On 2022-11-26, Simon Josefsson via "Development of GNU Guix and the GNU System distribution." wrote:
> I find use of the term 'advanced' wrt Guix confusing and even mildly
> excluding, even though it is wide-spread.  What is advanced about Guix?
> Can I use it even if I'm not an advanced user?  What do others think?
> Is there some historical background for this description of Guix?

Thanks for bringing this up!

It does seem consistent with the guix manual section on package synopsis
and descriptions:

  https://guix.gnu.org/en/manual/devel/en/guix.html#Synopses-and-Descriptions

  Please avoid marketing phrases such as “world-leading”,
  “industrial-strength”, and “next-generation”, and avoid superlatives
  like “the most advanced”—they are not helpful to users looking for a
  package and may even sound suspicious. Instead, try to be factual,
  mentioning use cases and features.

I'm just not sure what stating "advanced" up-front really adds or
improves a brief statement about what guix is...

Reading through your patch, it just seems like an extra word thrown in
hoping for the positive connotations and possibly dragging in some
negative ones (e.g. elitist, not for everybody).

It also makes me wonder if "advanced" will stand the test of
time. Someday Guix-style systems might just be status quo, and thus no
longer advanced. Guix of course will likely evolve over time... maybe it
will still hold qualities worthy of being called "advanced", maybe not.

Reminds me of when I used to work at a computer re-use and recycling
organization, and we would routingly get computers with stickers on them
proclaiming "Blazing fast 400MHz processor" and the likes. Marketing
phrases quickly loose context.


> If we want to use the term, I think it would be better to rephrase
> things as 'Guix supports advanced features such as X, Y and Z' if we
> really want to drive home that we are advanced.

This works for me... describe *why* it is advanced rather than just
proclaiming it.


live well,
  vagrant