Re: [RFC] A simple draft for channels

[ng0@n0.is]

myglc2@gmail.com:
> On 01/23/2018 at 16:50 ng0@n0.is writes:
>
>> myglc2 writes:
>>> On 01/19/2018 at 14:41 Ludovic Courtès writes:
>>>
>>>> Hi!
>>>>
>>>> Ricardo Wurmus <ricardo.wurmus@mdc-berlin.de> skribis:
>>>>
>>>>> As a first implementation of channels I’d just like to have a channel
>>>>> description file that records at least the following things:
>> […]
>>>> One thing that’s still an open question is how we should treat Guix
>>>> itself in that channelized world.
>>>>
>>>> Should Guix be a “normal” channel?  It’s tempting to think of it as a
>>>> regular channel; however, it’s definitely “special” in that it can
>>>> update the ‘guix’ command, maybe guix-daemon & co., locale data, etc.
>>>> How does that affect ‘guix channel’?
>>>
>>> ISTM this design allows channels to inject non-free &/or non-safe
>>> components into other user's Guix systems. Is that true?
>>>
>>> If so, how will it impact the Guix promise of software freedom/safety?
>>>
>>> WDYT? - George
>>
>> Just commenting on this one for now until I got my mail fixed:
>>
>> Why is this a problem? Already today you can run Guix with as many
>> modifications as you like to, and you are free to install whatever you
>> want.  That's one of the very good aspects of Guix - you can use it to
>> create whatever you like.  Or maybe you need to expand a bit on the
>> sentences you wrote George.
>
> Yes, and this is important to the current user base. But in the future
> the majority of our users will be end-users that do not directly use FSF
> freedoms & Guix hackability. Still, they will choose Guix because this
> freedom and hackability provides indirect benefits such as enhanced
> security and safety.
>
> Yes, FSF freedom means we must permit any user to shoot themselves in
> the foot. But with GUIX_PACKAGE_PATH, this is not a worry.
>
> Channels dramatically increases the ease with which an end-user can harm
> themselves by e.g. using a channel that delivers non-free &/or non-safe
> software. This raises the question: are we obliged to, and if so, how do
> we help end-users protect themselves from this risk?

In my honest opinion: No. We can not prevent this. All we can do
is to provide a list of *official* channels. Beyond that I don't
think we should try to regulate what's in an unofficial channel
and what's allowed.
It would be waste of time better spent in other parts of the
project.

-- 
ng0 :: https://ea.n0.is
A88C8ADD129828D7EAC02E52E22F9BBFEE348588 :: https://ea.n0.is/keys/