alt Hacker NewsI’m about 18mos into managing my macOS hardware with Nix. And I’m conflicted. It’s clearly a powerful system, and I’m still very noob at it. It’s not clear to me that it’s the right solution for macOS. I’ve not felt comfortable enough with it to roll it to Linux hosts yet. Or use its docker image maker.
Consistently through the 25.05 period nix-darwin and nixpkgs would fall out of sync. I learned not to `nix flake update` too often as a result. It’s amazing that rolling back is as easy as it is, and that’s huge, but if you squint and reason that mise and nix solve the same issue, why not use the less opinionated, easier to reason about mise?
As time has gone on, more and more of my system is managed via nix-homebrew … effectively producing a Brewfile for the vast majority of my package needs. Why not just use Brewfile directly?
I really want to advocate for nix, but it feels like I lose the “why not x?” conversations with myself, I can’t fathom winning them against a less invested peer.
Replies
I have both Nixos and Macs so I appreciate I can control everything through a single repo. I have a single flake with nixosConfigurations, darwinConfigurations and home manager pointing to different nixpkgs and other weird stuff such as jovian for my gaming pc and a special repo for my rpi5.
I'm not conflicted. Nothing compares to nix. I've been using it on macOS, for Linux hosts, for years now, and it's been incredibly rock solid. I stopped using homebrew years ago and I couldn't be happier about that.
> Consistently through the 25.05 period nix-darwin and nixpkgs would fall out of sync. I learned not to `nix flake update` too often as a result.
I find using a singular nixpkgs version is almost always a recipe for things breaking if you are on unstable. I usually end up juggling multiple nixpkg versions, for example you might want to pin the input to nix-darwin separately.
This is squarely a nixpkgs problem. It's the largest most active package repository known to man. I am pretty sure GitHub has special-cased infrastructure just for it to even function. Things are much more stable in release branches. If that causes you pain because you want the latest and greatest, it's worth considering that you'd experience the same problem with other package repositories (e.g. Debian), and then asking yourself what it is you are actually trying to accomplish. There's a reason they call it unstable.
> but if you squint and reason that mise and nix solve the same issue, why not use the less opinionated, easier to reason about mise?
If mise works for you then great, use it. When I squint and reason, they do not solve the same issue. I don't know how you come to the same conclusion either. Why are you using nix-darwin at all? What is the overlap between nix-darwin and mise? I don't see it.
If all you want is dev environments, I recommend flox.
At the end of the day I'll continue using nix, and especially nix-darwin, _solely_ because it let me set up a new machine in under 5 minutes and hit the ground running. Nothing else compares.
I've only barely used Nix on OSX to manage packages and I thought it felt awkward at the time. But I had also barely used NixOS at that time. Today I'm happily running NixOS on my NAS and my "gaming" desktop. My son is running it for his desktop as well. What feels awkward and fragile on OSX is far more stable on NixOS. But you do have to learn some of the Nix syntax and ways of doing things which it sounds like you're already getting some of on OSX. The reason I'm going to use it on OSX again is mostly to get consistent HOME configuration and tooling across all of my devices. I'll manage my OSX home dir and tools with the exact same file across multiple computers.
> period nix-darwin and nixpkgs would fall out of sync
What do you mean? Those should be fairly independent in practice.