Eliminate the misuse of the term NixOS

[mightyiam]

You've asked for feedback on the vision in your announcement.

Here's a piece of feedback.

The term NixOS has since "forever" been misused in this ecosystem. I would like to ask you to:

1. Acknowledge this problem
2. Prioritise this problem
3. Avoid expanding this problem
4. Eliminate this problem

NixOS seems to have two meanings in this ecosystem:

1. The NixOS Linux distro, source at https://github.com/NixOS/nixpkgs/tree/master/nixos
2. An ambiguous reference to the Nix ecosystem

Number 1 is obvious, desirable and cute.

Evidence that number 2 exists:

1. https://nixos.org/ is not primarily about number 1.
2. https://wiki.nixos.org is not primarily about number 1.
3. https://github.com/NixOS is not primarily about number 1.
4. The NixOS Foundation is not primarily about number 1.

This creates confusion. Confusion is undesirable.

Nixers go through this confusion and arrive at the other end with The Curse of Knowledge, either explicitly or implicitly understanding this unfortunate overload.

A resource at https://docs.nixos.org/ would expand this problem.

[nixos-discourse]

This issue has been mentioned on NixOS Discourse. There might be relevant details there:

https://discourse.nixos.org/t/one-portal-for-nixos-documentation-the-docs-team-vision/77818/14

[NobbZ]

At the same time I have to add, the term "nix" is also often blurred and used synonymously with NixOS or nixpkgs.

In my daily activity I often see poeple refering to their nixos system config as "nix config", poeple asking how to dualboot "nix and Arch Linux".

I think this is a direct outcome of the "NixOS" situation described by Dawn above.

[mightyiam]

Small addition; overloads occur. Most often because a conversation involves multiple scopes. More unfortunate are overloads within the same scope, which is what we have here. And to make it worse, the second meaning is ambiguous.

[hsjobeki]

Thanks for taking the time to write this up, @mightyiam. This is real feedback and I want to treat it as such.

1. We acknowledge the Problem - I am well aware

You didn't propose any alternative yet, but imagine:
the domain: docs.nix.dev is equally ambiguous as docs.nixos.org.

The term Nix its also not clear whether we mean "Nix - the package manager" or "The nix ecosystem."

My conclusion is that the disambiguation has to live somewhere that isn't the URL. Since: there's no clean name to escape to.

For example a clear page title, even if the toplevel domain is nixos.org or nix.dev.
The reason we choose docs.nixos.org is that it has a clear reference to "docs" where the domain nix.dev has no clear reference what it means.

The bigger ask: renaming the org/Foundation/canonical domains. That's not the docs team's call, and as a volunteer I can't drive an ecosystem-wide term rename. That's a Foundation/SC thing and If you have a concrete proposal we can back your proposal there.

The domain is honestly the least load-bearing part of this: Most of the work here is code and content contributions, and that's where our volunteer and free-time hours need to go. The domain itself is an SC call.
So the lever I can actually pull is the page title and consistent scope wording. The domain itself is an SC/Board call; if you've got a better domain name, I'll forward it there.

[TLATER]

I just want to add that I actually appreciate that you're moving this to the nixos.org TLD. I repeatedly get stares of "why are you sending me to a third party site for official docs"?

nixos.org is your de-facto landing page when you first interact with the ecosystem, and has the most "official" presence. I agree that while the conflation is unfortunate, if we want to change the naming of everything it should come an initiative to move the whole org's name and branding, which is a much taller order.

In the mean time, it'd be nice if we had a docs page I don't have to caveat with "trust me, it's official, upstream doesn't know what they're doing with branding and TLD credibility, yes this definitely helps instill trust in the ecosystem that's trying to sell itself as a way to help with supply chain issues, no this definitely isn't a virus and you can trust the SSL cert even though it's for a domain that looks like someone bought it for 10 bucks to scam people like me".

[fricklerhandwerk]

Historical discussions for reference:

• Move to docs.nixos.org #869
  • Resolution: General agreement, to be implemented
• Naming confusion
  • project domain name org#80
  • unified product and story #290
  • Partial resolution:
    • codify terminology #263
    • Glossary at https://nix.dev/reference/glossary
• We never crisply defined "Nix ecosystem", but since that time it's widely used to mean something like "official projects + community projects + relevant third-party projects"
  • I'd appreciate an addition to the glossary

[NobbZ]

Nix - the package manager

I think keeping this framing up is also an issue. nix is a meta buildtool, maybe a framework for reproducible builds, but whenever you try to see and use it like a package manager, you will inevitably run into problems.

Just see the many ressources in the web challenging the use of nix-inv -i and nix profile install.

You didn't propose any alternative yet, but imagine:
the domain: docs.nix.dev is equally ambiguous as docs.nixos.org.

Have both! One for nix, one for NixOS, and also introduce something for nixpkgs. Well this could maybe under the nixos.org umbrella, though that should be done carefully, and it should always be clear that nixpkgs can be used without NixOS, even though some things are quite coupled nowadays.

Proposals like this exist, and get ignored since I am a user of the broader nix ecosystem. Even though everyone seems to acknowledge the problem, no one acknowledged the proposed solutions.

---

Though I have to be honest, I prefer a consilidation under one (TL)domain, with clear boundaries within the (internet-)domain between the different (ecosystem-)domains over the current split across several (in theory) clearly distinguishable TLDs, that still mix the ecosystem-domains.

[trespaul]

I think using "nix" to refer to both the tool (what gets invoked on the CLI) and the language is entirely within the bounds of what's expected ("I'm running a Java app", "we're using PHP"). So the issue at hand just concerns "NixOS".

In casual conversation, there's not much to be done. People are going to use metonymy, and being pedantic by replying "uhm I think you mean your NixOS config 🤓☝" is not going to do anyone any favours. Especially when used in unambiguous situations ("I'm dualbooting nix and XYZ"), it's entirely fine. Though of course, official materials should always use more precise language.

In general, some ambiguity about the word itself is not necessarily bad, since it reflects the fact that the nix ecosystem is unique (as far as I'm aware) in encompassing a language, a packaging system, and an OS. So, unironically, the following could be officially endorsed,

and official guidelines would specify that in all official communication, "nix" by itself should only ever be used to refer to the entire ecosystem (or the command line tool, to be stylised as nix), and that everywhere else NixOS/nixpkgs/nixlang should be used.

Re the primary domain, it and the name of the foundation could be justified by the fact that NixOS is where the entirety of nix comes together / it is the result of taking the nix approach as far as it can go; it's what it all is "for", the culmination of the nix project, the flagship. (Can we think of any other project that would incorporate all the aspects of nix more clearly? If the nix community were to decide that NixOS is "not yet nix enough", what could we possibly build next?)

Of course, the point of talking about definitions is to minimise confusion about what nix is for those unaware. We don't have to change the way we talk about nix for that — people instinctively understand metonymy ("America" meaning the US is so common that it's used in official government language). We should just make sure that when someone searches "nix" and sees an official landing page, the first thing they should see is the nix trinity, or something conveying the same information.

In other words, the main thing that needs to change (in addition to standardising an official style guide) is the nixos.org hero section:

Maybe simply:

Declarative builds for everything — including your OS

Though it's understandable that the website first focuses on nix as a build system, because that's more likely to be what someone is looking for, or most likely to pique their interest.

Edit: To be direct, I disagree that there has been "misuse" of the term "NixOS" that needs to be "eliminated". I'm pretty sure that using, e.g., "the NixOS project" to refer to the nix ecosystem as a whole is already recommended against, and I'm not aware of any official usage of it as such. So, the concern boils down to (and as indicated in the examples given) is that 1. the official names and handles and domains are incorrect, and that 2. this is a cause for confusion. This is not something that the documentation team can address, other than by making information clear and accessible (as I described above). So, this issue is either out of scope, or, if it's only about clarifying the definitions in an official style guide, already on the to-do list.

Edit 2: Actually, do we have any examples of anyone who was confused about the terms, and was not satisfied after a brief explanation?

It's pretty easy to look up, too.

[gregorywaynepower]

I agree with @trespaul's argument that the Nix ecosystem isn't clearly defined from the get go and working towards. The "Nix is not/is" diagram describes this issue perfectly. The current tagline is confusing, is "Nix" referring to the package manager, the Nix language, or a secret third thing. Having the tagline be something the along the lines of "NixOS is an operating system built using the Nix deployment system." I'm not sure where we fit the Nix component language and the Nix Packages Collection (nixpkgs), but I think that needs to be addressed.

Edit: I only use "Nix deployment system" because that's what is written in The Purely Functional Software Deployment Model.

[Sporarum]

Maybe this is a case of the curse of knowledge (altought I only started learning around 6 months ago), but I don't think it's confusing that nix and nixos are sometimes used interchangeably, especially in URLs/administrative bodies.

The one thing I would change is the landing page, as others have mentionned, where the tagline is very confusing, and I think it would be useful to have something like:

• NixOS page: Tagline: The reproducible/declarative/functional/etc OS, built on top of Nix(and this is a link to:)
• Nix page: Tagline: The fully reproducible/declarative/etc build system

This would help newcomers understand better the distinction between the two, and also maybe steer them towards a more gradual onboarding, for example through installing home manager on their own distro

[NobbZ]

[using nix synonmosly with nixos is] entirely fine

I have to help untangling exactly this confusion at least once a week because poeple do use the wrong term when searching the web, asking an LLM, or even look at the wrong manual because they do not understand that nix != NixOS.

We have to teach them the difference. It helps them. They will be able to catch their own fish once the confusion is cleared up. Its just 2 letters of difference that really matter when searching the web!

[trespaul]

@NobbZ I agree that it should be clarified, I just meant specifically

Especially when used in unambiguous situations, […] it's entirely fine.

I'm pointing out situations where it's fine to try to deescalate the strong language used by OP.

But I'm also a bit baffled that people are so often confused, given that it's incredibly googleable/duckduckgoable. Any AI agent will answer correctly if you ask "what is nix linux" / "what is nixos" / etc.:

You can nitpick that it answered yes, but I would say that it's correct, nix is an OS, and a package manager, and a language. Google is a search engine and a company that does a bunch of other things, I am a coffee drinker and a bunch of other things

Even if someone only makes it past the nixos.org landing page and clicks download, the answer is there:

Nix : the package manager
…
NixOS : the Linux distribution

And I think that this would be improved by making the distinction clear on the landing page directly.

I'm not saying all this to say that you're wrong about people getting confused — you're the one always helping people on the discord etc. after all — it's just that I can't imagine what more could possibly be done than making sure all official language is clear on this (given that we can't do xkcd 567).

OP's one (implied) suggestion is that docs should not be consolidated under nixos.org, which I'm personally ambivalent about. Maybe we should focus on that specifically, then, since we all agree that official language should always be clear about the distinctions. Personally, my opinion is that it can't be more harmful than, e.g., cargo's docs being on doc.rust-lang.org while the packages are at crates.io.

[mightyiam]

it can't be more harmful than, e.g., cargo's docs being on doc.rust-lang.org while the packages are at crates.io.

An equivalent would be cargo.org hosting what is today rust-lang.org.

[trespaul]

cargo.org hosting what is today rust-lang.org

Which would be fine if cargo was Rust's flagship project, IMO.