> When the new configuration finally builds, more ofen than not some component randomly stops working after reboot
Good thing you're using NixOS where rolling back to a working version is as simple as a reboot, instead of Arch Linux where your options are:
1. If it's a boot issue, dig out a live USB for recovery
2. If it's a package, try rolling back piecemeal by installing old versions from /var/cache/pacman
3. Once rolling back piecemeal breaks your system more because of the mixing of package versions, pin your packages to a specific day in the arch rollback machine and pray your whole system downgrades cleanly
I used to live that life. After a couple failed downgrades I started exclusively using the arch rollback machine for my work machine so nothing would update and break before I had a chance to test the updates on my personal machine.
> Huge update sizes
Yeah, the optimize store option to replace duplicate files with hardlinks really should be a default, and automatic nix garbage collection should probably be put in the initial automatically-generated config so new users are aware of it. Also `nix-collect-garbage -d` behaving differently from `sudo nix-collect-garbage -d` despite being a trusted-users was quite the surprise.
I used to be able to brush this off by "storage is cheap" but AI has driven up the cost of SSDs.
> In contrast, Arch Linux simply downloads prebuilt binaries via pacman or an AUR helper
That is also the case on nix. If you are compiling software yourself, then you must have changed some settings to cause it to build from source, which is not even an option on Arch Linux. Nix having the completely optional ability to customize your packages is a positive, not a flaw.
> why not use Gentoo Linux instead
On nix my entire system is defined in my nix config, including all my settings, all my scripts, and all my packages. I use impermanence to wipe my disk on every boot except for the a handful of folders that I tell it to preserve across boots. The combination of those two creates a deterministic system. Nix is so much more than just being able to compile your software.
I've been using NixOS for the last year and have loved it. Rebuilding doesn't fail for me nearly as often as it does for the author. Running nix garbage collection frequently isn't a big deal and can easily be automated. The network usage is a fair point. But IMO a small price to pay for keeping all of my devices perfectly in sync and running into weird "works on my machine" issues way less frequently.
My rebuilds fail all the time, but that's self-inflicted. I build my whole system from source with the nix binary cache disabled and optimizations for my processor enabled, so it seems like every update I have multiple failures which range from transient issues like GNU's savannah being down to persistent issues like software suddenly not compiling with `-march znver4`.
Reading the blog, they complain about compile times, which makes me wonder if their issues are similarly self-inflicted. The average user shouldn't need to compile software due to the nix binary cache. So they must have been either modifying packages or enabling optimizations.
I think this is a mostly fair criticism of nixos. Nixos has a lot of powerful tools, but if you don't need them, they can get in the way. Some assorted notes:
> the constant cycle of rebuild → fix → rebuild → fix → rebuild
I've found this useful to eliminate the rebuild loop:
https://kokada.dev/blog/quick-bits-realise-nix-symlinks/
It lets you make the config of the program you choose a regular mutable file instead of a symlink so you can quickly iterate and test changes.
> In contrast, Arch Linux simply downloads prebuilt binaries via pacman or an AUR helper
If a binary exists. A lot of AUR packages I used to rely on didn't have a binary package (or the binary package was out of date) and would have to build from source. On nixos my machines are set up to use distributed builds (https://wiki.nixos.org/wiki/Distributed_build). Packages that do need built from source get built on my server downstairs. The server also runs a reverse proxy cache so I only need to download packages once per version.
Distributed AUR builds are possible on arch, but they require a lot of setup and are still fragile like regular AUR builds, your only choice of dependencies are what's currently available in the repos.
> On my machine, regular maintenance updates without proper caching easily take 4–5+ hours
It sounds like the author may be running the unstable release channel and/or using some heavy unstable packages. Which might explain a lot of other problems the author is having too.
Back when I used arch, I found that as time went on, my system would sort of accumulate packages. I would install $package, then in the next version of $package a dependency would be added on $dep. When I updated, $dep would be installed, then eventually $package would drop the dependency on $dep, but $dep would remain installed. I would periodically have to run pacman -R $(pacman -Qtqd | tr '\n' ' ') to clear out packages that were no longer required.
While I too love the promise of Nix, I never was able to handle the configuration of nix. And at this point I've given up on it.
What I wonder is if there is a medium between Nix's build everything from the ground up, and the traditional get everything delivered. I've been excited about the Fedora Atomic collections, silverblue etc., as it gives me a lot of the roll back and isolation of nix with the workflow closer to a regular fedora or arch. I'm not saying that everything is roses, but I've been able to use it more than I ever got out of a nix.
The sad thing about this read is that none of the criticisms are necessarily leveled as Nix as a system, but are purely about how the ecosystem is managed.
I wish Arch could learn some lessons from NixOS packaging. One thing that really bothers me about Arch is how many pain points there are in the packaging tooling. Furthermore, I wish AUR packagers used utilities like namcap and chroot building to check their packages before pushing their slop onto the AUR; whenever I use new software from the AUR, I check the PKGBUILD to see how well it was made.
Compared to other Linux distribution's package tooling Arch's is pretty nice and painless, I think.
Agreed with namcap/chroot - I think there should be even more mandatory checks on pushing stuff to AUR. But even so - regarding your last point: you absolutely need to check all PKGBUILDs from AUR or potentially get malware.
Everything I've heard about NixOS...well, it sucks. Sorry.
The ideas behind it are interesting. The reality of living with it, the benefits are basically minimal/none and you have to learn a whole big thing that isn't applicable anywhere else.
Sounds like you've never used it. I've daily driven it for ~2 years and would never go back
It works great with containers, you can use Nix to build extremely lean OCI images. Mercury uses it this way- the book NixOS in production discusses it
It's unfair to act like NixOS just breaks "randomly" or is inherently unreliable
It's essentially deterministic and fully reproducible.
Issues with Bluetooth, electron etc as described are essentially irrelevant to NixOS and have to do with your configuration
> When the new configuration finally builds, more ofen than not some component randomly stops working after reboot
Good thing you're using NixOS where rolling back to a working version is as simple as a reboot, instead of Arch Linux where your options are:
I used to live that life. After a couple failed downgrades I started exclusively using the arch rollback machine for my work machine so nothing would update and break before I had a chance to test the updates on my personal machine.> Huge update sizes
Yeah, the optimize store option to replace duplicate files with hardlinks really should be a default, and automatic nix garbage collection should probably be put in the initial automatically-generated config so new users are aware of it. Also `nix-collect-garbage -d` behaving differently from `sudo nix-collect-garbage -d` despite being a trusted-users was quite the surprise.
I used to be able to brush this off by "storage is cheap" but AI has driven up the cost of SSDs.
> In contrast, Arch Linux simply downloads prebuilt binaries via pacman or an AUR helper
That is also the case on nix. If you are compiling software yourself, then you must have changed some settings to cause it to build from source, which is not even an option on Arch Linux. Nix having the completely optional ability to customize your packages is a positive, not a flaw.
> why not use Gentoo Linux instead
On nix my entire system is defined in my nix config, including all my settings, all my scripts, and all my packages. I use impermanence to wipe my disk on every boot except for the a handful of folders that I tell it to preserve across boots. The combination of those two creates a deterministic system. Nix is so much more than just being able to compile your software.
I've been using NixOS for the last year and have loved it. Rebuilding doesn't fail for me nearly as often as it does for the author. Running nix garbage collection frequently isn't a big deal and can easily be automated. The network usage is a fair point. But IMO a small price to pay for keeping all of my devices perfectly in sync and running into weird "works on my machine" issues way less frequently.
My rebuilds fail all the time, but that's self-inflicted. I build my whole system from source with the nix binary cache disabled and optimizations for my processor enabled, so it seems like every update I have multiple failures which range from transient issues like GNU's savannah being down to persistent issues like software suddenly not compiling with `-march znver4`.
Reading the blog, they complain about compile times, which makes me wonder if their issues are similarly self-inflicted. The average user shouldn't need to compile software due to the nix binary cache. So they must have been either modifying packages or enabling optimizations.
I think this is a mostly fair criticism of nixos. Nixos has a lot of powerful tools, but if you don't need them, they can get in the way. Some assorted notes:
> unless you run nix-collect-garbage periodically
> the constant cycle of rebuild → fix → rebuild → fix → rebuildI've found this useful to eliminate the rebuild loop: https://kokada.dev/blog/quick-bits-realise-nix-symlinks/ It lets you make the config of the program you choose a regular mutable file instead of a symlink so you can quickly iterate and test changes.
> In contrast, Arch Linux simply downloads prebuilt binaries via pacman or an AUR helper
If a binary exists. A lot of AUR packages I used to rely on didn't have a binary package (or the binary package was out of date) and would have to build from source. On nixos my machines are set up to use distributed builds (https://wiki.nixos.org/wiki/Distributed_build). Packages that do need built from source get built on my server downstairs. The server also runs a reverse proxy cache so I only need to download packages once per version.
Distributed AUR builds are possible on arch, but they require a lot of setup and are still fragile like regular AUR builds, your only choice of dependencies are what's currently available in the repos.
> On my machine, regular maintenance updates without proper caching easily take 4–5+ hours
It sounds like the author may be running the unstable release channel and/or using some heavy unstable packages. Which might explain a lot of other problems the author is having too.
Back when I used arch, I found that as time went on, my system would sort of accumulate packages. I would install $package, then in the next version of $package a dependency would be added on $dep. When I updated, $dep would be installed, then eventually $package would drop the dependency on $dep, but $dep would remain installed. I would periodically have to run pacman -R $(pacman -Qtqd | tr '\n' ' ') to clear out packages that were no longer required.
While I too love the promise of Nix, I never was able to handle the configuration of nix. And at this point I've given up on it.
What I wonder is if there is a medium between Nix's build everything from the ground up, and the traditional get everything delivered. I've been excited about the Fedora Atomic collections, silverblue etc., as it gives me a lot of the roll back and isolation of nix with the workflow closer to a regular fedora or arch. I'm not saying that everything is roses, but I've been able to use it more than I ever got out of a nix.
The sad thing about this read is that none of the criticisms are necessarily leveled as Nix as a system, but are purely about how the ecosystem is managed.
Counterpoint, I have been using Nix for several months and have no problems.
I use LLM's ALOT for the config file which is in a custom nix DSL. I couldn't imagine how long it would take before LLM's.
But with an LLM I'm pretty happy with nix.
I wish Arch could learn some lessons from NixOS packaging. One thing that really bothers me about Arch is how many pain points there are in the packaging tooling. Furthermore, I wish AUR packagers used utilities like namcap and chroot building to check their packages before pushing their slop onto the AUR; whenever I use new software from the AUR, I check the PKGBUILD to see how well it was made.
Compared to other Linux distribution's package tooling Arch's is pretty nice and painless, I think.
Agreed with namcap/chroot - I think there should be even more mandatory checks on pushing stuff to AUR. But even so - regarding your last point: you absolutely need to check all PKGBUILDs from AUR or potentially get malware.
https://bertptrs.nl/2026/01/30/how-to-review-an-aur-package.... is a nice recent article by one of the maintainers that follows up on last year's AUR malware.
The final point sums it up, though: the AUR was built without the security mechanisms - technical and social - we want and need today.
Everything I've heard about NixOS...well, it sucks. Sorry.
The ideas behind it are interesting. The reality of living with it, the benefits are basically minimal/none and you have to learn a whole big thing that isn't applicable anywhere else.
In the container era it makes even less sense.
> the benefits are basically minimal/none
Sounds like you've never used it. I've daily driven it for ~2 years and would never go back
It works great with containers, you can use Nix to build extremely lean OCI images. Mercury uses it this way- the book NixOS in production discusses it