program will do, compiled programs are a > practically unreadable sequence of 1 and 0. They are effectively /black > boxes/. And this one as follows: "Now while the source code is intelligible to humans and offers a pretty high level of transparency of its logic, compiled code is a virtualy unreadable sequence of numbers. In order to understand it, a human would have to decode the numbers to the appropriate instructions, do the binary arithmetic they represent and have intimate knowledge of the hardware. Moreover, one instruction on source code translates to several coded instructions on machine language. Thus, they are effectively /black boxes/." > * Open source is not enough > > We might be tempted to think that free open source software gives us > transparency about what's in the application. While the compiled application > we > download from the Internet is a black box, we could just compile the source > code > ourselves and compare the result with the downloaded application, right? If > it's > identical, then we are good. > > So why is free, open source software not trustworthy then? Because when you compile the source code twice, chances are that you'll get slightly different sequences of numbers. So how can you know that the compiled software you've downloaded is in fact a proper translation of the source code instead of some modified version of it? > > In practice this means that it's almost always impossible to /reproduce/ the > exact same compiled application that is offered for download. > Notice that it's enough that merely one 0 or 1 got flipped for the behaviour > of the application to change completely. In other words, if two applications > are not identical to the bit, everything can happen and all trust vanishes. > > This lack of reliability in the compilation of applications comes from the > "chaos" in the machine environment: slightly different software used for > compilation (e.g. different versions), different hardware, different date... > The slightest difference in the compilation environment is susceptible to > flip a > bit. > > This is called the /reproduciblity/ problem. > > * Software is made with software > > The compiler is also an application that must be compiled, by another > compiler, > from some source code. The same applies to this other compiler, and so on. > It > seems to be a chicken and egg problem: can we ever trust any compiler then? > > It is actually possible: if we go up the chain of compilers far enough, we > reach a level where have a trivial "machine level" compiler that can build a simple compiler from source. > This machine-readable file is small enough that it is no longer a black box > and can be inspected by humans and it is also the only piece of software which needs the tedious decoding process done. This simpler compiler can in turn build a more > complex com
Re: How to present Guix to a wider audience
Having worked with Guix for number of days with some issues - some of my own makings I cannot see how i can say to my grandmother install guix. for the simplest reason that i found it very hard to find the software that i needed plus the software i needed if it was not on the guix store/farm was very difficult to understand how to install with chnnels etc. So I am not sure about recommending Guix to beginners. Sherab Just like an experience in a dream Everything I now enjoy Will become a mere recollection For what has past will not be seen again Sent from ProtonMail, encrypted email based in Switzerland. Sent with ProtonMail Secure Email. ‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐ On Sunday, 19 January 2020 11:03, Todor Kondić wrote: > ‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐ > On Wednesday, 15 January 2020 18:44, sirgazil sirga...@zoho.com wrote: > > > Hi, Pierre > > On Wed, 15 Jan 2020 03:59:00 -0500 Pierre Neidhardt m...@ambrevar.xyz > > wrote > > > > > Thank you all for the reviews and the kind feedback! > > > > > > > > > > It seems that the draft was met with success for now. > > > > > So what about including it on Guix' website, maybe with a big link to it > > > > > on the front page? > > > > I think the problem of "What is Guix?" should be solved before doing that > > (seehttps://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/help-guix/2020-01/msg2.html). > > Personally, I think GNU Guix and its related operating system should be > > presented separately. > > I think that GNU Guix is not a software that needs to be explained to the > > average computer user. GNU Guix, in my opinion, is a software for system > > administrators and developers in any field, and it would be good to present > > it clearly to them in general and provide explanations for particular > > fields whenever necessary (that's what the section "GNU Guix in your field" > > in the home page was designed for). > > Even though one of GNU Guix goals is to empower users, average users are > > more into installing and removing application, and that's about it. > > Ideally, not using a command-line interface directly but a graphical user > > interface (e.g. an app store). > > The operating system, on the other hand, should be presented to average > > users, and it should be called simply GNU. With this I mean that the GNU > > project should use GNU Guix to generate downloadable installers of what > > they call the GNU Operating System in their home page and distribute these > > installers through the GNU.org website. The pages of GNU.org should be > > updated accordingly and focus on presenting the GNU operating system to the > > general public. This would include adding high-level information of the > > features GNU Guix brings with it (reproducibility, bootstrappability, etc.) > > which would differentiate GNU from other systems. For advanced uses of the > > system that require deeper understanding of GNU Guix, advanced users should > > be directed to the GNU Guix subdomain. The rest of the current Free > > Software Distributions (Trisquel, PureOS, Parabola, etc.) would still be > > listed in GNU.org as alternative distributions of the GNU Operating System. > > I know that RMS opposed to this idea a couple of years ago > > (https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/gnu-system-discuss/2014-11/msg2.html), > > but I think this should be done. > > I think this separation could make it easier to outreach to potential users > > of both artifacts, the OS and the "software environment manager". Calling > > the OS just GNU would also help differentiate this system from what the > > general public call "linux". > > I am sorry, but Guix should most definitively be presented to averagenix > based users (the admins of their own/family workstations). It's like: "Look, > now your grandmother, her cat and your dog can all install packages without > knowing your sudo password!". This feature alone is highly appealing to some > circles ;) . > As for more "advanced" users, from the experience I had when talking about > Guix to the unconverted hackers, they struggle to accept why is it so much > better than the already hyped technologies that Just Work, such as > Chef/Puppet and other CI/CD for automating installations (), > Docker/Singularity on their own for building containers etc, especially > because it is based on an 'exotic' language as Scheme (exotic was the exact > word that has been used in a certain conversation with an experienced > professional developer). Disclaimer: I started using Guix because it was > based on Guile. > > Of course, different target groups should be, well, targeted with different > aspects of Guix -- those that may appeal to them. And, there is more to Guix > than just the pkg manager and the OS. > > Also, to be fair, Guix is the first complex program of the GNU system I am > aware of that started making waves in modern times, so on the presentation > front some things have already been done
Re: How to present Guix to a wider audience
‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐ On Wednesday, 15 January 2020 18:44, sirgazil wrote: > Hi, Pierre > > On Wed, 15 Jan 2020 03:59:00 -0500 Pierre Neidhardt m...@ambrevar.xyz > wrote > > > Thank you all for the reviews and the kind feedback! > > > > > > It seems that the draft was met with success for now. > > > So what about including it on Guix' website, maybe with a big link to it > > > on the front page? > > I think the problem of "What is Guix?" should be solved before doing that > (seehttps://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/help-guix/2020-01/msg2.html). > > Personally, I think GNU Guix and its related operating system should be > presented separately. > > I think that GNU Guix is not a software that needs to be explained to the > average computer user. GNU Guix, in my opinion, is a software for system > administrators and developers in any field, and it would be good to present > it clearly to them in general and provide explanations for particular fields > whenever necessary (that's what the section "GNU Guix in your field" in the > home page was designed for). > > Even though one of GNU Guix goals is to empower users, average users are more > into installing and removing application, and that's about it. Ideally, not > using a command-line interface directly but a graphical user interface (e.g. > an app store). > > The operating system, on the other hand, should be presented to average > users, and it should be called simply GNU. With this I mean that the GNU > project should use GNU Guix to generate downloadable installers of what they > call the GNU Operating System in their home page and distribute these > installers through the GNU.org website. The pages of GNU.org should be > updated accordingly and focus on presenting the GNU operating system to the > general public. This would include adding high-level information of the > features GNU Guix brings with it (reproducibility, bootstrappability, etc.) > which would differentiate GNU from other systems. For advanced uses of the > system that require deeper understanding of GNU Guix, advanced users should > be directed to the GNU Guix subdomain. The rest of the current Free Software > Distributions (Trisquel, PureOS, Parabola, etc.) would still be listed in > GNU.org as alternative distributions of the GNU Operating System. I know that > RMS opposed to this idea a couple of years ago > (https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/gnu-system-discuss/2014-11/msg2.html), > but I think this should be done. > > I think this separation could make it easier to outreach to potential users > of both artifacts, the OS and the "software environment manager". Calling the > OS just GNU would also help differentiate this system from what the general > public call "linux". > > > I am sorry, but Guix should most definitively be presented to average *nix based users (the admins of their own/family workstations). It's like: "Look, now your grandmother, her cat and your dog can all install packages without knowing your sudo password!". This feature alone is highly appealing to some circles ;) . As for more "advanced" users, from the experience I had when talking about Guix to the unconverted hackers, they struggle to accept why is it so much better than the already hyped technologies that Just Work, such as Chef/Puppet and other CI/CD for automating installations (*), Docker/Singularity on their own for building containers etc, especially because it is based on an 'exotic' language as Scheme (exotic was the exact word that has been used in a certain conversation with an experienced professional developer). Disclaimer: I started using Guix because it was based on Guile. Of course, different target groups should be, well, targeted with different aspects of Guix -- those that may appeal to them. And, there is more to Guix than just the pkg manager and the OS. Also, to be fair, Guix is the first complex program of the GNU system I am aware of that started making waves in modern times, so on the presentation front some things have already been done well. * I am not an expert on this, so I am not sure whether Guix can fit in the same workflow with the mentioned tools, or is in a parallel, or an orthogonal universe.
Re: How to present Guix to a wider audience
Hi, Pierre On Wed, 15 Jan 2020 03:59:00 -0500 Pierre Neidhardt wrote > Thank you all for the reviews and the kind feedback! > > It seems that the draft was met with success for now. > So what about including it on Guix' website, maybe with a big link to it > on the front page? I think the problem of "What is Guix?" should be solved before doing that (see https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/help-guix/2020-01/msg2.html). Personally, I think GNU Guix and its related operating system should be presented separately. I think that GNU Guix is not a software that needs to be explained to the average computer user. GNU Guix, in my opinion, is a software for system administrators and developers in any field, and it would be good to present it clearly to them in general and provide explanations for particular fields whenever necessary (that's what the section "GNU Guix in your field" in the home page was designed for). Even though one of GNU Guix goals is to empower users, average users are more into installing and removing application, and that's about it. Ideally, not using a command-line interface directly but a graphical user interface (e.g. an app store). The operating system, on the other hand, should be presented to average users, and it should be called simply GNU. With this I mean that the GNU project should use GNU Guix to generate downloadable installers of what they call the GNU Operating System in their home page and distribute these installers through the GNU.org website. The pages of GNU.org should be updated accordingly and focus on presenting the GNU operating system to the general public. This would include adding high-level information of the features GNU Guix brings with it (reproducibility, bootstrappability, etc.) which would differentiate GNU from other systems. For advanced uses of the system that require deeper understanding of GNU Guix, advanced users should be directed to the GNU Guix subdomain. The rest of the current Free Software Distributions (Trisquel, PureOS, Parabola, etc.) would still be listed in GNU.org as alternative distributions of the GNU Operating System. I know that RMS opposed to this idea a couple of years ago (https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/gnu-system-discuss/2014-11/msg2.html), but I think this should be done. I think this separation could make it easier to outreach to potential users of both artifacts, the OS and the "software environment manager". Calling the OS just GNU would also help differentiate this system from what the general public call "linux". --- https://sirgazil.bitbucket.io/
Re: How to present Guix to a wider audience
> I just wrote a short draft which hopefully should explain in layman > terms why Guix matters. > > I tried to keep short (< 1000 words) and to stick to non-technical > vocabulary. > > Let me know what you think! Reads well to me, but that could be because I already understand the content of the essay. I don't know how practical it is, but if we can get people who have never heard of Guix to read it, their opinion would be of much value. > Applications are /written/ in the form of /source code/, which is a series of > instructions for the computer stored as text files. But the machine cannot > read > theses files directly: it must first be /compiled/ into /machine code/. The > resulting /compiled application/ can then be run by the user. Minor typo: "theses" -> "these" signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: How to present Guix to a wider audience
On 2020-01-14, Pierre Neidhardt wrote: > I just wrote a short draft which hopefully should explain in layman > terms why Guix matters. Thanks, it's a nice read! > * Open source is not enough > > We might be tempted to think that free open source software gives us > transparency about what's in the application. While the compiled application > we ... > In practice this means that it's almost always impossible to /reproduce/ the > exact same compiled application that is offered for download. I object a bit to "almost always impossible" :P There are a number of projects that have achieved reproducibility for a majority of the distributed software, including small to large-sized distributions. Even a few small projects that manage 100% reproducibility. How about "often difficult" instead? > * Trust all the way > > To sum up, we need the following properties in order to be able to trust > computer software: ... > - Separate multi-user application collections: on a multi-user system, every > user can install their favourite applications independently. Applications > don't "pollute" the other user sessions. I wonder if most people even undertsand the concept of a multi-user system all that well? might be worth leaving out to keep the talking points short... > * Can everyone use Guix? ... > More work needs to be done in terms of accessibility and easy of use so that > the > less technically-minded among us can also enjoy Guix some day. Then, > hopefully, > we will find Guix preinstalled on computers, ready for everyone to use. "easy of use" -> "ease of use" live well, vagrant signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: How to present Guix to a wider audience
It is purist, and that's hard for a general audience. To CS and math people, this is exactly the way to go. The start is stronger. Some of Ken Thompson's more worrying work should be included to convey our intuitive fear of this to the layperson. The second link may not be all that credible, but the story conveys what guix is meant to prevent, and fix. http://wiki.c2.com/?TheKenThompsonHack https://www.quora.com/What-is-a-coders-worst-nightmare/answer/Mick-Stute?srid=RBKZ&share=1 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Backdoor_(computing)#Compiler_backdoors I think some of the buildup to the logical proof can be omitted, with just the assertion that with the elements of FLOSS, Reliability, and Trust are required and guix is designed to guarantee those would be sufficient for the audience.
Re: How to present Guix to a wider audience
> I just wrote a short draft which hopefully should explain in layman > terms why Guix matters. It's very nice, thanks for your work. I think I'll share it with friends to make them get Guix a bit better.
Re: How to present Guix to a wider audience
On Tue, 14 Jan 2020, Pierre Neidhardt wrote: Thanks, glad you liked it! I'd be happy to get feedback from your presentation! It's not until March 26th (it's part of a series of lunchtime discussions), but I'm happy to write a summary and report back. Best, Jack
Re: How to present Guix to a wider audience
Thanks, glad you liked it! I'd be happy to get feedback from your presentation! -- Pierre Neidhardt https://ambrevar.xyz/ signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: How to present Guix to a wider audience
On Tue, 14 Jan 2020, Pierre Neidhardt wrote: I just wrote a short draft which hopefully should explain in layman terms why Guix matters. I tried to keep short (< 1000 words) and to stick to non-technical vocabulary. Let me know what you think! On my initial reading, I think it's great, thank you! Unfortunately, I don't have any ideas for improvements right now, but I have been asked to talk about Guix at the library where I work in March, and perhaps that will bubble up other questions that people have. This has helped me tremendously in thinking about how to frame Guix for non-hackers. Thank you. Jack
Re: How to present Guix to a wider audience
I just wrote a short draft which hopefully should explain in layman terms why Guix matters. I tried to keep short (< 1000 words) and to stick to non-technical vocabulary. Let me know what you think! -- Pierre Neidhardt https://ambrevar.xyz/ signature.asc Description: PGP signature #+TITLE: Why Guix matters Have you ever installed an application on a computer, a smartphone or your favourite smart device? Can you trust that it does its job instead of doing the opposite of what it displays on screen or, worse, compromise your data and your private life? How can you know? You might think "Let's use free and open source software!" The bad news: it's far, very far from being enough. This is a hard and yet very real problem that hits our everyday life constantly. Consider this: the digital pictures of our loved ones, banking operations, the (political?) news feed that we read, our contacts and the communication with our friends and colleagues; all of it happens through applications. How can we protect ourselves from deceit? How can we guarantee trust in the machines that we use? First, we need to understand how applications are made. * The assembly line of software Applications are /written/ in the form of /source code/, which is a series of instructions for the computer stored as text files. But the machine cannot read theses files directly: it must first be /compiled/ into /machine code/. The resulting /compiled application/ can then be run by the user. While source code access gives you a pretty high level of transparency and allows you to inspect what the program will do, compiled programs are a practically unreadable sequence of 1 and 0. They are effectively /black boxes/. * Open source is not enough We might be tempted to think that free open source software gives us transparency about what's in the application. While the compiled application we download from the Internet is a black box, we could just compile the source code ourselves and compare the result with the downloaded application, right? If it's identical, then we are good. So why is free, open source software not trustworthy then? Because when you compile the source code twice, chances are that you'll get slightly /different black boxes/. In practice this means that it's almost always impossible to /reproduce/ the exact same compiled application that is offered for download. It's enough that merely one 0 or 1 got flipped for the behaviour of the application to change completely. In other words, if two applications are not identical to the bit, everything can happen and all trust vanishes. This lack of reliability in the compilation of applications comes from the "chaos" in the machine environment: slightly different software used for compilation (e.g. different versions), different hardware, different date... The slightest difference in the compilation environment is susceptible to flip a bit. This is called the /reproduciblity/ problem. * Software is made with software The compiler is also an application that must be compiled, by another compiler, from some source code. The same applies to this other compiler, and so on. It seems to be a chicken and egg problem: can we ever trust any compiler then? It is actually possible: if we go up the chain of compilers far enough, we reach a level where have a trivial "machine level" compiler that can build a simple compiler. This machine-readable file is small enough that it is no longer a black box and can be inspected by humans. The simpler compiler can in turn build a more complex compiler, etc., until we get today's compilers. This is called the /bootstrappability/ problem. * Trust all the way To sum up, we need the following properties in order to be able to trust computer software: - Free and open source software. - Reproducibility. - Bootstrappability. This is only useful it the entire software running on your machine obeys these principles. A single black box on your machine can wreck havoc. In other words, the entire /operating system/ itself must be free and open source software, reproducible and bootstrappable. This is precisely [[https://guix.gnu.org][Guix]]' stated goal: Offer a strong guarantee of reliability and trust. - Reliability: It just works, and more importantly, it will always work. No more unexpected, random behaviour; no more "software erosion." - Trust: Work is in progress to fully /bootstrap/ the software assembly line, which means everything will soon be fully transparent.. What's even more interesting with Guix is the that this novel approach to operating systems gives it great usability benefits: - Unbreakable system and time travel: Have you ever updated a system only to restart it broken or less functional? (Say there was a power cut during the upgrade.) With Guix you keep a history of all previous /states/ of the system, even when you change the configuration manually. If something breaks, you can always go bac
Re: How to present Guix to a wider audience
Hi Sherab, >> On Wed, 8 Jan 2020 at 23:14, wrote: >> >>> For what it’s worth, I presume I’m the person you are probably thinking >>> about. Well, to be honest I was intending to write something reaching out to an even broader audience, i.e. people who don't know how to install an OS. Simon is asking good questions though: >> To help us to figure out or convince you that Guix is awesome, could >> you quickly describe why you were interested in Guix? >> How did you learn the existence of Guix? >> And why did you want to install it? ? -- Pierre Neidhardt https://ambrevar.xyz/ signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: How to present Guix to a wider audience
Below is my response to zimoun email. Sent from ProtonMail Mobile On Thu, Jan 9, 2020 at 12:35, zimoun wrote: > Hi Sherab, > > First, you only sent the email to me. Was it your intention? If yes, > your words should interest the list too. If no, please re-send your > words to the list or can I use publicly them? > > On Wed, 8 Jan 2020 at 23:14, wrote: > >> For what it’s worth, I presume I’m the person you are probably thinking >> about. >> I am not a developer or any thing like that at all - but I do install my own >> Linux desktop distribution I can play a little with terminal and enjoy >> tweaking and finding out things about Linux. I can solve rudimentary issues >> by looking at the various forums. >> I tried Guix a while back and did not get anywhere with it. The experience >> was abysmal- installation was infinitely slow and finally did not happen. > > Sad! :-( > Now, with the binary shell installer, it should be easy. Please report > on help-guix@gnu.org any of the issue you encounter. > > See the doc here [1] especially the note at the top, i.e., download > [2] and run "bash guix-install.sh". > > [1] > http://guix.gnu.org/manual/devel/en/html_node/Binary-Installation.html#Binary-Installation > [2] https://git.savannah.gnu.org/cgit/guix.git/plain/etc/guix-install.sh > >> As Simon said what needs to be clear is what is the benefits I as a user >> will receive from using guix. What makes it stand out then the other RedHat >> Debian based distributions?? > > To help us to figure out or convince you that Guix is awesome, could > you quickly describe why you were interested in Guix? > How did you learn the existence of Guix? > And why did you want to install it? > > All the best, > simon
Re: How to present Guix to a wider audience
Hi Pierre, On Wed, 8 Jan 2020 at 16:33, Pierre Neidhardt wrote: > - Computers, smartphones, etc. are around us. > - They are used in research, banking, etc. > - They can be used to store our private data. > - They can be abused (e.g. maybe heard about Snowden). > > Carl Dong's video is the closest to what I'm looking for. > > I'd prefer a text format though. Besides, if we don't want to exhaust > the patience of our users before pronouncing the word "Guix", I > think it's important to make it a very short read, say 5 minutes, or > some 1000 words. Ahaha! Good luck! :-) My experience: I explained to friends or family who fit your list above: + trusting trust: with 5 minutes, it is ok using the yogourt=yogourt+milk analogy; + asymmetric cypher, cross-compilation, torrent, etc.: with 5 mins, it is ~okish too - Guix: I have always failed; even with 15min. Even failed with scientific colleagues who uses classical linux distro. For example, I did an attempt here [1]. [1] https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/guix-devel/2019-12/msg00326.html The issue is because each time my "audience" is too far from the problems Guix fix. Other said, how do you explain why profiles, manifests, roll-back, declarative stuff, etc. are so cool when the "audience" only knows Word, Excel, Browser and some apps on smartphones? I do not want to be pessimistic but it is hard to introduce Guix for general public. > (Carl Dong's video is 16 minute long, and Guix is only introduced at the > end.) > > As Ricardo said, I believe such a general presentation would be very > welcome on Guix' front page. > > Anyone interested in writing such a text? IMHO, a good start is to write down typical use cases/scenarii that Guix solves. What do you think? All the best, simon
Re: How to present Guix to a wider audience
Pierre Neidhardt writes: > As Ricardo said, I believe such a general presentation would be very > welcome on Guix' front page. > > Anyone interested in writing such a text? We discussed website changes extensively in the past. Here’s a thread: https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/guix-devel/2018-01/msg00232.html It also includes the suggestion to deemphasize the distro “Guix System” and only keep text on the home page that applies to Guix itself. In my last FOSDEM talk on the GWL I showed how Guix operates on ever-growing “scenes”: packages, environments composed of multiple packages, containers composed of environments, and even full-blown systems. Maybe there’s something in the old discussions that would still be useful today for concrete change proposals. -- Ricardo
Re: How to present Guix to a wider audience
Hi Simon! Thanks for the suggestions. It's all good content, but I'm looking for a presentation that you could give to _anyone_, more or less people who know that - Computers, smartphones, etc. are around us. - They are used in research, banking, etc. - They can be used to store our private data. - They can be abused (e.g. maybe heard about Snowden). Carl Dong's video is the closest to what I'm looking for. I'd prefer a text format though. Besides, if we don't want to exhaust the patience of our users before pronouncing the word "Guix", I think it's important to make it a very short read, say 5 minutes, or some 1000 words. (Carl Dong's video is 16 minute long, and Guix is only introduced at the end.) As Ricardo said, I believe such a general presentation would be very welcome on Guix' front page. Anyone interested in writing such a text? -- Pierre Neidhardt https://ambrevar.xyz/ signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: How to present Guix to a wider audience
Ricardo Wurmus writes: > Ideally, the web site should answer the question of what Guix is in a > way that the general public can understand and appreciate. > > In my opinion, the website could do better. I couldn't agree more :/ -- Pierre Neidhardt https://ambrevar.xyz/ signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: How to present Guix to a wider audience
Pierre Neidhardt writes: > I've been asked multiple times to present this project I work on: > Guix! :) > And I found it quite difficult to explain the main perks of Guix to > people not well versed in computer science. Ideally, the web site should answer the question of what Guix is in a way that the general public can understand and appreciate. In my opinion, the website could do better. -- Ricardo
Re: How to present Guix to a wider audience
Hi Pierre, On Thu, 2 Jan 2020 at 11:04, Pierre Neidhardt wrote: > So I was wondering: do we have an article that introduces Guix for the > general public? It could be quite useful I believe. AFAIK, nothing dedicated. Browse the folders doc/ and talks/ in https://git.savannah.gnu.org/cgit/guix/maintenance.git/tree/ Note that broken symbolic links are fixed in a patched sent here [1]. [1] https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/guix-devel/2019-12/msg00326.html Well, it depends on what do you mean by "general public"? To my knowledge -- and IMHO -- the talk by Chris at seagl-2018 is didactic [2], the video by Carl Dong about Trusting Trust is really well-explained [3], Julien wrote an article in French for JRES 2019 [4] and the associated video [5], an outdated article in French by Ludo has the merit of existing [6]. Last but not least, all the videos [7] are a really good introduction for(motivated) general public. And I have tried to define concrete use-cases (based on "scientific" workflows) in [1]; I would like to extend this as a Cookbook entry. Whatever! [2] https://media.marusich.info/everyday-use-of-gnu-guix-chris-marusich-seagl-2018.webm [3] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I2iShmUTEl8 [4] https://conf-ng.jres.org/2019/document_revision_5343.html?download [5] https://replay.jres.org/videos/watch/c77b3a44-b75f-4c10-9f39-8fb55ae096d7 [6] https://connect.ed-diamond.com/GNU-Linux-Magazine/GLMF-194/Gestion-de-paquets-sure-et-flexible-avec-GNU-Guix [7] https://guix.gnu.org/videos/ Not sure that helps! :-( Cheers, simon ps: Stay tuned! :-) Should Konrad release a new version of the well-known MOOC [8]? ;-) [8] https://www.fun-mooc.fr/courses/course-v1:inria+41016+session02/about
