What if we did something terrible…
5 Likes
Maybe we could use .ux? 
.auc (aux.computer) and we could still additionally support .nix file extension too. (@jakehamilton, I am pleeb from vimjoyers discord server)
5 Likes
We should definitely do .notnix (/j)
2 Likes
Oh, definitely .better.nix
3 Likes
.__x 
1 Like
Didn’t see this mentioned anywhere but maybe the Aux name could be changed to something more unique with community involvement.
Not that I dislike Aux much but for a community oriented fork a community chosen name could be fitting 
3 Likes
Personally, I’m a fan of KDE’s naming convention, wherein there’s one unifying term for the entire ecosystem and each project under its umbrella is given its own name that is optionally referential to the main name. (Many KDE applications include a ‘K’ in their name as a motif, for example.)
2 Likes
I mean if we’re keeping with the axolotl theme we could use the extension .axl. As far as I can see it’s not taken by anything recent.
8 Likes
IMO it’s a major failing of the Nix ecosystem that so few people in it have any sense of humour at the moment. Totally understandable, and I don’t blame anybody, but we can do better and so far already are doing better \o/
1 Like
This is great, we should ship it immediately.
@jakehamilton I wonder if we should change the Nixpkgs repo name in our fork now to avoid confusion. Please may you do so?
For the initial soft fork here I think retaining nixpkgs as the name is okay because our next steps involve removing everything from nixpkgs and placing them in separate repositories to be managed by the different SIGs. So, kind of treating nixpkgs as a communal plate we are all slowly pulling food from (terrible metaphor, sorry).
I’d like to avoid standardizing an “auxpkgs” right now since we will be changing the structure fairly heavily when we get to phase 2.
1 Like
Sure, in that case what would you like us to do about
We think it’s important to have templates with an easily-bootstrappable system, should we just use Nixpkgs in them for now too?
1 Like
Yes, let’s start with the current structure of things and we will evolve it carefully over time.
2 Likes
I agree with idea of using separate names like Aux Something, plus Aux names in general will be less confusing anyway since with Nix there was some confusion with terms like *nix
2 Likes
Hmm, the more I think about this the more I think we should take a different approach. Nix’s naming problem is obvious; giving everything the same name makes it unsearchable and hard to understand in conversation without lots of context clues and specificity.
Using Aux CLI, Aux Language, Aux etc. is certainly better than calling everything one word, but it’s still somewhat problematic for searchability and shorthand. For example if someone says “btw I use Aux,” it’s completely ambiguous about what they’re referring to. Additionally, if you were to search online for something about Aux Language, you’d better hope that the results used its full proper name as opposed to shorthand like “This is how you write this in Aux,” otherwise you won’t see the results you’re looking for.
In my opinion, it’s worthwhile distinguishing these things from each other with unique names that cannot clash with each other in search results or cause confusion in conversation.
3 Likes
Thanks, I agree! jacab you have such an eloquent way of motivating your point. I tried to say something like this earlier but your examples really make it much clearer in my opinion. Kudos!
1 Like
What will this project be called. “Auxolotl” or “Aux”?
Still figuring this out, but I am currently leaning towards Auxolotl because it avoids some of the issues with search ability that were mentioned before. Plus we get a cute mascot.
9 Likes