[XorNot]

The problem with NoxOS is all the effort to capture software closures is rendered moot by Linux namespaces, which are a more complete solution to the same problem.

Of course we didn't have them when the white paper was written, so that's fair but technology has moved on.

[remexre]

Nix(OS) is aware of namespaces, and can use them (in fact, the aforementioned gaming support relies on them), but versioning packages still works better than versioning the system in most cases.

Consider three packages, A, B, and C. B has two versions, A and C have one.

- A-1.0.0 depends on B-2.0.0 and C-1.0.0. - C-1.0.0 depends on B-1.0.0.

If A gets a path to a file in B-2.0.0 and wants to share it with C (for example, C might provide binaries it can run on files, or C might be a daemon), it needs C to be in a mount namespace with B-2.0.0. However, without Nix-store-like directory structure, mounting B-2.0.0's files will overwrite B-1.0.0's, so C may fail to start or misbehave.

[tymscar]

I dont think thats true. How would you compile a program that has conflicting dependencies with a linux namespace?

[pmarreck]

Linux namespaces and Nix closures solve different problems at different stages of the software lifecycle. Namespaces isolate running processes; Nix closures guarantee build-time determinism and reproducibility across systems.

Namespaces don’t track transitive dependencies, guarantee reproducible builds, enable rollback, or let you deploy an exact closure elsewhere. They’re sandboxing tools—not package management or infra-as-code.

If anything, the two are complementary. You can use Nix to build a system with a precise closure, and namespaces to sandbox it further. But calling namespaces a "more complete solution" is like calling syscall filtering a replacement for source control.

Also, minor historical nit: most namespaces existed by the late 2000s; Nix’s whitepaper was written after that. So the premise isn’t even chronologically correct.