Isn't nixpkgs still a pretty bad state? I know there used to be a lot of "abandoned" packages that went years without updating to the new versions provided by upstream, that a lot of packages were copying binaries around instead of building open source software from the source, etc.
Nixpkgs is one of, if not the largest, package managers by # of packages. I think naturally that will result in more abandoned packages than others. What is the % of abandoned packages relative to total I can't say.
Nix tends to have updates almost as quickly as Arch does, I run a lot of bleeding edge software and have no issues, and the breadth of packages is immense. Nix just has a different style. With the AUR, you can adopt an abandoned package more easily. That has pros and cons (the AUR has recently suffered multiple supply-chain attacks due to packages being adopted and infected).
> Nixpkgs is one of, if not the largest, package managers by # of packages.
I'm fairly certain that the graph you're thinking of is complete bullshit. It only had approximately a third of the package count listed for a particular Ubuntu version than said version had in actuality.
And often, that Emacs keybinding emulation is incredibly incomplete. For example, Matlab's Emacs emulation doesn't have M-w bound and I believe C-k doesn't copy, it only kills. And the emulation is the default setting on Linux.
What truly grinds my gears about Wikipedia isn't the amount of false information but the amount of uncorroborated info. The amount of times I've read an article that made large, sweeping claims about something and then not have any citations, often not even a "citation needed" box should be frankly unacceptable.
I do find it interesting how pretty much none of Wikipedia's organisational controversies and institutional deterioration (a lot of which have been going on for ~20 years) really made it out to the general public.
I was about to mention Haskell as well, I feel like it also avoids this sort of cognitive load. Maybe it's something to do with the languages being designed as functional languages instead of languages with functional components.
I'm not sure how you can read the article and think it isn't arguing MSF/DWB is political. A few quotes:
Hamas operatives in Gaza hospitals, failure to screen out terrorists, and politicized leadership erode the Nobel Prize-winning aid group’s claim to neutrality
While continuing to invoke the language of medical neutrality, its rhetoric has become overtly politicized, most notably in its discourse on Israel.
From medical neutrality to political advocacy
This ideological position has also been reinforced at the highest level of MSF’s international leadership.
That silence leaves the international community to ask whether MSF is advocating for Palestinians or functioning as a humanitarian façade through which terror is laundered by the moral authority of humanitarian medicine.
Yes, they're saying that some members of MSF aren't neutral, which risks the perception of the whole organisation. That's a mile away from saying the organisation is political.
I get what you're saying, but my opinion is that an argument that encompasses everything from local operations up the highest levels of international leadership is an argument about the entire organization.
You can’t bomb hospitals. Period. DWB aren’t hospital admins or responsible for deciding who deserves treatment and who deserves to die. Netanyahu is a war criminal who will go down in history as a monster and a tyrant.
reply