Re: Roadmap for Guix 1.0

[Ricardo Wurmus <rekado@elephly.net>]

Ludovic Courtès <ludo@gnu.org> writes:

> Hello,
>
> Pierre Neidhardt <mail@ambrevar.xyz> skribis:
>
>> Conversely, "Guix CI" is much less widespread, although I suppose many
>> developers are familiar with the term.  I personally prefer unique, easy names
>> to abbreviations.
>>
>> - The name "Guix CI" tells developers what it is (continuous integration) while
>>   "Cuirass" does not.  This is mostly true, however, for almost all applications
>>   (mpv, firefox, chromium, emacs, <add almost everything here>).
>>
>> - If we get started with Guix CI and Guix OS, I'm afraid that soon enough we
>>   will end up with a bunch Guix FS, Guix IP, Guix CD...
>
> I think “Guix System” is OK.

I think so too.

> Most of the time we’ll just say “Guix”, as
> is already the case, and when we need to disambiguate (for instance when
> addressing bugs), we’ll ask “Are you using Guix System?” or “Are you
> using the Guix distro?”, and everything will be fine.  :-)

Exactly.

I wrote this on IRC:

The name “GuixSD” is opaque and creates an arbitrary distinction between
the system running on bare metal and the systems you can create with the
“guix system” commands.  It makes it difficult to communicate about
Guix.  Do we really offer “a package manager” and a “distro” — or is it
really all one thing with various levels?

The “guix system” command can be used without GuixSD to create Guix
virtual machines or containers.  Describing “guix system” is difficult
when we think in terms of “package manager” vs “distro”.  Guix itself is
also a distro – none of the packages it provides link with the host
system, and the collection of packages is a distribution of free
software.

I think that simplifying the name by using “guix” as a category will
make communication easier.

> The motivation for this name change is that “SD” is obscure to most, as
> you note, plus it creates confusion when people visit the web site: the
> web site has a “GuixSD” logo, but then it talks about features of the
> package manager.  Designating the whole tool set as “Guix” will simplify
> this, and we can always be more specific when we need to.

I agree.

--
Ricardo