Linux

Since the idea is that the "root partition" is immutable, serious question:

How do you fix a hardware config issue or a distro packaging / provision issue in an immutable distro?

Several times in my Linux history I've found that, for example, I need to remove package-provided files from the ALSA files in /usr/share/alsa in order for the setup to work with my particular chipset (which has a hardware bug). Other times, I've found that even if I set up a custom .XCompose file in my $HOME, some applications insist on reading the Compose files in /usr/share/X11/locale instead, which means I need to be able to edit or remove those files. In order to add custom themes, I need to be able to add them to /usr/share/{icons,themes}, since replicating those themes for each $HOME in the system is a notorious waste of space and not all applications seem to respect /usr/local/share. Etc.

Unless I'm mistaken on how immutable systems work, I'm not sure immutable systems are really useful to someone who actually wants to or needs to power user Linux, or customize past the "branding locking" that environments like Gnome have been aiming for for like a decade.

turn off. immutable

Immutable, doesn't mean extreme secure. It's a false sense of security.
It could be more secure.
But during a runtime, it is possible to overwrite operational memory, mask some syscalls, etc.

That's my 3 cents.

It's definitely great for the mainstream. Think of Linus Sebastian who has somehow broken every OS except for SteamOS.

It's not great for me who uses Arch Linux btw with the expectation that if the system doesn't break on its own, then I will break it myself.

Immutable distros are great for applications where you want uniformity for users and protections against users who are a little too curious for their own good.

SteamOS is a perfect use case. You don't want users easily running scripts on their Steam Decks to install god knows what and potentially wreck their systems, then come to Valve looking for a fix.

Immutable distros solve that issue. Patches and updates for the OS roll out onto effectively identical systems, and if something does break, the update will fail instead of the system. So users will still have a fully functional Steam Deck.

If you're not very technical, or you aren't a power user and packaged apps like Flatpaks are available for all your software, then go for it. I prefer to tinker under the hood with my computers, but I also understand and except the risk that creates.

Immutable distros are a valuable part of a larger, vibrant Linux ecosystem IMO.

Immutable vs Mutable

weird        normal

NixOS is kinda the best of both worlds, because it does everything in a way that is compatible with an immutable fs, but it doesn’t force you into abiding by immutability yourself.

You can always opt into immutability by using Impermanence, but I’ve never seen any reason to.

Edit: That said, the syntax has a steep learning curve and there are tons of annoying edge cases that spawn out of the measures it takes to properly isolate things. It can be a lot to micromanage, so if you’d rather just use your system more than tinker with it, it may not be a good fit.

• You can still apply updates live, e.g. on Bazzite (Fedora Atomic) with the --apply-live tag (or however it's spelled).
• The root partition isn't read only per se, but you have to change the upstream image itself instead of the one booted right now. You can use the uBlue-Builder for example to make your own custom Bazzite spin just for you if you want.
• Both aren't inherently secure or insecure. It's harder to brick your system, yeah, for sure, but you can still fuck up some partitions or get malware. It's just better because everything is transparently identifiable (ostree works like git), saved (fallback images), containerised and reproducible.
• And you can still install system software, e.g. by layering it via rpm-ostree. Or use rootful containers in Distrobox and keep using apt or Pacman in there.

Immutable ≠ atomic

Bazzite is atomic (not immutable), same with Silverblue and other Fedora variants (they're all atomic, even on their main page it says atomic). It's kinda misleading ngl

Secure != stable Immutable distros aren't always more secure but rather more stable and hard to break Also btw nixos can apply updates without rebooting

I personally vastly prefer mutable distros for my own system, but I understand the appeal for those who like them. As long as mutable distros remain an option I don't mind immutable distros.

I heard both flatpak and immutability are obstacles to developers. How bad is it really?

I've had NixOS absolutely refuse to run some compiler toolchain I depended upon that should've been dead simple on other distros, I'm really hesitant to try anything that tries to be too different anymore.

I remain interested in the immutables or atomic distros because I know a lot of smart people that swear by them.

I also don't try them just yet because I know a lot of dumb people like me that end up breaking a lot of stuff before quitting them altogether.

They could be amazing and just not perfected yet or they may be a meme and no one's proved it outright just yet. Will be lurking this thread either way lool :D

I am a big fan of breaking my system

what does the community think of it?

It's important to note how the Linux community interacts with change. In the past, whenever a change has been significant enough to influence individual workflows, it often provoked strong reactions. This was evident when systemd was introduced and adopted by distros like Arch and Debian. Even though systemd was arguably superior in essential aspects for most users, it failed to meet the needs of at least a vocal minority. Consequently, community endeavors were set up to enable the use of Debian or Arch without systemd.

Similarly, the introduction of immutable distributions seems to upset some people, though (at least to me) it's unjustified. Immutable distributions don't necessarily alter the traditional model. For instance, the existence of Fedora Silverblue doesn't impose changes on traditional Fedora; let alone Arch or Debian.

But, overall, most Linux users aren't bothered by it. Though, they often don't see a use for themselves. Personally, I attribute this at least in part to existing misconceptions and misinformation on the subject matter. Though, still, a minority^[1]^ (at best ~10%) actually prefers and uses 'immutable' distros.

Do the downsides outweigh the benefits or vice versa?

Depends entirely on what you want out of your system. For me, they absolutely do. But it's important to note that the most important thing they impose on the user is the paradigm shift that comes with going 'immutable'. And this is actually what traditional Linux users are most bothered by. But if you're unfamiliar with Linux conventions, then you probably won't even notice.

As a side note, it's perhaps important to note that the similarities between traditional distros are greater than the similarities between immutable distros. Also, Fedora Atomic is much more like traditional Fedora than it is similar to, say, openSUSE Aeon or Vanilla OS. Grouping them together as if they are a cohesive group with very similar attributes is misleading. Of course, they share a few traits, but overall, the differences are far more pronounced.

Therefore, it is a false dichotomy to simply label them as traditional distros versus immutable distros. Beyond these names, which we have assigned to them, these labels don't actually adequately explain how these systems work, how they interact, how their immutability is achieved (if at all), what underlying technologies they use, or how they manage user interactions. The implications of the above. Etc.

Could this help Linux reach more mainstream audiences?

The success of the Steam Deck and its SteamOS are the most striking and clear proof of this. So, yes. Absolutely.

1. Not accounting SteamOS users.

I think they're great. I've got two Linux newbies running some Ublue variant with no issues