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.

The whole point of Linux is to tinker, immutable distros destroy the whole point, not to mention, it's a very windows-approach

Not to mention there's no guarantee if security even with Immutable distros

I have a really hard time getting Aurora working the way all my other Linux devices so that are running some form of Ubuntu (Mate or Bodhi). With that said, it's been very stable and i like not being interrupted with packages to install while working on things...

Mixed bag review. I give it 3.5 out of 5 stars.

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.

I don't work in tech but I love to tinker , have a home lab etc. I love using Linux for this, been on Linux for close to 20 years.

Got a steam deck little over a year ago, it was my first immutable

I just moved to an immutable silver blue. Been loving it so far. There's a few things I have issues with, but it's "just works". I still distro hop and fuck around breaking my system for fun from time to time, hahahah. But having my main system on immutable has been great.

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.

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

Immutable vs Mutable

weird        normal

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

• 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 love building my own uBlue image. Tinkering is done in toolbox containers, definite changes are baked into the image. Completely custom (to me) and when you get it right it will just work anywhere. If I would brick my PC/storage I can just boot up another and restore my (back-upped) home dir with very little effort.

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

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 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.