[vonseel]

Way too much work for a personal machine.

I can see where it might be useful in formal environments and have used nix before sparingly. I found quickly that you need to get in the habit of using the same package manager, when after a few months I couldn't remember how to use a nix package or didn't know how to update a package properly (can't remember exactly what the problem was).

[smilliken]

I use nix on my personal machines, including ubuntu and macos. It's more convenient than apt and homebrew because I only have to be familiar with one package manager, and one package repository. I can pin to the same version of the repository on all machines, and have identical software.

I'm no longer frustrated by not being able to get the same version of a package between versions of ubuntu, not to mention between macos and ubuntu.

I'm no longer frustrated by a package in a repository being updated, breaking me, and not having a way to roll back.

I'm no longer frustrated by software installs being stateful, getting into a bad state, and having to uninstall and reinstall them. You'd be surprised, several times I've discovered that packages auto-update themselves outside of the package manager by overwriting themselves after downloading assets from the internet.

[dozzie]

All the things you list as benefits are only better because you use single packages source for all the machines, and one that has retention policy that keeps many package versions, and doesn't have shitty packages with all the content downloaded in post-install scripts. It's not because Nix is supposed to be superior to APT or something; you'd get exactly the same if you used APT with the same policies as Nix.

[Annatar]

I can see where it might be useful in formal environments

...except I've yet to see this wrapper used anywhere in the industry in professional capacity.