<civodul>zimoun: yes, we can definitely take the slides (Beamer?) in maintenance.git
<civodul>the question to ask re macOS IMO is "can we make reproducible research based on black bloxes?"
<zimoun>civodul, yeah beamer. Basically your template. :-)
<zimoun>arf, the research is already based on black boxes. Any instrument generating data is a black box. Most of the tools to clean the raw data are proprietary. Yes, Mac is not an acceptable platform for doing reproducible science and the result have to run on Linux machine. But 98% people around me are using Microsft or Mac. So they use Conda because it works there. Then, they asks Conda to the Linux cluster because they do not want to
<civodul>all i can say is that proprietary software is to computer science what magic potions are to chemistry
<zimoun>civodul, sad probably. But even computations using Guix also asks the question «can we make reproducible reproducible on black boxes?» because the hardware is black boxes as instrument is black boxes. :-)
<zimoun>so the question is more about the boundary, IMHO.
<dstolfa>zimoun: i find it easier to sell guix as: "you can choose versions of software and you can release your research in a way that anyone can run them on another linux box identically as you have when you released it"
<efraim>I would think using guix in WSL would help at least the windows users
<zimoun>dstolfa, yes and no. For instance, the main dev behind Gmsh <https://gmsh.info/> uses Mac. They are a big of Free Software and so on. They use Emacs, developped a lot using Linux. Then, they switched to Mac because daily maintenance is easier. It just works: plug and play. An example among manyy others.
<zimoun>efraim, I agree. It had been my answer. There is more chance to have Guix on Windows than Guix on Mac. Because of WSL. :-)
*dstolfa fails to see how maintenance of a mac is easier than maintenance of something like RHEL, having used both...
<zimoun>dstolfa, I will not answer instead of people or try to convince that Mac is better. I use Linux and I am happy. :-) I am just pointing that a lot of people are using Mac and it will not change.
<dstolfa>zimoun: yeah, that's a sad reality unfortunately. we basically need a way to convince them to virtualize :P
<zimoun>Therefore, for most of scientific users, “we“ are trying to convince them for a double jump: switch from Mac to Linux *and* switch from Conda to Guix. The arguments must be really good. :-)
<zimoun>having a half-baked Mac port would reduce one jump, IMHO.
<dstolfa>zimoun: it would undoubtedly do so, it's just unclear to me how to do it
<zimoun>dstolfa: yeah. It is a lot of work. And if no one is paid to do so, I am doubtful that it will happen on spare time. Well, maybe we could try to change the message: from “no mac because black boxes” to “no mac because not enough resource and solution will be incomplete”. Somehow. :-)
<dstolfa>zimoun: well, i don't think i have much say in that, but i tend to agree that accessibility to free software on non-free systems is important for educating people and for adoption
<rekado_>zimoun: if they are just ticking boxes you can say that Guix works on Mac because it can build Docker images, which will run just fine on a Mac.
<rekado_>whether this sleight of hand works depends on the audience, of course
<rekado_>I found that people fall for comparison tables all the time
<rekado_>you can make favorable comparison tables by listing a whole bunch of unimportant features that the competitors don’t implement and leave the impression that your tool is so much more comprehensive
<rekado_>I’m not advocating for doing this, but the question whether it works on a Mac may be the attempt of a confused human brain to divide the problem into a list of features that can then be compared.
<rekado_>I’ve seen this dozens of times in IT purchasing discussions