> Reproducible builds, also known as deterministic compilation, is a process of compiling software which ensures the resulting binary code can be reproduced. Source code compiled using deterministic compilation will always output the same binary.[1][2][3]
An operating system isn't a binary executable. You're gonna need to come at me with more than RTFM my bro.
Everything is wrong with this statement but no, please educate yourself.
> An operating system isn't a binary executable
In many cases it exactly is a binary executable, but in some cases one may say that it's just a binary blob containing a filesystem image. If you can build with any level of reproducibility, you are doing great.
You're not making your case very well, and claiming it to be a matter of education isn't helping. You can't just say someone is wrong without actually articulating why and expect to sound smart. Yes you can attempt to build operating systems in a manner that approaches the way you'd use to build an executable. But you're chasing after a moving target and there's not that much benefit in putting in the work, and the reason why is the exact thesis of the article.
What you lack isn't education, it's experience. Experience to determine what is a good use of time and what doesn't matter. Experience to determine how to approach implementing ideas like reproducibility without shooting yourself in the foot, as the author did. Experience you gain by screwing it up and learning the lesson. It sounds to me like you screw stuff up and don't learn the lesson, leaving you to develop hard-headed idealistic positions like this one that you rely on in lieu of said experience.
> You can't just say someone is wrong without actually articulating
I can, I just did it.
> But you're chasing after a moving target
Please educate yourself. Read about bootstrap, hermeticity and reproducibility. Nix has a byte-to-byte reproducible core and that is very important and valuable.
Unless you substantiate it, this is not a constructive response.
(To take a stab at a useful answer: Being able to perfectly reproduce a system is actually quite helpful when changing things, because the easier it is to roll back the safer it is to roll forward.)
It would be helpful, if it were possible. But an operating system consists of thousands of independently changeable components, any of which can stop being available at any time. You'd have to vendor all your dependencies for your builds to truly be reproducible.
The Arch system is flexible and is designed to account for this. It offers something better than reproducibility imo.
> But an operating system consists of thousands of independently changeable components, any of which can stop being available at any time. You'd have to vendor all your dependencies for your builds to truly be reproducible.
Please educate yourself.
> Why bother reproducing something
Yes-yes, a very good question.