[nvarsj]

> it's just slightly too rigid for my own personal use.

I get what you're saying, but the reality is the opposite. Nix is _far_ more powerful and flexible than anything you can do in Arch. It sounds to me like you just wanted a particular packages available, and Nix didn't have that. But if you have the inclination to learn Nix, you will be able to customize your system, in a safe and repeatable, declarative approach, far more than you could ever do with Arch.

[chaorace]

It was simply too difficult for me to do that. I learned the language, built derivations, then realized it was just way too much work for what I wanted. I like what Nix brings to the table, but, ultimately, I was perfectly happy to compromise the bullet-proof integrity of nix for the simplicity of pacman + aconfmgr. It's the perfect blend for use on my own daily drivers.

With that being said, I would use NixOS over arch + aconfmgr 10 out of 10 times in a production DevOps environment. What time/effort you give up in terms of instant usability is immediately recovered when you start working in terms of modular and widespread system deployment.

[nvarsj]

I agree with what you're saying. It probably took me about 2 weeks to build my first NixOS desktop about a year ago. Now I manage everything in a single repo, including all my dotfiles, all via nix. It works great. But there was a very steep learning curve.

After that experience, I'd actually hesitate to use NixOS in a production environment. The main problem is Nix and the library functions themselves are incredibly obtuse. It also doesn't help that it's a dynamic functional language, so everything just looks like magic when you're first using it. I think most engineers would really struggle with it. I'd be more comfortable introducing Haskell - I think it's easier to learn and understand!