Dont. uBlue also switched away from it.
My question is, how do I remove it again?
this post was submitted on 19 Jun 2024
42 points (97.7% liked)
Linux
48287 readers
655 users here now
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Linux is a family of open source Unix-like operating systems based on the Linux kernel, an operating system kernel first released on September 17, 1991 by Linus Torvalds. Linux is typically packaged in a Linux distribution (or distro for short).
Distributions include the Linux kernel and supporting system software and libraries, many of which are provided by the GNU Project. Many Linux distributions use the word "Linux" in their name, but the Free Software Foundation uses the name GNU/Linux to emphasize the importance of GNU software, causing some controversy.
Rules
- Posts must be relevant to operating systems running the Linux kernel. GNU/Linux or otherwise.
- No misinformation
- No NSFW content
- No hate speech, bigotry, etc
Related Communities
Community icon by Alpár-Etele Méder, licensed under CC BY 3.0
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
Removing nix is mostly done by deleting /nix, and removing some systemd services, as well as deleting some nix-related users or groups (iirc nixblkd)
Because almost all of nix happens in /nix it doesn't clutter much of the system.
/nix doesnt work on Fedora Atomic, thats the thing. So it has to be somewhere else.
I still have dozens of strange Nix users left
Why does it work on my machine? I'm on silverblue
Dont know how they solve it, but /nix is not possible.
Maybe in /var/nix and symlinked or mounted to /nix
Yes, that's likely the case.
The ahayzen/silverblue-nix guide uses bind mounts from /var/lib/nix to /nix. The latter being created by making / temporarily writeable with chattr +i /.
https://gitlab.com/ahayzen/silverblue-nix#using-nix-on-fedora-silverblue
It's possible to install nix on Fedora Atomic by disabling SELinux and using bind mounts.
disabling SELinux
I hope this is not a serious suggestion?
This needs correct SELinux labels, and not just disabling it.
Dan Walsh is very sad.
It seems the Determinate Nix installer supports Fedora Atomic with SELinux enabled.
supporting SELinux and OSTree based distributions without asking users to make compromises
https://github.com/DeterminateSystems/nix-installer
Edit:
disabling SELinux
I hope this is not a serious suggestion?
Since no nix installer supported SELinux at the time, it was the only way to use nix on Fedora Atomic. With a better option available disabling SELinux is a bad idea indeed.
I didn't disable selinux
It seems the Determinate Nix installer supports Fedora Atomic and SELinux.
On topic:
I really like Nix and home-manager. I've mostly switched to NixOS because it's more convenient for window manager setups than building ublue images imo.
Having to mess with containers for different dev environments and keeping the up to date is imo more annoying than creating a shell.nix
Also being able manage my dorfiles with home-manager and installing software declaratively helps in keeping the system free of clutter.
What does uBlue switching away from it have to do with someone wanting to install it on Silverblue?
He thought it's not possible to install nix on silverblue and another commenter tried to install it on secureblue. It's not possible there. The problem is either somewhere along the supply chain (ublue) or with secure blue
Why?
Bazzite user here and I'm using flatpaks whenever possible and distrobox for everything else; which are the benefits of Nix over these?
Nix has more packages , by far. Nix also automatically handles the dependent libraries for each package, which is something you can't do with brew on immutable systems. This means that Nix can install software like espanso, which wouldn't work on uBlue derivatives otherwise.
I really wish the uBlue maintainers would have opted for Nix over brew for that reason. It's not much more difficult to do nix profile install nixpkgs#package-name over brew install package-name. They could have even aliased it to make it easier.
There's a GUI for it too
https://github.com/snowfallorg/nix-software-center
I just click install and it installs to the profile
It's faster than distrobox, it's not within a box but on host, it's easier than most package managers. I still go for flatpak first but for everything else I use nix. Especially for programming environment it looks to be much better than distrobox
Using containers on Linux has basically no performance loss compared to running on the host. They share a kernel and nothing needs to be virtualized (unlike containers on macOS and Windows), so anything you run in a container is basically the same performance as running it on the host.
I still agree though: using Nix is better than using Distrobox for many other reasons.
Sorry, faster because installing a package is faster than with other managers since you don'5 have to deal with any copr, debs or anything and it's really fast on my install. I haven't compared it directly but it feels very fast.
Homebrew for CLI. Distrobox needs to be used with Arch, at least the Fedora boxes are literally not possible to system upgrade.
Nix is useful for CLI packages, which aren't very simple to use through flatpak. It also has far more packages, and is very useful for creating development environments.
I like it, though I've used it very little (just no need, ATM). They have some decent practice examples to go through, but it's definitely a unique way of thinking about package management.
Until now I used distrobox but I always wondered which distro/ package manager to use. What’s your experience with it?
The answers found below this post resonate with my own experiences.
I do have a question: When you run the sestatus command in the terminal, what string/description is found corresponding to "Current mode"?
$ sestatus SELinux status: enabled SELinuxfs mount: /sys/fs/selinux SELinux root directory: /etc/selinux Loaded policy name: targeted Current mode: enforcing Mode from config file: enforcing Policy MLS status: enabled Policy deny_unknown status: allowed Memory protection checking: actual (secure) Max kernel policy version: 33
Thank you for the response!
Current mode: enforcing
This is pretty interesting. If I recall correctly, installing Nix onto Silverblue came with the caveat that SELinux' enforcing mode had to be turned off. But, your terminal output tells another story. I wonder what's up.
FWIW, I had lost interest in installing Nix on Fedora Silverblue for this very reason. However, I might have to revisit my stance on this. Once again, thank you (for reinvigorating my interest in Nix)!
The source of the determinate nix installer has some mentions of SELinux. E.g. they have an .fc file, but I really don't know anything about SELinux.
https://github.com/DeterminateSystems/nix-installer/tree/main
I'd like to know if it works for you now. I only ran the commands from the post and everything worked ootb
That's probably why I gave up on it back then as well
I’d like to know if it works for you now. I only ran the commands from the post and everything worked ootb
Aight. Let's give it a go:
Well..., for some reason it didn't work. FWIW, I'm on the bluefin-dx-main-userns-hardened image as provided by secureblue.
Line 49
Consider reporting this error using this URL: https://github.com/DeterminateSystems/nix-installer/issues/new?title=%3Cautogenerated-issue%3E&body=%23%23+Error%0A%60%60%60%0AError%3A+%0A+++0%3A+Install+failure%0A+++1%3A+Error+executing+action%0A+++2%3A+Action+%60provision_nix%60+errored%0A+++3%3A+Action+%60create_nix_tree%60+errored%0A+++4%3A+Action+%60create_directory%60+errored%0A+++5%3A+Creating+directory+%60%2Fnix%2Fvar%60%0A+++6%3A+File+exists+%28os+error+17%29%0A%60%60%60%0A%0A%23%23+Metadata%0A%7Ckey%7Cvalue%7C%0A%7C--%7C--%7C%0A%7Cversion%7C0.19.0%7C%0A%7Cos%7Clinux%7C%0A%7Carch%7Cx86_64%7C%0A
Yeah I noticed that line as well. But, I'm a bit pessimistic that it will not be solved. Btw, what's the image you're on?
Boring silverblue 40
Interesting!
So, I guess that at least one of the following 'transitions' is 'blameworthy':
- Silverblue -> uBlue Silverblue
- uBlue Silverblue -> Bluefin-DX
- Bluefin-DX -> secureblue
I guess I'll pass out on it for now. Thank you though!
My experience is that nix package configs are tested on NixOS. I used it on other OSes, and I easily encountered misconfigurations and such. The problem is that they are understaffed.
I ended up combining a few package managers due to this, but I'd have preferred to use another manager solely.