[grhmc]

Agreed. Thank you for saying so. We're working on this in two ways:

1. Reducing the number of moving parts, so there are fewer interfaces that need to be documented and understood ... because they don't exist.

2. Resources like https://zero-to-nix.com/, and https://docs.determinate.systems/.

This is a big lift, though, so anything we do here in the near future will definitely not be enough.

[dandellion]

Those seem like good steps in the right direction. Other things I'd like to see when I try Nix again would be more consensus of what are good conventions to follow for packages and configurations.

Zero-to-Nix looks better than the documentation I used to get started, seems a great resource. But even with the worse documentation I found, I was able to overcome the pretty steep initial learning curve. What did it for me was the lack of documentation for many packages and having to dive into the code every time I needed to configure anything remotely advanced. Whereas in Arch there's always a couple examples that get me 95% of where I want to go, making it very easy to figure out the rest.

But thanks for the effort, I'll be looking forward to giving Nix another go in one or two years to see the progress and maybe switch again, as I really liked the whole concept.