Linux

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

Then you have NixOS, which is declarative, and fairly immutable.

You don't have to reboot to make changes, but you can't just run unlinked binaries either.

You can't do things like edit your hosts table or modify the FS for cron jobs. The application store is unwritable, but you can sync new apps into it .

You have to make changes to the config file and run a rebuild as root.

I don't mind flatpaks in a pinch, but having to use them for literally every app on my computer is an unreasonable amount of bloat.

I'm much more comfortable trying things that I'm not sure will (or expect not to) work. I can just blast the toolbox or whatever afterwards.

Compare to some of my earlier forays into Linux, where I'd do some nonsense and then attempts to remove said nonsense would break some other load-bearing part of the OS.

From an advertising perspective, it's important to think about who you're targeting. Who are your likely customers? Certainly there are some based on the strengths that you raised.

However, some people are definitely not a good target audience, and some people is actually a very large group of people. There are a lot of current and potential users who essentially want the standard major applications to work, and they're not going to touch the root partition, and they want things to be very simple. For people like that, Debian or Ubuntu or Fedora already do what they want. And these major operating systems have been around for so long that people will naturally be more confident using them, because they were their friends have experience, or because they think the organization has more stability because of its experience.

Of course a lot of things depend on how you define words, but to me the above paragraph describes the mainstream audience, and I don't think you're going to have much luck reaching them, because I don't think the thing you're trying to sell gives them extra value. In other words, it's not solving a problem for them, so why should they care.

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.

• 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.

I am a big fan of breaking my system

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 think it's good if you have a ton of storage and want to set it and forget it. For me, immutable depresses me. I came to Linux for the tinkering and the ability to do what I please to my system, not to be restricted. That's just me, though. For handhelds/strictly gaming machine (a Steam machine for example)? I think immutable is the perfect fit for it.

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

is nixos considered immutable or mutable? kind of has characteristics of both.

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 am a huge fan of immutable distributions, not for my personal daily driver but for secondary systems like my living room/home theater PC.

I used an immutable fedora on my surface pro 4, I wanted to shoot myself in the face every time I had to install anything. I'm good on that for the rest of my natural life.

For my needs, I've build a static system with buildroot for a pi zero. No updates, no modifications on the system, no remote access. Some directories are in tempfs, and after a reboot the system is fresh again. when needed, I removed the sd card and copy a new image

I use this board for a pulseaudio/mpd player, it's not intended for a desktop usage, but I'm happy beiing able to configure a system like this one. For me, there is no maintenance, and this is exactly what I wanted

I have investigated the idea and came to the conclusion that immutable distros are essentially a research project. They attempt to advance the state-of-art a slight bit but the cost is currently too great.

Perhaps somebody will some day create something that's worth switching to. But I don't think that has happened yet, or is happening with any of the current distros. Silverblue might become that with enough polish, but I feel that to get that amount of polish, they would have to make Silverblue the 1st class citizen, i.e. the default install of Fedora.

Appimages, flatpaks, snaps

Former OS security guy. Fuck no. Nope nope nope nope.