this post was submitted on 21 Apr 2025
116 points (96.8% liked)

Linux

53538 readers
1205 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

Related Communities

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

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Look, I've only been a Linux user for a couple of years, but if there's one thing I've learned, it's that we're not afraid to tinker. Most of us came from Windows or macOS at some point, ditching the mainstream for better control, privacy, or just to escape the corporate BS. We're the people who choose the harder path when we think it's worth it.

Which is why I find it so damn interesting that atomic distros haven't caught on more. The landscape is incredibly diverse now - from gaming-focused Bazzite to the purely functional philosophy of Guix System. These distros couldn't be more different in their approaches, but they all share this core atomic DNA.

These systems offer some seriously compelling stuff - updates that either work 100% or roll back automatically, no more "oops I bricked my system" moments, better security through immutability, and way fewer update headaches.

So what gives? Why aren't more of us jumping on board? From my conversations and personal experience, I think it boils down to a few things:

Our current setups already work fine. Let's be honest - when you've spent years perfecting your Arch or Debian setup, the thought of learning a whole new paradigm feels exhausting. Why fix what isn't broken, right?

The learning curve seems steep. Yes, you can do pretty much everything on atomic distros that you can on traditional ones, but the how is different. Instead of apt install whatever and editing config files directly, you're suddenly dealing with containers, layering, or declarative configs. It's not necessarily harder, just... different.

The docs can be sparse. Traditional distros have decades of guides, forum posts, and StackExchange answers. Atomic systems? Not nearly as much. When something breaks at 2am, knowing there's a million Google results for your error message is comforting.

I've been thinking about this because Linux has overcome similar hurdles before. Remember when gaming on Linux was basically impossible? Now we have the Steam Deck running an immutable SteamOS (of all things!) and my non-Linux friends are buying them without even realizing they're using Linux. It just works.

So I'm genuinely curious - what's keeping YOU from switching to an atomic distro? Is it specific software you need? Concerns about customization? Just can't be bothered to learn new tricks?

Your answers might actually help developers focus on the right pain points. The atomic approach makes so much sense on paper that I'm convinced it's the future - we just need to figure out what's stopping people from making the jump today.

So what would it actually take to get you to switch? I'm all ears.

(page 2) 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 5 points 4 days ago

Really cool in terms of rebasing and rollback, but Flatpak isn't there yet (for me at least). Introduces lots of complexity without much benefit for me. They have their uses, but not for me yet. And honestly, I haven't bricked my system in long enough that I don't consider it a benefit I really care for.

Don't get me wrong, they are cool, and I hope development is continued but they aren't for me just yet.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 4 days ago

I haven't tried them, so I cannot judge, but I'm just afraid I'll run into issues when I will have to go off the beaten path. Inevitably I'll have to do something hacky in order to fix some obscure software that the maintainers of the distro didn't think of, and that's currently already a big pain. But in such a strict setting it will be even more difficult. There will be no documentation and probably no guide or questions/answers on any forum either.

I'd be willing to try it for a productivity setup if I needed a reinstall, but not for my main PC because I just rely on too many hacks to get shit working.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 4 days ago (1 children)

Atomic/immutable distros are just another tool in the tool box. It is great for systems with a limited use scenario like the SteamDeck or HTPCs. I also love to install immutable distributions on systems where the user (often IT-illiterate) and the administrator are different people.

On my desktop PC I will, for the foreseeable future, use a normal distro (ArchLinux in my case) but i am planing to look into changing my servers to immutable with docker. That could make updates/maintenance easier and reduce the risk for full server compromises

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 5 points 4 days ago

It's cool but it's just more hassle than it's worth at the moment.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 4 days ago

what’s keeping YOU from switching to an atomic distro?

I'm not interested, Fedora is ok.

we just need to figure out what’s stopping people from making the jump

Not everybody is interested. And certainly not everybody thinks that immutable distros are the end of history. Just you.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 4 days ago (2 children)

My current setup works perfectly fine, haven't bricked my system in half a decade.
The learning curve seems steep. It seems to introduce a lot of complexity without much benefit for me. Docs are sparse and everything that is already out there is written with "traditional" setups in mind.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] [email protected] 4 points 4 days ago

i'm currently using bazzite and nixos

two very different approaches to atomic, i'm not sure which one is better

one does the stable gaming thing very well and the other does magical things that are very impressive and efficient

honestly don't know which approach will prove to be most beneficial

[–] [email protected] 6 points 4 days ago

nothing. I am a bazzite and bluefin convert. it feels like a dream after 20+ years of futzing about with Linux.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 4 days ago

I did, then I came back to arch because I couldn't get vr working after more than a year of using nixos. I may come back though, my config still exists

[–] [email protected] 3 points 4 days ago

updates that either work 100% or roll back automatically, no more “oops I bricked my system” moments, better security through immutability, and way fewer update headaches.

i have used arch derivatives for 3 years and only fucked my system once, it took less than half an hour to fix so this isn't particularly compelling for me

chasing the new hotness is not something i do with my daily driver, might check it out on a laptop if i'm bored

[–] [email protected] 5 points 4 days ago

i use arch. I've got it set up and it works really well for me. I'd only switch if I had some feature I needed in atomic that I can't have in arch. (not just a feature atomic has, but a feature I need that atomic has)

[–] [email protected] 8 points 4 days ago (1 children)

The reason most people still stick with windows/Macs. Current OS just works. I personally run mint, it works.

Before this i run windows 10 LTSC. The only reason i jump to mint is because it is almost the same as windows.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 4 days ago

Pretty much me.

I've been daily driving debian for many years. I'm very comfortable here.

In 2025 with docker containers and flatpaks the benefits of an atomic OS don't feel very compelling.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago) (1 children)

Back in the day when embedded devices are running Linux kernel 2.6, the kernel is gzipped and saved to an SPI flash, then extracted to RAM and run from there.

Does that sound immutable enough to you?

The decision on this design wasn't for an immutable system, but just that flash chips were expensive. Immutability was an accidental achievement.

Actually we developers dreamed every day we can directly modify the operating system ad hoc, not needing to go through the compile-flash-boot agonising process just to debug a config file.

You see, my point is, when a system is in good hands, it just does not break. End of story.

Maybe the next time before you guys press Enter after pacman -Syyu (not exclusively saying your distro is bad, Arch pals, sorry), think about the risk and recovery plan. If you are just an end user expecting 100% uptime and rarely contributing (reporting bugs at least), consider switch to a more stable distro (I heard Debian is good), and ask yourself if you want an immutable distro, or do you just want a super stable system.

[–] [email protected] -2 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago)

dreamed everyday

every day. Two words, my dude.

go through the compile-flash-boot agonising process just to debug a config file.

Overlayfs was a thing since; what, Kernel 2.2? We had debugging and in-situ mods where required.

[–] [email protected] 18 points 4 days ago (2 children)

I wonder if OP and about 3/4 of the people in here understand the difference between atomic and immutable.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 4 days ago (1 children)

I'm not sure I do, please can you explain?

[–] [email protected] 13 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago) (1 children)

Atomic distros update in a monolithic block and if it fails, it's as if no part of it occurred.

Immutable distros have a readonly filesystem and you can't change any part of the system without explicitly remounting the files to write, then doing your updates. It's not necessarily atomic when that update occurs, either.

You don't need to layer or containerize applications you install in an atomic system, you can install an application as normal with the system package manager, it just has to complete successfully to be installed, then it becomes part of the overall A/B update system.

Immutable distros need to containerize the installations, or use layering to apply applications to the underlying RO filesystem, which makes installing software rather a pain in the ass at times.

OP keeps using the word "atomic" but the questions and explanation are more about "immutable". And my answer to them about why wouldn't I use an immutable system is pretty much the last, installing/updating/troubleshooting non-system software is a pain in the ass. On a dev station, it's a nightmare.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 2 points 4 days ago

An atomic distro is one which is in my understanding, has a basis in libostree, right? I'm familiar with the Fedora/RedHat versions but not any others.

Immutable distributions, for me to are wonderful when they are sparse. I don't want anything on my OS which I don't use at least once on a while.

If I install Fedora (RPM) Workstation to a large extent I can remove programs that I don't want. Whereas SilverBlue (libostree), I'm stuck with whatever the maintainers template (is there a blocking mechanism?).

However, with sparse Fedora-IoT, I can't break it - to a large extent - and it doesn't have anything I don't want.

I always install minimal versions of OSs, from Fedora (Everything iso), to Debian (debootstrap) to ArchLinux to Exherbo to Talos, just keep them cleaner longer. Then I fix them until they break!

I think they're ideal for those starting out in Linux because they are not ready to break; not saying that they're not for others too.

There's enough documentation, at least for Fedora atomic distros, to make your own custom spin.

I'm not switching for any desktop, unless the basic OS is minimal; but have switched for Raspberry Pi OS to Fedora IoT (atomic distro), at least temporarily.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago)

My main reason is one you listed. My setup works well for me; I enjoy it; and I don't feel the need to fix what ain't broke (when the "fix" likely involves breaking a lot of things I need to fix, and generally a lot of time and effort). Plus, from what I can tell, if you are particular about parts of your system, the immutable distros on offer are not diverse enough to cater to you—eg can I use my preferred init system, runit? All the immutable distros I know are systemd (which I am not a big hater of, but I like and am accustomed to runit already).

Edit: saw what you said at the end about what it would take for me to switch. It would be if I had a real use case for it, eg I regularly had problems that an immutable distro would solve, or I could see a way that an immutable distro would drastically improve my workflow.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago)

ive been meaning to even try another distro for a while, regardless of being immutable or not.

but my machine works just fine how it is. why change it?

[–] [email protected] 17 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago) (4 children)
  1. I don't really want to use Containerized packaging (flatpak,appimage nixos solves this nicely but its not my distro)
  2. They don't offer many desktop envoirments (typo sorry but nixos also solves this )
  3. I like my current distro
[–] [email protected] 1 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago) (1 children)

NixOS even has Cosmic, so the DE thing isn't true

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] -4 points 4 days ago (1 children)

Containerized packaging is toxic. Let them learn on their own time and not take you down with them!

[–] [email protected] 5 points 4 days ago

What does that mean ?

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] [email protected] 7 points 4 days ago (2 children)

I really like Debian stable, and have for a very long time. I'm not too fearful of fucking up the system because Debian stable is more stable than most anvils, and I have timeshift installed with regular backups configured which get stored locally and to a RAID 5 array on my NAS system (which is also running Debian). Anything super duper important I also put onto a cloud host I have in Switzerland.

If I want to do something insane to the system, which is rare, then I test it extensively in virtualization first until I am comfortable enough to do it on my actual system, take backups, and then do it.

I am working to make my backup/disaster recovery solution even better, but as it stands I could blow my PC up with a stick of dynamite and have a working system running a day later with access to all of my stuff as it was this morning so long as a store that sells system hardware is open locally. If it were a disk failure, or something in software, It would take less than a day to recover.

So what keeps me from switching is that I really do not see a need to, and I like my OS.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 4 days ago

Same. Been using debian stable for over two decades. It does everything I need,

At work we use EL distros in vms. All of them are backed up by image every 3 hours, so a non-booting system is generally best dealt with by simply restoring the whole vm from before the change.

I'm not opposed to atomics, but I don't have the need and haven't yet invested much time into learning their differences.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 4 days ago (1 children)

Similar for me. Debian works.

And I'm just too busy with other things to bother trying different distros. I want my computer to work with a minimum of fuss.

That said Bazzite does sound interesting and might go on my gaming system. Debian stable isn't the best choice for that. Lol

[–] [email protected] 3 points 4 days ago (1 children)

Yea I like to play around with some different distros in virtualization occasionally to see what's up, but I have found Debian just always meets my needs 98% of the way in addition to basically never breaking.

I know Bazzite is built specifically for gaming, but I can play pretty much everything I want on Debian using my Nvidia card and Proton. The Nvidia drivers were a lot easier to install than I think a lot of people make them out to be, but I might just be lucky with my hardware or something. Armored Core VI runs great for example, and I'm even using Gnome, not KDE.

In my experience I'm kind of hard pressed to see the benefit of Bazzite over Debian when it comes to gaming actually, but I don't know a tonne about Bazzite so I'll digress.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 4 days ago

I struggled getting Zwift (online cycling game) running on Debian, and the issue turned out to be that WINE on Debian is a major version behind.

I did get it working, and everything else works (retro game emulators), but it's like, huh maybe that wasn't the best choice.

[–] [email protected] 8 points 4 days ago

You just said it yourself. I do like to tinker. I can install a distro in 15 minutes. I can fix my system. I do make backups. Why would I need or want an atomic distro again?

[–] [email protected] 2 points 4 days ago (1 children)

For me it's too much time investment, I don't want to tinker with my OS. The fact that it's so common to screw up a system that atomic distros are becoming much more popular is a good example, I want an OS that doesn't get screwed up in the first place.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 4 days ago

Sorta-mostly agree. I'm not afraid to tinker, but I don't really care to either. To some extent the pitch for immutable distros are that you won't ruin everything if you fiddle with them. The Linux I installed years ago didn't require fiddling, and hopefully doesn't need a lot of protection from me anyway. If I was setting up a new machine today I might try an immutable distro, but I'm not going to replace a perfectly cromulent install I already have unless there's a problem.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 4 days ago

Because it took me a few years to create my perfect Fedora workstation installation.

If one days it becomes bricked, I’d probably switch to an immitable distribution, but I’m sticking with workstation as long as it works.

Also there is no real upside to switching for me.

load more comments
view more: ‹ prev next ›