Linux

47368 readers

887 users here now

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Linux is a family of open source Unix-like operating systems based on the Linux kernel, an operating system kernel first released on September 17, 1991 by Linus Torvalds. Linux is typically packaged in a Linux distribution (or distro for short).

Distributions include the Linux kernel and supporting system software and libraries, many of which are provided by the GNU Project. Many Linux distributions use the word "Linux" in their name, but the Free Software Foundation uses the name GNU/Linux to emphasize the importance of GNU software, causing some controversy.

Rules

Posts must be relevant to operating systems running the Linux kernel. GNU/Linux or otherwise.
No misinformation
No NSFW content
No hate speech, bigotry, etc

Related Communities

Community icon by Alpár-Etele Méder, licensed under CC BY 3.0

founded 5 years ago

MODERATORS

[email protected]

Opinions on immutable distros (lemmy.zip)

submitted 11 months ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

7 comments fedilink hide all child comments

Hey! I’m currently on Fedora Workstation and I’m getting bored. Nothing in particular. I’ve heard about immutable distros and I’m thinking about Fedora Kinoite. The idea is interesting but idk if it’s worth it. CPU and GPU are AMD. Mostly used for gaming.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] [email protected] 0 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (1 children)

I see many people here wondering, why they should consider an immutable system.
As someone, who thought the same a few months ago, and now chose Silverblue, here are reasons why:

Atomic updates: never worry about half applied installations anymore. Either your OS updates successfully, or it will just work like before.
Less bugs and better security: every install is the same, so devs can fix one bug or exploit, recreatable on every system.
Automatic updates (configurable): they get downloaded by the way, without you noticing. And if you reboot anyway, you boot into your updated OS. No waiting times. The system manages itself.
Way harder to break
Changes are easily undoable: if an update breaks anything, you can just select another image and reboot, without recovering anything.
No junk accumulation over time, the OS is kept clean
Clear distinction between "your" stuff and the OS
You can "swap out" the base OS cleanly and keep your stuff. Want KDE? No need to reinstall, just paste one command and delete everything Gnome-related, and you are now on Kinoite.
Flexibility: choose between dozens of different images, like one that replicates SteamOS or Ubuntu, has the MS Surface kernel build in, offers Hyprland, and so on...
And much more!

My #1 reason is, that everything is worry free.

Those advantages above don't apply to "normal" OSs, even, if I keep everything in Distrobox and Flatpaks.

Immutable OSs aren't called "The future of Linux" without reason. They usually shouldn't impair anyone, and make the whole Linux ecosystem better in any aspect.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

I'm sorry but none of the above sound different from a regular distro. Maybe I haven't got the gist. You can have snapshots and atomic updates on a regular distro, you don't have to reinstall to switch from Gnome to KDE, I can install all kinds of stuff cleanly anyway thanks to package managers, I don't use root often so the system files are effectively read-only as far as I'm concerned, and so on.

As far as security is concerned I don't see the big deal, I mean I get why a read-only OS would in theory be harder to break into but it can still be modified for updates so I guess it's not really "immutable" after all.

What am I missing?

Edit: before anybody points it out, I do know about the rebase layers and I think it's an interesting approach, but ultimately still gets the same results as packages. It may be helpful for distro builders but doesn't make much difference as a user.