package manager guix on Windows and OSX

package manager guix on Windows and OSX

[Patricio Martínez]

Dear everyone!

I am writing a article about my problem with the package managers. Now
there are too many package manager, for example the Linux package
managers like pacman, apt, rpm, etc, etc, and the package manager use
for programming language like npm, npx, bower, yarn, composer, cargo,
lein, etc, etc.

I want to tell that the solution could to be use a only package manager,
and that package manager to be Guix.

The problem is that I think that Guix only can to be installed on Linux
System. Thus I read a article about to develop guix for OSX here:

https://bitcoinmagazine.com/technical/guix-makes-bitcoin-core-development-trustless

In that article the author talk about develop Guix for OSX by the end of
2019.

Do anyone know the posibilities about install Guix on another system
diferent of Linux?

Thanks you very much and sorry for my english

Re: package manager guix on Windows and OSX

[jbranso]

June 24, 2021 2:26 PM, "Patricio Martínez" <maxxcan@disroot.org> wrote:

> Do anyone know the posibilities about install Guix on another system
> diferent of Linux?

Awesome! I love speculating on topics I know virtually nothing about!  Most
of my information comes from a mailing list thread that is about a year old.
So the situation may be better than I describe it.  :)

The easiest way is to use GNU Guix on Windows is WSL (Windows subsystem
for Linux):

https://www.mail-archive.com/guile-user@gnu.org/msg12167.html

I'm not a big fan of that, because of Window's history of "embrace, extend,
extinguish."  And that only lets you run Guix in Windows...what about Mac? 
The Hurd?  React Os?  Redox Os?

https://www.mail-archive.com/guile-user@gnu.org/msg12173.html


GNU Guix runs entirely on GNU Guile with some C++ for the build daemon.

C++ is fairly portable. That bit should be possible to port, though I
believe that the development plan is to eventually rewrite the C++ build
daemon in GNU Guile.

GNU Guile is the tricky bit.  To the best of my knowledge, the newer
versions of GNU Guile run exclusively on GNU/Linux, which is NOT the
fault of the Guile developers!  It's REALLY HARD to port things to all
OSes.  None of the Guile developers are paid for their fabulous work.
And it's not like Windows or Mac make it easy to port to their platform.

https://www.mail-archive.com/guile-user@gnu.org/msg12172.html

Though, the Lilypond developers did get guile 2.2 version working on Windows.

https://www.mail-archive.com/guile-user@gnu.org/msg12163.html

So did the gnucash guys for GNU Guile 2.2, but it is fairly tough to
get it to build:

https://www.mail-archive.com/guile-user@gnu.org/msg12164.html

Also, it's a 32-bit GNU Guile that was ported to windows and it does
not supports thread.

Also Guile 3.0's JIT works on lightening, which is a C library (program ?).
And I do not know if that supports Windows.  But C is really portable.  :)

> Thanks you very much and sorry for my english

It was marvelous English! You should teach it!

Re: package manager guix on Windows and OSX

[Edouard Klein]

Hi !

The real problem will not be the languages (guile or C++), but the
system calls used by Guix.

Guix makes use of some recent (less than 2 decades) and somewhat
advanced features of the Linux kernel, such as namespaces.

To port Guix to another operating system such as BSD (including OSX),
one would have to translate these calls.

For example, Guix is the only software I've actually encountered that
can not run in SmartOS' emulation of Linux, because the system calls it
uses are not implemented there.

I would love for Guix to be a Multi Kernel package manager (I mean it
works on the Hurd also, but I have never encountered a Hurd user in real
life). My dream would be to port Guix to Plan 9 ;-)




jbranso@dismail.de writes:

> June 24, 2021 2:26 PM, "Patricio Martínez" <maxxcan@disroot.org> wrote:
>
>> Do anyone know the posibilities about install Guix on another system
>> diferent of Linux?
>
> Awesome! I love speculating on topics I know virtually nothing about!  Most
> of my information comes from a mailing list thread that is about a year old.
> So the situation may be better than I describe it.  :)
>
> The easiest way is to use GNU Guix on Windows is WSL (Windows subsystem
> for Linux):
>
> https://www.mail-archive.com/guile-user@gnu.org/msg12167.html
>
> I'm not a big fan of that, because of Window's history of "embrace, extend,
> extinguish."  And that only lets you run Guix in Windows...what about Mac? 
> The Hurd?  React Os?  Redox Os?
>
> https://www.mail-archive.com/guile-user@gnu.org/msg12173.html
>
>
> GNU Guix runs entirely on GNU Guile with some C++ for the build daemon.
>
> C++ is fairly portable. That bit should be possible to port, though I
> believe that the development plan is to eventually rewrite the C++ build
> daemon in GNU Guile.
>
> GNU Guile is the tricky bit.  To the best of my knowledge, the newer
> versions of GNU Guile run exclusively on GNU/Linux, which is NOT the
> fault of the Guile developers!  It's REALLY HARD to port things to all
> OSes.  None of the Guile developers are paid for their fabulous work.
> And it's not like Windows or Mac make it easy to port to their platform.
>
> https://www.mail-archive.com/guile-user@gnu.org/msg12172.html
>
> Though, the Lilypond developers did get guile 2.2 version working on Windows.
>
> https://www.mail-archive.com/guile-user@gnu.org/msg12163.html
>
> So did the gnucash guys for GNU Guile 2.2, but it is fairly tough to
> get it to build:
>
> https://www.mail-archive.com/guile-user@gnu.org/msg12164.html
>
> Also, it's a 32-bit GNU Guile that was ported to windows and it does
> not supports thread.
>
> Also Guile 3.0's JIT works on lightening, which is a C library (program ?).
> And I do not know if that supports Windows.  But C is really portable.  :)
>
>> Thanks you very much and sorry for my english
>
> It was marvelous English! You should teach it!

Re: package manager guix on Windows and OSX

[Joshua Branson]

Edouard Klein <edou@rdklein.fr> writes:

> Hi !
>
> The real problem will not be the languages (guile or C++), but the
> system calls used by Guix.

Ahh!  Thanks for pointing that out!

>
> Guix makes use of some recent (less than 2 decades) and somewhat
> advanced features of the Linux kernel, such as namespaces.

True true!

>
> To port Guix to another operating system such as BSD (including OSX),
> one would have to translate these calls.
>
> For example, Guix is the only software I've actually encountered that
> can not run in SmartOS' emulation of Linux, because the system calls it
> uses are not implemented there.
>
> I would love for Guix to be a Multi Kernel package manager (I mean it
> works on the Hurd also, but I have never encountered a Hurd user in real
> life). My dream would be to port Guix to Plan 9 ;-)

Why Plan 9? May I ask?  And I do really like the Hurd, but I use the
dvorak keyboard layout.  My understanding is that the Hurd does not
support variant keyboard layouts yet...  :(

I actually think that the Guix developers may want to consider a port to
the OpenBSD kernel, provided that the Hyperbola developers get
HyperbolaBSD working.  Though I guess the Debian guys sort of did
already.  :)

https://www.hyperbola.info/news/announcing-hyperbolabsd-roadmap/

>
> jbranso@dismail.de writes:
>
>> June 24, 2021 2:26 PM, "Patricio Martínez" <maxxcan@disroot.org> wrote:
>>
>>> Do anyone know the posibilities about install Guix on another system
>>> diferent of Linux?
>>
>> Awesome! I love speculating on topics I know virtually nothing about!  Most
>> of my information comes from a mailing list thread that is about a year old.
>> So the situation may be better than I describe it.  :)
>>
>> The easiest way is to use GNU Guix on Windows is WSL (Windows subsystem
>> for Linux):
>>
>> https://www.mail-archive.com/guile-user@gnu.org/msg12167.html
>>
>> I'm not a big fan of that, because of Window's history of "embrace, extend,
>> extinguish."  And that only lets you run Guix in Windows...what about Mac?
>> The Hurd?  React Os?  Redox Os?
>>
>> https://www.mail-archive.com/guile-user@gnu.org/msg12173.html
>>
>>
>> GNU Guix runs entirely on GNU Guile with some C++ for the build daemon.
>>
>> C++ is fairly portable. That bit should be possible to port, though I
>> believe that the development plan is to eventually rewrite the C++ build
>> daemon in GNU Guile.
>>
>> GNU Guile is the tricky bit.  To the best of my knowledge, the newer
>> versions of GNU Guile run exclusively on GNU/Linux, which is NOT the
>> fault of the Guile developers!  It's REALLY HARD to port things to all
>> OSes.  None of the Guile developers are paid for their fabulous work.
>> And it's not like Windows or Mac make it easy to port to their platform.
>>
>> https://www.mail-archive.com/guile-user@gnu.org/msg12172.html
>>
>> Though, the Lilypond developers did get guile 2.2 version working on Windows.
>>
>> https://www.mail-archive.com/guile-user@gnu.org/msg12163.html
>>
>> So did the gnucash guys for GNU Guile 2.2, but it is fairly tough to
>> get it to build:
>>
>> https://www.mail-archive.com/guile-user@gnu.org/msg12164.html
>>
>> Also, it's a 32-bit GNU Guile that was ported to windows and it does
>> not supports thread.
>>
>> Also Guile 3.0's JIT works on lightening, which is a C library (program ?).
>> And I do not know if that supports Windows.  But C is really portable.  :)
>>
>>> Thanks you very much and sorry for my english
>>
>> It was marvelous English! You should teach it!
>

--
Joshua Branson (joshuaBPMan in #guix)
Sent from Emacs and Gnus
  https://gnucode.me
  https://video.hardlimit.com/accounts/joshua_branson/video-channels
  https://propernaming.org
  "You can have whatever you want, as long as you help
enough other people get what they want." - Zig Ziglar

Re: package manager guix on Windows and OSX

[Jonathan McHugh]

Hi Joshua,

A Guix-BSD hybrid would be delectable.

I consider the OpenBSD community to be excellent, not only for their
prioritising a tight kernel and high levels of security standards but
because they refuse to release updates until documentation such as
manpages are comprehensively written.

This final point is something which the Guix community needs to
improve - there is too much of a publish first - decribe later philosophy. As somebody still trying to fully master I get the feeling that
their are things which will elude me until I get enough battle scars and
my productivity will be hampered until I reach that sweet spot (or at
least become more proficient/confident at just asking!)

I should state that I consider the help-guix and devel-guix to be highly
informative, friendly and professional. There should be greater
expectations of contributors to explain their improved functionalities
in advance. Additionally, I hold your individual support to be
exemplary.

Additionally, while I understand that MIT is in many ways deficient
compared to GPL licenses, if not pernicious and counterproductive I do
empathise regarding why networking engineers may prefer having a licence
which permits encapsulation more readily.


Joshua Branson <jbranso@dismail.de> writes:

> Edouard Klein <edou@rdklein.fr> writes:
>>
>> To port Guix to another operating system such as BSD (including OSX),
>> one would have to translate these calls.
>>
>> For example, Guix is the only software I've actually encountered that
>> can not run in SmartOS' emulation of Linux, because the system calls it
>> uses are not implemented there.
>>
>> I would love for Guix to be a Multi Kernel package manager (I mean it
>> works on the Hurd also, but I have never encountered a Hurd user in real
>> life). My dream would be to port Guix to Plan 9 ;-)
>
> Why Plan 9? May I ask?  And I do really like the Hurd, but I use the
> dvorak keyboard layout.  My understanding is that the Hurd does not
> support variant keyboard layouts yet...  :(
>
> I actually think that the Guix developers may want to consider a port to
> the OpenBSD kernel, provided that the Hyperbola developers get
> HyperbolaBSD working.  Though I guess the Debian guys sort of did
> already.  :)
>
> https://www.hyperbola.info/news/announcing-hyperbolabsd-roadmap/
>

-- 
Jonathan McHugh
indieterminacy@libre.brussels

Re: package manager guix on Windows and OSX

[jbranso]

June 25, 2021 1:53 PM, "Jonathan McHugh" <indieterminacy@libre.brussels> wrote:

> Hi Joshua,
> 
> A Guix-BSD hybrid would be delectable.
> 
> I consider the OpenBSD community to be excellent, not only for their
> prioritising a tight kernel and high levels of security standards but
> because they refuse to release updates until documentation such as
> manpages are comprehensively written.

That and their software is top notch! Linus called their developers
"masturbating monkeys", because of their obsessive pursuit of security!
hahaha. At every shutdown, the OpenBSD kernel is re-linked. It's the same
kernel when you reboot it, but the binary is re-ordered. That's amazing!

> This final point is something which the Guix community needs to
> improve - there is too much of a publish first - decribe later philosophy. As somebody still trying
> to fully master I get the feeling that
> their are things which will elude me until I get enough battle scars and
> my productivity will be hampered until I reach that sweet spot (or at
> least become more proficient/confident at just asking!)

My personal feeling is that GNU should adopt Org mode as their documentation 
standard.  It's slightly easier to use than texinfo.  Thought texinfo is 
pretty rad.  :)
 
> I should state that I consider the help-guix and devel-guix to be highly
> informative, friendly and professional. There should be greater
> expectations of contributors to explain their improved functionalities
> in advance. Additionally, I hold your individual support to be
> exemplary.

Well thanks!  I might mount that compliment on my wall!

> Additionally, while I understand that MIT is in many ways deficient
> compared to GPL licenses, if not pernicious and counterproductive I do
> empathise regarding why networking engineers may prefer having a licence
> which permits encapsulation more readily.

Well, what is interesting, is that the HyperbolaBSD developers intend to 
rewrite 20% of the BSD kernel and license the whole project GPL.  :)

What do you mean by:

> empathise regarding why networking engineers may prefer having a licence
> which permits encapsulation more readily.
 

> Joshua Branson <jbranso@dismail.de> writes:
> 
>> Edouard Klein <edou@rdklein.fr> writes:
> 
> To port Guix to another operating system such as BSD (including OSX),
> one would have to translate these calls.
> 
> For example, Guix is the only software I've actually encountered that
> can not run in SmartOS' emulation of Linux, because the system calls it
> uses are not implemented there.
> 
> I would love for Guix to be a Multi Kernel package manager (I mean it
> works on the Hurd also, but I have never encountered a Hurd user in real
> life). My dream would be to port Guix to Plan 9 ;-)
>> Why Plan 9? May I ask? And I do really like the Hurd, but I use the
>> dvorak keyboard layout. My understanding is that the Hurd does not
>> support variant keyboard layouts yet... :(
>> 
>> I actually think that the Guix developers may want to consider a port to
>> the OpenBSD kernel, provided that the Hyperbola developers get
>> HyperbolaBSD working. Though I guess the Debian guys sort of did
>> already. :)
>> 
>> https://www.hyperbola.info/news/announcing-hyperbolabsd-roadmap
> 
> --
> Jonathan McHugh
> indieterminacy@libre.brussels

Re: package manager guix on Windows and OSX

[indieterminacy]

There are many bawdy jokes Id like to make concerning that citation. 

June 25, 2021 10:56 PM, jbranso@dismail.de wrote:

> That and their software is top notch! Linus called their developers
> "masturbating monkeys", because of their obsessive pursuit of security!
> hahaha. At every shutdown, the OpenBSD kernel is re-linked. It's the same
> kernel when you reboot it, but the binary is re-ordered. That's amazing!

Yes, they are highly capable and ambitious.

I picked up that information, having researched Hyperbola... based upon your prompt.

>> Additionally, while I understand that MIT is in many ways deficient
>> compared to GPL licenses, if not pernicious and counterproductive I do
>> empathise regarding why networking engineers may prefer having a licence
>> which permits encapsulation more readily.
> 
> Well, what is interesting, is that the HyperbolaBSD developers intend to
> rewrite 20% of the BSD kernel and license the whole project GPL. :)
> 

> My personal feeling is that GNU should adopt Org mode as their documentation
> standard. It's slightly easier to use than texinfo. Thought texinfo is
> pretty rad. :)

I love Latex, Context, I feel a bit weird for not having dabbled with Texinfo. Im not sure Texinfo is going to sway enough younger programmers (Im neither young nor old), I fear too many have been malconditioned into accepting delible communication techniques - Texinfo may no longer cut it.

I would consider Org mode to probably be the most acceptable default, though in many respects Skribilo could be more of a purer expression of a complete Guix approach. Are the aforementioned all different ways of dissuading people from considering Guix or documenting for it?

FYI, I have been wading into the Gemini protocol the last two months. Beyond its more noticable security and publishing advantages, I have been entranced by the terseness of its Gem .gmi (minimalist MarkDown) format. I consider it has crossover appeal (as least between documenting power users across OSes). FYI, the OpenBSD crowd seem to have the lead in the Gemini space - but this is presumable for the protocol rather than the markdown.

Since then I stopped annotating in Orgmode and will be building workflows to (eventually?) approximate a lot of Orgmode functionality. Obviously Orgmode is awesome but I wonder if it is too designed around individual workflows and procedures - where greater payoff comes from pooled workflows and procedures.

I had success/pleaseure converting from .gem to .org formats with this experimentation (concerning annotations for a Guix CWL blog post)
=> https://git.sr.ht/~indieterminacy/q1q20hqh_kq_oq_parsing_gem_zsh/tree

From the tree you can see that it is feasible to output to *tex* or *html* formats, using simple REGEX foo.

Additionally there is an unfinished attempt at exporting to (sic) Skribilo.

(You may want to ignore the potentially impenitrable annotations, which concerns a 'Recursive Modelling Language' Ive been working on - it would certainly confuse this topic)

I would be happy if Guix writing was done with minimal Gem markup but with heavy Lisp usage for interpretation, synthesis, collection and publishing of content. I had originally taken the approach that there should be Tex heavy markup first and then simplified transposing into other formats later. Now Im on the other end of the horseshoe.

I miss experimenting with regards to Tikz as a mechanism for generating graphics. I understand why other tools are used and ho programmers tend to seemingly think in terms of characters. It bothers me that I do not have beautiful graph displays representing my environment - to consider things from an impressionistic viewpoint and a contrast to text-editor/browser dualism. I suspect it isnt insurmountable and could allow visually minded people to not feel aggrieved by TUIscapes.


> What do you mean by:
> 
>> empathise regarding why networking engineers may prefer having a licence
>> which permits encapsulation more readily.

I mean: the MIT license allows you to operate in a commercial setting, whereby only the binaries are provided, without the   requirement to provide the source content. While I normally am against this, an OpenBSD networking head has explained to me how there would be usecases where this would be useful - if only to provide the commercial breathing space for niche projects. I probably should stop paraphrasing this person now.



Jonathan McHugh
indieterminacy@libre.brussels

Re: package manager guix on Windows and OSX

[jbranso]

June 25, 2021 7:18 PM, indieterminacy@libre.brussels wrote:

> I love Latex, Context, I feel a bit weird for not having dabbled with Texinfo. Im not sure Texinfo
> is going to sway enough younger programmers (Im neither young nor old), I fear too many have been
> malconditioned into accepting delible communication techniques - Texinfo may no longer cut it.

We all owe Ludo a big thanks for writing Skribilo.
 
> I would consider Org mode to probably be the most acceptable default, though in many respects
> Skribilo could be more of a purer expression of a complete Guix approach. Are the aforementioned
> all different ways of dissuading people from considering Guix or documenting for it?

My understanding is that GNU Guix is a GNU project.  As such we abide by the GNU coding standards,
which means that our documentation standard is GNU Texinfo.  It was suggested to Stallman a while
ago that we should make the documentation standard Org mode, but Stallman did not like to force
people to use Emacs to write GNU documentation.  I would love to re-implement Org mode in GNU Guile,
but that would probably be several years worth of effort.  :)  Or perhaps not.  I could just write
a reader in Skribilo!
 
> FYI, I have been wading into the Gemini protocol the last two months. Beyond its more noticable
> security and publishing advantages, I have been entranced by the terseness of its Gem .gmi
> (minimalist MarkDown) format. I consider it has crossover appeal (as least between documenting
> power users across OSes). FYI, the OpenBSD crowd seem to have the lead in the Gemini space - but
> this is presumable for the protocol rather than the markdown.

I tend to agree.  Drew Devault likes it a lot.  I'm hoping to set up my blog to be hosted via gemini
too.
 
> Since then I stopped annotating in Orgmode and will be building workflows to (eventually?)
> approximate a lot of Orgmode functionality. Obviously Orgmode is awesome but I wonder if it is too
> designed around individual workflows and procedures - where greater payoff comes from pooled
> workflows and procedures.
> 
> I had success/pleaseure converting from .gem to .org formats with this experimentation (concerning
> annotations for a Guix CWL blog post)
> => https://git.sr.ht/~indieterminacy/q1q20hqh_kq_oq_parsing_gem_zsh/tree
> 
> From the tree you can see that it is feasible to output to *tex* or *html* formats, using simple
> REGEX foo.
> 
> Additionally there is an unfinished attempt at exporting to (sic) Skribilo.
> 
> (You may want to ignore the potentially impenitrable annotations, which concerns a 'Recursive
> Modelling Language' Ive been working on - it would certainly confuse this topic)

That sounds fun!  Chat to me off list if you care to explain it.

> I would be happy if Guix writing was done with minimal Gem markup but with heavy Lisp usage for
> interpretation, synthesis, collection and publishing of content. I had originally taken the
> approach that there should be Tex heavy markup first and then simplified transposing into other
> formats later. Now Im on the other end of the horseshoe.
> 
> I miss experimenting with regards to Tikz as a mechanism for generating graphics. I understand why
> other tools are used and ho programmers tend to seemingly think in terms of characters. It bothers
> me that I do not have beautiful graph displays representing my environment - to consider things
> from an impressionistic viewpoint and a contrast to text-editor/browser dualism. I suspect it isnt
> insurmountable and could allow visually minded people to not feel aggrieved by TUIscapes.
> 
>> What do you mean by:
>> 
>>> empathise regarding why networking engineers may prefer having a licence
>>> which permits encapsulation more readily.
> 
> I mean: the MIT license allows you to operate in a commercial setting, whereby only the binaries
> are provided, without the requirement to provide the source content. While I normally am against
> this, an OpenBSD networking head has explained to me how there would be usecases where this would
> be useful - if only to provide the commercial breathing space for niche projects. I probably should
> stop paraphrasing this person now.

I suppose that's fair.

> Jonathan McHugh
> indieterminacy@libre.brussels

Re: package manager guix on Windows and OSX

[indieterminacy]

Wait, I found a bawdy joke which (hopefully) doesnt offend or wrankle:

Rather than them being onanists, perhaps it would be better to (within irreverent parameters) reframe OpenBSD developers as people who has a shower preceeding and after intercourse. 

It serves as good hygene, its considerate to others but the extra efforts and procedures are incomprehensible to those who dont give a ****

June 25, 2021 10:56 PM, jbranso@dismail.de wrote:
> 
> That and their software is top notch! Linus called their developers
> "masturbating monkeys", because of their obsessive pursuit of security!
> hahaha. At every shutdown, the OpenBSD kernel is re-linked. It's the same
> kernel when you reboot it, but the binary is re-ordered. That's amazing!

Phew, for a minute I was worried that I was going to have to apologise to the MIT community....

Re: package manager guix on Windows and OSX

[Edouard Klein]

>
> Why Plan 9? May I ask?

Plan 9 is awesome. What the whole industry is barely managing to achieve
with containers and VMs, Guix does somewhat correctly with namespaces,
but Plan 9 had all this in its DNA, in a cleaner implementation 30
years ago !

By default, a process in Plan 9 only has a partial view of the system,
and is truly isolated from the other processes. No network, user,
filesytem namespace bullshit, everything (yes everything is a file), so
there is only one namespace, the filesystem namespace, and you mount
only what your process needs to see.

e.g . your process does not need to access the internet, then don't mount
/net !

e.t. your process need to access only one host: the connect to the host,
and mount the relevant /net/tcp/n/ directory, but not /net/tcp/clone,
and so your process will not be able to connect anywhere else !

Also, any file could be managed by a process running on another machine,
transparently.

Anyway, Guix reminds me of Plan9 because it achieves like 10% of what
Plan9 could do, but on a Kernel that actually runs on modern hardware,
and with a sane API, and so it's 10 times better than anything else. Yet
I wish Linux was more plan9ish.


> And I do really like the Hurd, but I use the
> dvorak keyboard layout.  My understanding is that the Hurd does not
> support variant keyboard layouts yet...  :(

I don't think that the kernel is the part where your keyboard layout is
implemented, but I don't know the Hurd at all so I may well 

>
> I actually think that the Guix developers may want to consider a port to
> the OpenBSD kernel, provided that the Hyperbola developers get
> HyperbolaBSD working.  Though I guess the Debian guys sort of did
> already.  :)

OpenBSD is really good too. The pledge() function is a really nice API
that is much easier to use than the mess we got on Linux...

Re: package manager guix on Windows and OSX

[maxxcan]

1 Introducción
══════════════

  Thank you very much for the diferents answers. You are talking about
  very interesting things and that help me very much with my article.

  The first, I love Plan9 too. I'll try to install on a vm but I can do
  it but I don't remember why. Every weekend I go to a pub named Plan 9,
  really for the movie, and I always say to the waitress; I love this
  pub because is named like a Operating System, and she look at me very
  weird and give me the beer and go.


1.1 Guix like a Universal package manager
─────────────────────────────────────────

  My first question was about can use guix like a Universal package
  manager, and it was a surprise for me to see that is easier install
  guile and maybe guix on a Windows machine instead of a Apple
  machine. I thought that it was easier in a OS based on Unix.

  Now, I see two ways to install guix on Windows, using the msys2
  project. <https://www.msys2.org> and with the WSL2. This is explain
  this:

  <https://gist.github.com/giuliano108/49ec5bd0a9339db98535bc793ceb5ab4>


1.2 The problem with licenses like MIT license.
───────────────────────────────────────────────

  I would like to use guix on BSD too but the really problem with the
  MIT licenses and similars instead of GPL is that the GPL is viral,
  i.e., when you make a program with GPL license anyone can close the
  project and use the code only for him. The MIT license and similars
  allows to the companies use the community code and make with it a
  commercial product. For that Microsoft and Google use that license.


1.3 My problem with the DSL language
────────────────────────────────────

  All this is because I use different tecnologies and I am very tired
  about have to learn diferents languages for configure my servers. This
  is discussed in this link <https://ambrevar.xyz/guix-advance/>, in the
  part where he compare guix with nix. And he tell about skribilo and
  when I discover that language I love it, although I think that org is
  the best markup language for all. In this article discussed about
  that: <https://karl-voit.at/2017/09/23/orgmode-as-markup-only/>

  I understand in the past Stallman choose Texinfo to don't force to
  people to use Emacs, but today we can use org without Emacs thanks to
  many org parsers: <https://orgmode.org/worg/org-tools/>

  I recommend this article where there is a tutorial about how to make a
  webpage with org and gatsby with orga.js a org syntax parse in
  javascript. <https://www.huxiaoxing.com/building-a-website-with-org-mode-files>