Believer or not, you are doing the Lord's work. I am very serious about transitioning to Linux as main OS and I find your videos very educational. PS: This is not a spam message.
**Something** like immutable/atomic systems will be necessary if people are really serious about ever seeing widespread Linux adoption. I am most encouraged by the Universal Blue offerings.
No, you don't lose control. Immutable just has a different structure. If you still want to tinker in the root files, you can do that if you select the right base. Blend, Vanilla, Aeon, and certainly uBlue systems can do it. OMFG the uBlue users are going hog wild.
uBlue and VanillaOS make it easy to edit the default image via blue-builder and Vib. They are declarative config files like NixOS' (though arguably simpler). VanillaOS even has the ABroot command that gives you all the freedom of root.
Which is why I would suggest leaving the 'Atomic' part of the system to the 'maintainers', there are lots of other 'advantages' and 'best practice' workflows that the end user should be concerning themselves with. If a User wants to be a 'Distro hopper/Desktop Ricer' then I would recommend a regular Distro with 'Vim & Emacs' as 'one possible solution' ;-)
If you are an enthusiast who wants to customize perhaps they're not a good choice, you might as well just use a distro that doesn't make you go through a bunch of hoops to do the same thing, but many people use their desktops and laptops as no more than an appliance to launch a web browser or application, or VMs and containers. Immutables seem like the best idea for such users, as they can do whatever they want without worrying of disturbing the correct function of the "black box" providing the platform for them.
Running Bazzite (Fedora Kinoite gaming spin) here and it's been great on my gaming desktop. I use flatpaks and distrobox and everything has been fine. Love the ability to roll back to a stable image if needed.
No one forces people to use them they are geared towards a specific use case. Only issue is the people having fomo and then getting upset it's not the same thing they are used to or doesn't fit there use case. Pretty happy with them but nothing has to be for everyone.
Haven't watched your video, but immutable distros have an obvious place in the "marketplace" for people who are not very tech savvy but who want an operating system that is reliable and not going to break because of mismatched dependencies, but will keep their "aged" hardware running safely. Such people don't have the time or knowhow to be able to research the fix. To say they are taking over, however is pure hyperbole...
I found on all immutable or atomic systems, you can always easily change the automatic update timer to switch it off if you on metered connection or on holidays.
Immutable distros sound like a godsend for corporations that want things large scale, locked down, and low risk. Something a tinkerer would hate unless they were the ones deploying the images, but even then, you would have to get past change control. The cattle vs. pet's server issue has come to the desktop.
@@sebastianbauer4768 I worked for a company that manufactured detectors that went on Electron microscopes. Of course, we supplied a computer with windows. Considering how specialized was their use, they should have been locked down to everything and everyone, including Windows Updates. In fact, in many companies and Universities the lab manager would disconnect the local USB ports and would have the users go to another computer on the network to save their data to a usb stick. An immutable distro would be perfect for user and the manufacturing company to avoid borking the system which could require a $5000+ visit from an engineer.
@@sebastianbauer4768 My perspective is a bit skewed as someone that works for an insurance company... In the corporate Microsoft world the trend is to lock down the windows desktop with group policy as much as possible, and only use approved services to get your work done, many financial services require this for cyber security and to meet audit requirements. Ideally (in the dystopian sense of the word) such approved services have a full audit trail as well. To me immutable distros look like a Linux answer to the desktop problem, and given how customisable Linux is, it could go way beyond the capabilities of windows group policy. Like the video was suggesting there isn't much reason for a hobbyist to install an immutable distro. The only reason I would do it, would be to tinker and figure out how they work so I could get a comfy corporate job doing it. Working through the subtle bugs and building everything from code in your lab environment can be fun for a hobbyist, but it really pays off if you are going to deploy it to a production environment with 1000+ desktops. These 1000 desktops are then unchangeable/immutable until the next deployment is approved. And ofcourse the immutable distro makers are more than willing to sell such companies some extra closed source tools and support to make that happen, kind of like how enterprise RedHat funds free Fedora to make enterprise RedHat better.
@@sebastianbauer4768 It still creates enough of a wall to make the stuff only the IT guy should be touching, get touched by the IT guy alone. For a company, that can be attractive as there is less of a chance that someone not as well versed with a computer can't work because they messed up a system folder. It's basically the equivalent of putting the solvents and detergents on the high shelf or in a locked cabinet so a toddler doesn't drink it. Sure a particularly determined kid might be able to move and climb a ladder and circumvent the lock, but you can hope someone smart enough to do it is also going to be smart enough not to drink the funny liquid in the colourful bottles.
@@cdgonepotatoes4219 not sure what you mean. The purpose of immutable systems isn’t to prevent people from screwing them up, it’s to prevent the system from getting into a unknown state so that automatic systems like updates no longer can produce known results. Frankly a lot of applications are writing to directories they really shouldn’t be writing to. What being immutable does is make sure only the distribution tools(which make the system mutable in some form) are writing to these directories, thus the distribution creators can reasonably predict the current state of the system and safely transform it to a different state without destroying user data. That’s why for example fedora atomic can transition from one spin to another(called rebasing) by literally ripping out the entire base system and replacing it with another and it’ll be as clean as a fresh install. The problem with not immutable systems is that, yes, you can change stuff in /usr/bin or /lib. But that will break horribly the next time the package manager updates the things you changed, either undoing them or failing. Anyone knowledgeable enough to safely work in areas controlled by automatic tools is knowledgeable enough to do it in a immutable system as well.
Honestly sounds great considering everytime I misinstall, misconfigure, or just want to uninstall something that didn't come from package manager I have to reinstall my os. That and my os nukeing it's self from a failed graphics driver update on a regular basis. There's a reason I am back on Windows 10.
As effectively and functionally a computing ignoramus (although I do try to keep up {& thank you}) Linux is brilliant because if it breaks I just download "it" (usually a new Puppy Linux) again and off I go. ...Whereas with Windoze or Mac I have absolutely no idea if it falls over. If most people could just get over the appearance of the the desktop fixation... [Continued on page 94]
Still on 10, but I have a mini with Mint! I hold my breath in horrific anticipation every time I turn my updates on in 10! Of course, I DO NOT let Microsoft update my computer automatically, so when I turn it on I expect the worst! Every time I update that system, I have to reboot the system in order for whatever update they're insisting I need to download. The process never takes under an hour. Updates with Mint......2 minutes and I'm done! Bye Windows!
Interesting, but "You will lose control over your system." As soon as I heard that it put me off. I am running Debian stable, but I need to be able to configure my system which requires editing system files manually. I don't want any additional hassle. Also, I use a small 60Gb SSD as a boot drive, and my home directory resides on my RAID. I have another 60Gb SSD and every time I make any changes or install new software over and above general updates, I clone my boot drive using DD. If anything goes wrong, I have a good copy to boot from.
I wouldn't go that far: stating that the immutable distros take over. But it definitely is something which will stay for the many users who benefit from it. For a geek/nerd/tweaker these distros are horrible, for regular users who don't need to install that much software, who don't demand the highest possible performance (Flatpak instead of regular package) and who just want a stable system immutable distro's are great. I myself prefer to have easier access to most of my system. I expect that we will see a division: some immutable distros will become more popular, some of the regular distros like Arch will remain very popular.
NixOS is great for tinkering, not sure about other distros. If you’re a big enough nerd to want to tinker with your system you’re a big enough nerd to learn nix.
@@cenunix Arch, Fedora or OpenSUSE gecko with nix next to the AUR/copr/whatever_OpenSUSE_uses could also be an interesting option. Possibly this is the ideal solution for tinkerers. Whenever you are not happy with one solution you use the other. Arch is a good distro (the packagemanager is excellent) but there were a few problems in the last years, the biggest ones that they had a nonfunctional glibc for many games and backporting a gamebreaking bug from AMD in the kernel to the LTS-kernel. The first problem (glibc) had to do with many game-developers using the wrong oldfashioned method for hashing and the Arch-glibc-packager having a beef with that and refusing to compile glibc with support for the oldfashioned hash-method. The 2nd problem was very interesting: an AMD-developer made a > vs >= mistake which made the CPU only see 256 MB of graphics card memory at any time. Ironically the AMD-developer missed this bug due to newer AMD CPU's and GPu's allowing the CPU to see all the graphics card memory at any time if you turn resizable bar on, but many of us have either an older CPU (Zen2 or older) or older graphics card (RDNA1 or older). I knew what was going on when I noticed that my buddy did not have this problem on his Arch system, he has a 6900 XT and 5900X.
I am an SA. Where I work an immutable distribution would not work because we have scientific users who also are developers. Yes. They break things regularly. But then they sometimes need tools and packages that are not part of the standard environment. There are cases where immutable might make sense when the user doesn’t need to add or make changes to the system or add applications outside the standard environment. Of course, snaps or flatpaks bypass limitations for users on immutable distributions.
Sorry but your statement about the security benefits is totally weak and half-baked. That phishing and adware are the most common maleware is only true for the private person. Your oversight lies in who uses Linux and who is interested in it. For organization and institutions like schools, universities, hospitals, authorities and business, the biggest threat is ransomware at the moment. It causes data lost and huge downtimes. Immutable OS makes ransomware attacks much harder. You can't encrypt a read-only partition. Immutable OS are much more interesting for people who wanna let other people with low competence use PCs to get work done. Immutable OS doesn't eliminate the damage on the rest of the system but can be helpful for prevention and plays a key part in damage regulation.
Ransomware encrypts to user data partitions, which is accessible. You are correct about industry/business, which I did address as being one of the good use-cases for this model.
@@SwitchedtoLinux The issue of ransomware doesn't just lie in encrypted data from users. Well organized institutions have backup solutions to minimize the data loss. You still lose the latest data created but you're still able to recover most data. The biggest damage is done by spreading malware that goes deeper into the system and ransomware that encrypt data of the operating system. This causes huge investigation tasks and long downtimes to reinstall the OS. I experienced the downtime caused by Crowdstrike in my job. We couldn't work and to avoid further financial issues, we took minus hours to minimize wage costs for our already poorly performing company. While it was just a bug, such an issue proves the importance of atomic OS to maximize the runtime and minimize financial loss.
Every now and then I install Linux and test it. The easiest to install and use is Linux Mint however I always find the same issues. Hard to install programs and sometimes difficult to even find certain programs. For example I have a Lightscribe DVD writer. I can find a few programs for Writing DVD's but can't use the Lightscribe part of the Writer for labeling the DVD. Another example is I have NordVPN but it is much more difficult to use on Linux. You have to use the terminal to change servers on Linux but on Windows you use an interactive map and just click on the city or country. Basically I feel you should be able to just click on a program to install it just like in windows.
That's not a limitation with Linux, that's a limitation with NordVPN. Proton VPN and Surfshark VPN has a GUI on Linux. Said GUI is on Flathub, meaning that on SteamOS, Fedora, Mint, and others it's as simple as opening App Store GUI and selecting install for those apps.
Then you can just use Blue Build coupled with Nix Home Manager. Is how I manage my system - my system image is configured semi-declaratively in a github recipe file and the user config files I care about is managed by home-manager (which also manages my flatpak and distrobox setups) on a separate github repo.
I would also like to add speaking of containers and isolation and now this whole immutable trend. Another cool concept of btrfs is that you can have a distro within a distro (yes, you read that right) you simply create a subvol anywhere on the desktop, (be easier if its on the root dir but subvols don't really care where its created) extract a base image of a distro along with its kernel (be sure to preserve its permissions while extracting). You then reboot your system. Then you manually tell grub to boot into that subvol using the rootflags options and presto. you are now booting into another distro, unaware that its residing on the desktop (or wherever that subvol is residing) of your main distro. you could even do a sudo rm -rf / to it and no data loss because you are booted inside of it. Your main distro will still be intact once you reboot again. If that's not containment, then i don't know what is.
Immutables are great, however there are some malicious forces behind the open source scene pushing more restrictive things and there is an obvious push towards centralisation, so if we not carefull Linux distros can become as restricive as android or worse ios/windows also appimage is better sure you have to containerise them yourself but it follows the linux design better do one thing and do it well both snaps and flats are trying to replace package managers with a unified system/ if your distro doesnt support flats or snaps you have to install the support packages while appimages just work if done right no need to install anything. which is what it all started with portability
It will not. Just today, someone makes a separate repo for wayland protocols. If even wayland protocol can be forked, then so can the very open build process for these "immutable" distro (hell, I did it with 7 clicks, and that was back when Universal Blue hasn't refined the system into the separate Blue Build system today).
In terms of security, it should also be noted when all applications are snap or flatpak then every application is also sandboxed thereby limiting what they can and can't do.
Debian doesn’t really need to be immutable seriously…it is very stable by itself and is not a rolling release….it already feels like a immutable distro.
LTS distros such as Debian and Ubuntu would actually benefit from the immutable model when it comes to upgrading the system from one major version to the other, which would be a much faster and more reliable process than in a traditional distro, where if you upgrade and are not careful you can easily break the entire system, especially when you have third-party repos installed.
Whaaa? The whole point is you do indeed install things but not suffer breaks. What good is Linux if you must worry about dependency conflicts? Or the whole issue of cruft which builds up over time.
Immutable is not for rolling distros. Debian would benefit from immutability as much as any other distro. OSTree is like having your entire distro in a git repo
It's not just about stability. It's also about security. If your OS partition is mounted as read-only, it's harder for attackers to install maleware into the OS. They not only have to bypass the user rights management, but also either bypass the write protection, or design the attack around the distro package manager and wait for the user to reboot. In addition, the containerization allows users to install programs without the need to access the OS file system which means there's no reason to install programs into it. Even though these programs are friendly when installed, they can turn evil with just an update. Limiting the access to the OS file system reduces the attack surface further. And it also limits how much damage the user can cause to the system too. While you only look at what you do with Debian, organizations and institutions like schools, universities, business and authorities don't wanna deal with an OS where users can cause much damage. They want an OS with high reliability, easiness to maintain, reduced downtimes, and lowest security threats. An immutable OS is here much a no-brainer move.
I use Tumbleweed with Btrfs and YAST system snapshots. It's kinda like a poor man's immutable system in that the snapshot tools automatically takes system snapshots that I can rollback to whenever needed. So it's immutable but you have to do it manually. But that's OK with me. I can change whatever I want and get the benefits of immutability. Nice.
Getting real sick of techbros in the Linux space deciding everything needs to be "image-based" and "containered". If I wanted that kind of restrictive behavior, I wouldn't be using Linux, I'd be using a Mac. Stop trying to steal marketshare from Apple, you're not going to beat them at making OSs for the Fisher-Price set.
I agree with your statement about NixOS being too complicated for the "normal"(?) user. I know there are a) situations where control of your distro at the molecular level is needful and b) some personalities obsess to the degree that they MUST control things to the molecular level, but dat ain't me, thankfully. And I think that's true for most Linux users (and most of the Windows users coming to Linux and the ones we're trying to attract to Linux)...we just want to get stuff done without faffing about with endless OS details. As a writer, I have WAY too many distractions already! Don't push me down another rabbit hole. To that end I remain on Debian systems (LMDE6 now and happy).
Nixos is immutable but otherwise completely different from the others as it does not rely on containers and is not built in the same way. It uses a native, highly robust approach to isolating dependencies, allowing simultaneous installation of multiple versions of packages, etc. (You don't actually install things, you just add them to your configuration files.) It supports containers of course but they are rarely if ever necessary. Not for everyone certainly, with a steep learning curve to start because it relies on unfamiliar concepts like declarative system configuration and graphs instead of stacks. Poor documentation but great, helpful community. But once you start grokking it most things are actually much simpler to install, configure, reconfigure, uninstall cleanly, etc. than on traditional Linux. (And you never need to spend time getting a new computer set up just right. Do it once then just copy and build your system configs on any computer.)
The ARM-based versions of macOS (like iOS) stores the OS image on a separate partition in an immutable fashion. This is how it’s done on smartphones and even Windows has a system image.
Imagine you had a separate disk for the operating system, and your personal data elsewhere, like in a diary book with a lock and key that only you know where it is, and color slides of family reunions and vacations, weddings and funerals kept in the basement with the projector. No amount of cyber hacking will alarm you.
Eh, every competent Linux user already has his home-directories on another partition or another SSD. If you like that SSD encrtypted then it is very easy to set it up. Nothing new!
Define "elsewhere". If it's "elsewhere" in your PC or on you home network, it can be attacked. If it's not connected, it's probably safe - but then how much hassle is it for you to write data to it when you need to? Plus it isn't just the user writing files to a drive upon request anyway - the OS can be writing things to it as well in background (e.g. spooling emails) and if the disk isn't there to write to, then the system could lockk up or crash. So I am not sure what problem you believe you have solved there.
@@peterjansen4826 true, but Atomic systems go beyond just that ... but it's also true that the best practices basically forced on you by atomic systems can all be replicated on regular Linux Distros ... the real advantage is that you are forced (strongly encouraged) to follow good system management practices, (which also strongly encourages people who like to 'tinker' the tools to 'tinker' in a different direction than just Distro hoping and Desktop ricing. If you're into development and gaming, then the Atomic versions are well suited for a stable environment with all the tools (Bluefin has versions for development or gamers, and a few different desktop builds.) If you're into Distro hoping and 'ricing' then yeah, a regular Distro is probably where you should be for now.
@@RetiredInThailand I am definitely not into distro-hopping (I have been using the same distro in the last 5 years) or DE-hopping, I have been using dwm the last years and I don't see myself change that in many years into the future. I don't RICE much either. I just like it to be able to quickly install new software without having to take a bunch of extra steps. For example, yesterday (maybe late) I discovered the helix-editor, it basically is like a properly modified vim/nvim with all the basic features builtin in the text-editor, written in Rust. It is nice that I simply have to type sudo pacman -S helix and then within 2 seconds after typing my password it is on my system and I can use it. I don't have to first start a special environment, I don't have to take extra steps to be able to start it up easily the next time. Don't get me wrong, I like the concept of atomic distro's, I think that it is a great concept for at least around 50% of the Linux users. I love the idea of setting up the entire distro with a simple config-file which you can share and which you can use on later installs. Awesome! It just isn't the easiest solution for me at the moment. It is great though for people who do struggle to not break their system, it also is great for companies who want an easy and reliable setup for many PC's.
I think this will be really good for mainstream Linux distros. For my daily driver, if I need to use a specific version of python, I don't want to be able to accidentally destroy my system. I don't want all distros to follow this model though; I dual boot two Linux distros and one of them is specifically for experimenting.
Chrome OS is well-suited to this format because it's not supposed to be for tinkerers. When I had a Chromebook I only ever rebooted every 6 weeks when a new update came, and it was always rock solid. But I used Silverblue for a while and didn't find the benefits to outweigh the disadvantages. It's ironic that Fedora has one of the more recognisable immutable variants, because one of the stated benefits - stability - hardly applies to it due to the Workstation edition being so reliable!
Questions: How does software installation work? How about drivers? What about developer tools like compilers, installing libraries, etc., basically, what new hoops do I have to jump through to build and run my programs on immutable distros?
On fedora atomic distros they promote podman (non-root docker) for development environments and flatpak for user GUI applications. "toolbox create tmp" creates a container from the current equivalent non-atomic system image, with your /home,/dev,... bound to the originals but a separate /bin,/etc,... So you can use dnf like normal and install packages there. When you have some software you'll be using often (vim) or that's more relevant to run on the true host (qemu, desktop environment, drivers), you can apply "overrides" to the base image with "rpm-ostree install vim". Then whenever you download the image it will rebuild it with the additional packages, so you'll have that installed on the base system. toolbox is a nice system, you can have one throwaway and drop it then replace it regularly. And for those you want to keep you can have a "setup environment" shell script which imo is a neater way to go about it, or you can just upgrade the system like normal on each container. Adding drivers that are not packaged, or a custom kernel is where it gets a lot more complicated as you have to build your own package. At that point it's definitely easier to just use a regular distro and install it manually, as there isn't yet enough tooling for the average user to just be able to git clone and make install.
@@SwiatLinuksa Sometimes I just have to shake my head. I mean, linux users want software to be developed for linux right? (I've used linux for 15 years.) But it seems like instead of removing developer hassle, additional barriers keep getting built up. Let this sink in, game developers are choosing to target Proton not because they want to but because it is more feasible. Also why do the distros need to be immutable in order to download updates without overwriting the original files? We could still have the benefit of reverting to a previous update without resorting to the limitations of an immutable system.
6 дней назад
Overlays or something like toolbox, depending on what you need.
Thanks for the explanations, I have learn something new. Now let me reveal something to you in return: as you already know, there are hundreds of various distros, catering for needs of different people. Why do you want all of them do what you paricularly prefer doing? One cannot have it all. You have many choices that will do exactly what you wannt them to do. Complaining that ice cream isn't warm enough is pointless. It ought to be cold. And as per security, aren't the same issues relevant to most, if not all, distros that modern malware doesn't massively target kernel? We all must be vigilant and responsible online.
If you are unwilling to put in time and effort to learning something, then you will never know its limitations either. Anyone who has used Linux for a few years understands that it does NOT do everything - but for stuff it doesn't do, there's usually an alternative or a workaround, sometimes you might to do research to find it. The "me me me, now now now" generation of Steam Deck users who believe they are Linux experts don't want to do that research because they are too lazy. That, in turn, means they do not recognise the limitations of Linux and therefore have unrealistic expectations of it. Because their parents never said the word "no" to them, they expect to sit on their thrones and sulk until someone else fixes it for them, and usually free-of-charge.
@@terrydaktyllus1320uh, what? SteamOS is made to be a game console. But even then, SteamOS, Vanilla OS, blendOS, NixOS... They want user to properly understand their system when making change. You're not a smarter Linux user for installing packages via apt when flatpak, distrobox, or brew would have sufficed. Just because you're a racer doesn't mean you need to drive at 200km/s on a normal road.
@@FengLengshun "uh, what? SteamOS is made to be a game console." Yes, we agree so far. "But even then, SteamOS, Vanilla OS, blendOS, NixOS... They want user to properly understand their system when making change." Sorry, who wants to understand? Why would you use an immutable distro if you want to understand anything? That makes no sense as a statement. "Immutability" means "someone else takes responsibility for protecting you from your own mistakes. It's the opposite of "understanding". "You're not a smarter Linux user for installing packages via apt when flatpak, distrobox, or brew would have sufficed." Of course I am. As a Gentoo user that installs all packages from source, I have a very deep understanding of how its Portage package manager works and how to resolve any issues. Portage (and compiling from source) is different to binary package management because issues usually occur before you compile the code, not afterwards. "Just because you're a racer doesn't mean you need to drive at 200km/s on a normal road." I am not a "racer", especially as Gentoo has this silly "meme" about it that everything takes a long time to compile anyway. So it's a very poor analogy on your part.
When they work, they're great. I think they're actually more compact than Flatpak, but I'm not sure of that. What turned me against them was that they always failed at some point on two older laptops I had. (I write, so old hardware is great for me and I like repurposing!) I'm sure it was simply that the hardware drivers were too new for the laptops, but anything that didn't work perfectly on ALL of my hardware didn't make the cut. In contrast, Flatpaks have always worked on everything I've ever owned, so I just stick with them because they apparently have better coverage, at least in my case. Plus I don't like Canonical in the same way I don't like Microsoft or Apple. I really didn't like the way Canonical FORCED Snaps on me without me having to jump through a few hoops. Ubuntu usually is the gold-standard of driver support, but they failed me there when the Snaps wouldn't run, so that sticks with me. Canonical is Microsoft made over to me in the path they're taking with Ubuntu.
Yes: iOS, iPadOS, and macOS all have boot-verification on the OS. This can be surpassed if you know which developer tools to enable & security features to disable, however.
I don't understand the logic of buying a locked-down device in the first place and then cracking it open. Why not just buy a more open device from the beginning? It's like the people who buy Windows 10 and have to keep stripping the telemetry out every time Microsoft performs an update. They could better use that time just learning Linux as an Open OS instead and not fight against it.
@@terrydaktyllus1320 Most people probably aren't doing what you're suggesting, it's going to be a niche group; tinkerers, security researchers, OS developers, etc. I don't disagree with you, I've been trying to convince one of my uncles to switch to Linux for like 7 years. He's just stubborn as a mule & won't.
@@polymatrix "Most people probably aren't doing what you're suggesting," Sorry, what am I "suggesting"? You can read comments on YT every day with people defending their use of Windows because they can keep killing the telemetry on it. It's a fact, not a suggestion. "it's going to be a niche group; tinkerers, security researchers, OS developers, etc." So what, what has "the proportion of people" got to do with it anyway? The people that don't tinker with Windows won't ever use Linux anyway - so I am not even including them in my points. "I don't disagree with you," No, you do, you did so in the first paragraph - unless you're now doing a u-turn and contradicting yourself, of course... "I've been trying to convince one of my uncles to switch to Linux for like 7 years. He's just stubborn as a mule & won't." Where did I mention "convincing" people? I made an observation that time spent fighting an OS that doesn't do what you want it to do might be better spent learning a new OS that you don't fight against. I could care less what your uncle does or doesn't do ultimately.
@@polymatrix "Most people probably aren't doing what you're suggesting, it's going to be a niche group; tinkerers, security researchers, OS developers, etc." That's precisely the group I was talking about. People who don't tinker won't use Linux. Do try harder to keep up. "I don't disagree with you, I've been trying to convince one of my uncles to switch to Linux for like 7 years. He's just stubborn as a mule & won't." I am not trying to convince anyone - I simply make an observation that time is spent better learning a new OS that loves your privacy than fighting against one that hates it. Whilst I have no reason to not wish your uncle the very best of health and efficient computing, ultimately what he does or does not do has nothing to do with me.
ill let that one mature i rather want to break linux in all kinds of weird ways also i will never ever use user folders i do not use them on windows so not planning to use them on linux a rule i learned from windows is it will murder itself eventually and do i want to deal with recovery of files hell no i want my system volatile that said files i keep can be redownloaded so it aint the worst thing if i loose everything as i hold no value over even things i created as majority was created to waste time so guess i am wasting time once again
My main issue with an immutable system is that UNIX doesn't really make the distinction between system and user, and the user is going to need to be changing a ton of system files in everyday use (for instance, to configure the Wi-Fi). Even just altering the physical location of the device (like on a laptop) makes immutable distros difficult.
Most "immutable" distros aren't immutable, they just have atomic updates. On fedora atomic distros you can install rpms, add /usr overlays, edit /etc, and so on. The only thing that fedora atomic does that is inconvenient is requiring a reboot since overlaying and applying system changes requires you to reboot into the new root. Though that is not the case with things symlinked to /var and for /etc.
😂 i have been with computers since early 80ies and try to understand what immutable and atomic could mean in software? Maybe called something else in swedish
@@AndrewTSqImmutable is not later changable, we can create a new copy with a change, but the old state still exists/ Atomic is all or nothing. If both a and b need updating there is no partial state where a is update and b isn't yet.
Immutable usually refers to the system package manager /etc and /home are still writeable for obvious reasons. The point is to allow the system to be upgraded atomically and from a single source. And thus ensure it's easily rolled back to a BOOTABLE state. You can still mess up your permissions and lock yourself out of your account if you try hard enough of course. But you'd always be able to change the boot options to boot as root and fix your stuff, you'd never be in a situation where the only solution is to boot a secondary media.
Absolutely 100% bad thing. I need my operating systems as open and hackable as AmigaOS, because an OS should serve my purposes whatever they may be. Security should be achieved by easy and transparent sandboxing, not by locking down my access to my own computer.
No, companies, schools, hospital and military bases will continue to test their systems against predetermined security standards before being confident enough to deploy them. "Immutable" is not the same "indesctructible" or "completely secure". You need to become better informed on the topic.
Well Doc being and old guy and having the Atari computers and the Commodore and and even a Tandy 1000. Then building my 1st IBM X86 cloner and seeing what they could do was very disappointing. It took me a long time for me to see x86s computers to catch up with the Atari's and Amiga's. I remember the GUI's of those computers was amazing. Someplace we got away from the truth of an OS should only be seen when needed and able to share PC recourses not push adds and stuff you do not want on us. Do you thing we will ever get back to those days????
We're still in those days. Just choose a distro that works for you and lets you use Linux how you want to. You can even just get the source code yourself and build it your way.
Not with Windows or IOS but we've been there and are still there with Linux. Me: Timex/Sinclair 1000 --> Commodore 64 --> Commodore 128 --> IBM clone 386DX-40 --> a million self-built clones after that. I always wanted a Tandy CC2 and Amiga but didn't have the $$$ lol.
@@christ.4977 some of them are also declarative vs imperative to throw in another important distinction. It's all pretty exciting tbh. If you like that sort of tech that is ...
@@christ.4977the thing is: they change. Not even accounting for abroot or rpm-ostree command, you can change the files in etc for most of these distro.
You still have distributions of BSD to consider and all of the same foibles one may encounter in Linux, except BSD-flavoured. Worst still is trying to make Linux binaries run on it; BSD has the means with a compatibility layer, but it's not nearly as turn-key compared to many Linux distributions.
Absolutely, my thinking exactly. Linux has become a pile of garage hacks held together with duct tape. Under the hood it's incredibly messy. BSD is properly engineered, consistent, clean, follows Unix principles to the letter, and allows you to run modern applications. I am thinking OpenBSD and nsCDE.
Immutable distros are the future. Clunky OSs with integrity risks and get bloated over time should be a thing of the past. Configuration drift is a big problem this solves. The base OS should be simple, secure, and out of the way. All the apps should run on top. People fighting this trend are on the losing end. They're like the people back in the day calling the internet a fad and a trend. 😂
"Immutable distros are the future." If you think they are your future then I wish you every success. But please don't speak for me, I don't need an immutable distro. I know enough about Linux to not be in constant fear of making a mistake and expecting someone else to clear up my mess for me - which is what an immutable distro is. It's like training wheels you put on a kid's bicycle with no expectation that the kid has to eventually learn to ride on two wheels and remove them. "Clunky OSs with integrity risks and get bloated over time should be a thing of the past." There are two types of Linux distro, apart from immutable "Linux for Babies" ones - there are fixed released distros like Ubuntu that people reinstall every one or two years and that therefore don't have the opportunity to get bloated before they get reinstalled anyway; and there are rolling distros like Gentoo (what I use) and Arch that just know what files belong to what packages at all times and therefore know what files to remove or update anyway, so don't get bloat. In simple terms, you don't know what you're talking about - which is why I'd expect you to stick with a baby's immutable distro anyway. If it works for you, so be it. But becoming an expert takes time and effort, and you're clearly not even close yet. "Configuration drift is a big problem this solves." I've never heard of the term "configuration drift", despite having used and worked with Linux since 1996. " The base OS should be simple, secure, and out of the way." Sure, but an immutable OS isn't "simple", is it? It might be simple for you as the end user but someone has to put in extra complexity (like immutability) "under the hood" to make it that easy for you - that brings in extra software that is not in a "standard" ("not for babies") distro which introduces more bugs and security issues. You just expect someone else to put in the hard work of protecting you from those bugs and security issues. "All the apps should run on top." That statement means nothing. "People fighting this trend are on the losing end." I am not fighting it. I've stuck with Gentoo for 21 years now, it's not going to change any time soon. I am just very amused by the "new Linux poseurs" that want the "glory" but without the "effort". If some people want to pander to your laziness and give you a distro that suits you, then good luck to you and them. It doesn't affect me, it's just extremely amusing to see it. "They're like the people back in the day calling the internet a fad and a trend." Yes, and they were probably fishermen, airline pilots and painters that didn't have a clue about how computers and networks worked either - and then said silly things that turned out not to be true. It's funny how these things go in circles, caused by people who haven't got a clue what they are talking about.
@@terrydaktyllus1320 I'm not a Gentoo person, and I have zero against it, I just don't have the time, or energy to setup multiple systems as I can switch between 7 systems in my day, but I agree I don't need an immutable distro, and hand holding either as I run Manjaro Gnome Linux, and in the past few years I've had very few issues that weren't of my own doing messing around in the AUR like trying to make Blu-Ray playback work forgetting to install a package, or figuring out that I Installed a Kernel my laptop does not like so it won't wake up from sleep mode correctly, so I have to roll back one, etc.., and only use something like Flatpak, or App Images are last resorts If I can't find the package need any other way on Manjaro. Also I've been using Linux on/off since about the same time as you, starting with Red Hat Deluxe, and Corel Linux, and being a gamer I did not make the full switch till around 2015, when more games on STEAM just worked with AMD. So yeah good luck to these people, as immutable distros are not the future for me, and I'm glad to know I'm not alone in this.
What do you mean? The code base Debian is basically the immutable distribution and things like Mint based on it are more stable than windows, thats why servers use linux. This will only be the future for corporate wage slaves who's masters don't want to pay for a windows license but also still want the same level of control over them as windows. Nobody will use one that is not forced to use it for work, everyone else will laugh at it.
So, how would this be different than running BTRFS with snapper? I use it on my EndeavourOS setups and they have ran flawlessly. And I am great at breaking systems. I can edit my system and restore instantly when needed.
You're still going to have lots of random files laying around. The difference is that with an immutable OS the only files in the immutable folders are those from the base system or overlayed packages. No surprise binaries you compiled 5 years ago, no legacy file in /opt that remains there even though the software that used it stopped using it. If you install "fedora 41 Silver Blue" your system folders are the same as a fresh install. But simple btrfs snapshots are fine for many people. At the end of the day the goal is to have a running system that does what you want.
For me, as a Bazzite user? Rollback is much wider, as I have 90-days of image files on my GHCR, making it simpler to pinpoint when and where an issue occurred. If something broke, I don't even get the broken image- I just ignore it and run the last image I have until I felt like fixing the issue a week later.
A freeze is a freeze is a freeze. A snapshot is a rollback is an update. States and Change. Persistence is a write with an ACL out to get them. It's apples vs apple cores. Not a What but a When.
Immutable distros make sense in a corporate or server environments, but even then only to an extent. A good team of sysadmins will most likely never want to lose the capability to modify systems on the fly, whether to tweak certain settings or make incremental updates or just do basic sysadmin work. OS immutability became a trend when K8s started, but K8s is *NOT* the answer to every single problem under the sun, because of so many new levels of complexity. Immutable distros make 0 sense on desktop computers. Because even driver update then are a hassle. Not to mention installing anything that is not in your base image.
I'm waiting for a RUclipsr to explain the difference between switching to an Immutable Distribution vs. relying on Timeshift (in an LTS base like Debian).
It's extremely simple - "Timeshift" is incremental, you can always go back to a previous image. "Immutable" means you always go back to the default image.
LMDE6 + Timeshift for me is the best. No massive storage requirements for complete system images, and the time factor is a huge point. If you use the Btrfs file system then Timeshift images only take a second or two to make. For normal life, if you're not an obsessive-compulsive-type person, immutable only makes sense if a) the OS is your life's fetish or b) you're deploying to several machines and need super-consistency. For the every day user just trying to use the OS as a means to an end instead of THE end, it's too labor-intensive.
Timeshift doesn't allow you to pick a boot volume. If your system is in a broken state that doesn't let it boot, you have to get a secondary media and restore it from there. You could probably set up such a system manually but here it works out of the box. It's also inherently declarative. If I need to move my system, or the boot drive is broken, downloading the base image + overrides will be the exact same 100% of the time, no back-up needed. Makes it super easy to switch to a completely different system. With timeshift you'd potentially have remaining packages only relevant to KDE on gnome or conversely. Here if I want to switch to KDE from gnome I can just download the image and have the fresh experience, and then rollback like nothing happened (save for a few config files in home sadly..). Not really an every-day occurrence but it's nice to have. I've definitely broken systems trying to switch out a desktop environment for another. No question about what is installed. If it's in /bin, it's in the package repository. No random "make install" binary laying around (but not being able to just do that easily can also be a pain point) Promotes the use of containers for "throw-away" software. If it's not necessary to install it in the base image, you're encouraged to use a container which can be cleaned up by just dropping it. Imo it's a nice way to do things. You could definitely do that regardless but here it's nicely integrated by default. Security, to an extent. It's all btrfs so at the end of the day you totally can go around and hack stuff but it feels a lot safer that the only easy way to edit the system is through the package manager. And no software is going to fully break the OS by just running.
@@MichaelSharpTechniSmart I don't use Timeshift, I have no need of it. I use snapshots regularly at work within the context of VMware, I know what one is. It can still be considered an image of a backup because you can revert back to it in the event of a failure. You understood what I meant, I understood what I meant. If I need correction from you in the future, I will ask for it.
Sounds like our buddy Cody is having the same issue Plasma 6 has been having with customized themes. I recently moved to the Flatpak version on my EOS version since the Arch repo version is very buggy. Of course my Debian install is using the older stable version, I wonder if LMDE is using that version as well.
Having played with 45 distros over the past two decades, if there's no requirement for me to switch from my current linux distros (Mint & LMDE6), I'm not going to switch, especially to a distro using GNOME or Plasma.
Immutable operating systems are nothing new, on the consumer side we could say that they date back to the 7th generation of consoles.the Xbox 360, PS3, and PSP all had locked-down operating systems that were updated using mechanisms reminiscent of those we see on Android and ChromeOS (Xbox OSes are heavily modified Windows variants and particularly the Xbox 360 and the original Xbox ones the only thing they had in common with Windows was the kernel, which was also highly modified, in a similar way to Android and others non-conventional Linux-kernel based OSes) it's a bit funny, because Microsoft already has experience in this field and they could use that model to solve the disaster that is updating Windows Apple saw that and they took inspiration from them to create the walled garden that are the iDevices today.
I think it sounds too locked down and too rigid and when it comes to virus management and other types of threats you'll have challenges updating your system on a regular basis. I think the whole concept just adds another layer of slowdown and who knows whether each individual immutable distro has been thoroughly tested or just tested by one company.
Immutable Linux is great for any system where a ‘casual’ has to touch it. A public kiosk, your grandmother, a 6 year old with a penchant for destruction… If your systems are already locked down with RBAC, are personal workstations used by professional adults, or simply test systems, do yourself a favor and just administer a regular OS with automation tools. You’re gonna thank yourself later.
The "fashionistas" are crowing about how great immutability and NixOS actually is when, in reality, we've had embedded (=immutable) Linux on systems, including kiosk ones, for decades anyway. There's no common sense to putting an immutable distro onto a writeable media anyway. What's the point?
@@terrydaktyllus1320immutability and embedded distros solve different problems. Embedded distros attempt to solve size constraints, immutable distros attempt to solve change constraints. Not all immutable use cases are small (I work with telecom and the radio access network is almost always an immutable OS these days). It has its place.
A really helpful explanation. As for myself, although I am a long time Linux user of moderate ability,with a background in Math, I am still skeptical about immutable distros. Fear of change? Maybe so.
I was skeptical as well but I took the leap to Silverblue and haven't regretted it. It's still customizable but things just work in a way Windows and Mac users take for granted these days, especially when sticking to Flatpak/AppImages for apps. Honestly Silverblue 40 is so solid for me I kinda wish it was a LTS OS now as I feel no desire to make any changes or accept the risk they may entail.
I would like to know why updating won't break your programs if your dependent files are in the same file as your program and might if your dependent programs are in a separate file? Is it because some programs can't update the dependent programs without breaking and don't update if they are in flatpacks?
@@SwitchedtoLinux Is there something inside the flatpacks that tell them whether or not they can update so they don't break or are they just isolated and never allowed to update?
Sounds like a good idea to me, but there are some tendencies that still make me dislike the Linux development: gtk strips away a lot of functionalities, gtk-3 is worse than gtk-2, Wayland strips away a lot of functionalities, and all this stuff is praised, while it makes the system less usable. I would like backwards development that backs to good version and takes another development direction. For me it seems like the Linux community praises a lot of crap in the name of futurism or just ... hipness and being cool rather than retarded. And I still don't understand why anyone uses Unity. Unity is futuristic hipness in a nutshell and just irritating crap for people that wish configurability and usability. OK, I just read the "12 Immutable Linux Distributions", and it gives a bad impression: some of them are using Unity, which stinks of "corporate strategy" to me, meaning: "our customers are idiots, we need something simple and stable for idiots". The other group are of the NixOS kind, which might be the right way to go in the future, but just now it is still overly complicated.
I think I get your core point and probably agree with it, but what do you mean by "strips away a lot of functionalities" when you're just "adding optional stuff" with the likes of gtk and Wayland anyway. If you don't want to use that stuff and just stick to the Linux CLI (something that I do on some older and lower-powered machines), then nothing stops you doing that. And, yes, there is a lot of "fashionista" software around. It got ridiculous when, for example, it became necessary to have some built-in graphics acceleration to run a particular Linux terminal. Linux may now occupy 5% of the desktop, but there's a lot of poseurs in that figure - just crowing about on social media as to how "l33t" they are with Linux on a Steam Deck.
Server and desktop have totally different requirements. Servers are usually set up very minimally and in a way that the machine itself doesn't matter, and you don't want them to have down time every time you update. A desktop OS is expected to be rebooted frequently and needs to be stable and ensure the continuity of the system. If the server eats the dirt you switch it to another machine. If your desktop eats the dirt you need to be able to recover the one copy of your data that's stored on there, you can't just pull the docker/package on another machine. They do have core os though, that's mostly meant as a minimal docker host. Since in that use case you'd have many hosts and rebooting one would be fine.
@@leeroyjenkins0 suse and fedora's desktop versions are mainly aimed at the sysadmins taking care of their servers. If there's suddenly a break between desktop and server those sysadmins might as well go back to windows, use macs or any other Linux distro.
As an arch user, immutable is everything I absolutely despise, but this is good for a company and I’d rather use that at work than windows. I hate windows. Also, SteamOS is immutable arch and valve chose arch (after dumping Debian) because the rolling release made it easier for them to choose exactly what and when they wanted to update things, rather than just following the Debian release schedule.
snapshots with btrfs solves this problem without the need of having a immutable distro. The reason why people don't use snapshots because of how it takes up space and time. Not so if you are using btrfs. Its subvolumes behaves more like an immutable distro by simply booting into a backup subvolume and, restoring and creating is instantaneous and only takes up space from just the changes, its not a clone like a traditional snapshot, because btrfs snapshots are atomic. In other words. no need for immutable distros with btrfs.
@@terrydaktyllus1320 this is in regards of system restore in case your system gets borked by a bad update is what immutable is all about. snapshots with btrfs already does this now without needing to switch to a immutable distro. Its not a replacement of backing up your data. immutable distros is also not a replacement as a backup either except unlike btrfs snapshots, you lose control of your system by going immutable. You should always have a backup anyways. Btrfs uses subvolumes for snapshots so in case a bad update. You simply reboot to a previous subvol and destroy the borked subvol and try again. This whole A and B concept. Btrfs has immutable beat lol.
@@terrydaktyllus1320btrfs snapshots are not hardware back-ups. They're two completely separate concepts. Btrfs are COW, so mostly free on short time-lines. And in fact mostly free at large for most people. Back-ups require a separate drive. And restoring from them is definitely not as fast. Snapshots are 2 clicks away. 2 different use cases.
It's not the same. It works fine for many people but an immutable distro ensures your volume is consistent with some base image. Btrfs snapshots just allow you to rollback to a previous "more sane" state with no guarantee of the state of that previous state.
@@leeroyjenkins0 honestly that does not matter because btrfs creates its own subvolume. you could do a sudo rm -rf / you simply destroyed that subvol. You simply boot up to a previous one. Base system is still intact. So in perspective. You could change subvols like a cd changer changing discs is how i best describe this without losing a ton of disk space like a traditional snapshot image.
NixOS is "Linux for Babies"... "I am keeping these trainer wheels on my bicycle and I am NEVER going to remove them or learn to not need them". The distro for lazy millennials that strut around pretending to be Linux experts on social media just because they own a Steam Deck.
It's actually capable of all three, being declarative, atomic and immutable. You manage everything declaratively in files, have an immutable nix store and have rollback system updates. I don't get why you would disagree with the contributors that made it, on the categorization.
@@terrydaktyllus1320Are you one of these irrational rust haters too? Imagine thinking NixOS is for babies when it's one of the least beginner friendly Distros out there because you have to understand declarative system management on top of imperative systems, you seem to believe you can never intersect with imperative methods when using it, but that just means you haven't used it long.
@@oscs4556 Sure it's more characteristic to call it that, but it is also immutable in large part and atomic. You can just call the color orange, orange, but to be more descriptive you can also say it's #FFA500. The contributors define NixOS as immutable and atomic and it meets the definition largely as far as I can tell.
Another point is that the more complex system the more mistakes (I am talking about hardware complexity and hardware bugs). You may modify kernel switches, system config files to workaround. So I think the immutability is not the good way.
I agree. People seem to forget that a system that is made easy for them to use has to have more complexity "under the hood" that has to be created by someone else. That additional complexity leaves gaps for more bugs and security issues, and which, when they happen, are going to be beyond the scope of any user to resolve.
One of the intentions behind immutability is that you as a user won't be making those complex system mistakes. I see immutable distros as a decent offering to hand to non-technical users - like with SteamOS, it will work out of the box and takes some know-how and overrides to allow access to system files. The other thing I've liked the idea of for these distros is the ability to "natively" run other distro files (.deb, .rpm, etc), and I'm keen for VanillaOS to iron out it's Android integration.
I have half a million entries in my host file, they didn't get there by themselves. I need the control at every level, take that away and I won't be happy. In fact, that is the very reason I dislike Android.
Believer or not, you are doing the Lord's work. I am very serious about transitioning to Linux as main OS and I find your videos very educational.
PS: This is not a spam message.
Let me know when Jesus runs one of his Linux training courses then. I might be interested, if only to stare at his halo for a while.
@@terrydaktyllus1320 Everyone knows Jesus runs TempleOS
He's got another channel where he literally does the Lord's work. "Our Walk in Christ".
@@shaunpatrick8345 hah, I had to search this out of pure curiosity. Agnostic here, but props!
You can check out my Christian teaching at ourwalkinchrist on RUclips!
**Something** like immutable/atomic systems will be necessary if people are really serious about ever seeing widespread Linux adoption. I am most encouraged by the Universal Blue offerings.
I went ublue after coming across bazzite a while back. Loved it on the ally so i put it on my server.
No, you don't lose control. Immutable just has a different structure. If you still want to tinker in the root files, you can do that if you select the right base. Blend, Vanilla, Aeon, and certainly uBlue systems can do it. OMFG the uBlue users are going hog wild.
I'm happy to remain a mutant.
uBlue and VanillaOS make it easy to edit the default image via blue-builder and Vib. They are declarative config files like NixOS' (though arguably simpler). VanillaOS even has the ABroot command that gives you all the freedom of root.
Vim and emacs have made it easy to edit config files and customise your own Linux system yourself for the past few decades. Just saying.
Which is why I would suggest leaving the 'Atomic' part of the system to the 'maintainers', there are lots of other 'advantages' and 'best practice' workflows that the end user should be concerning themselves with. If a User wants to be a 'Distro hopper/Desktop Ricer' then I would recommend a regular Distro with 'Vim & Emacs' as 'one possible solution' ;-)
Immutable distros seem like a good idea for something like a kiosk or appliance, but I would never want it on the desktop.
If you are an enthusiast who wants to customize perhaps they're not a good choice, you might as well just use a distro that doesn't make you go through a bunch of hoops to do the same thing, but many people use their desktops and laptops as no more than an appliance to launch a web browser or application, or VMs and containers. Immutables seem like the best idea for such users, as they can do whatever they want without worrying of disturbing the correct function of the "black box" providing the platform for them.
Running Bazzite (Fedora Kinoite gaming spin) here and it's been great on my gaming desktop. I use flatpaks and distrobox and everything has been fine. Love the ability to roll back to a stable image if needed.
No one forces people to use them they are geared towards a specific use case. Only issue is the people having fomo and then getting upset it's not the same thing they are used to or doesn't fit there use case. Pretty happy with them but nothing has to be for everyone.
Haven't watched your video, but immutable distros have an obvious place in the "marketplace" for people who are not very tech savvy but who want an operating system that is reliable and not going to break because of mismatched dependencies, but will keep their "aged" hardware running safely. Such people don't have the time or knowhow to be able to research the fix. To say they are taking over, however is pure hyperbole...
I found on all immutable or atomic systems, you can always easily change the automatic update timer to switch it off if you on metered connection or on holidays.
You missed Bazitte and Manjaro immutable!
Immutable distros sound like a godsend for corporations that want things large scale, locked down, and low risk. Something a tinkerer would hate unless they were the ones deploying the images, but even then, you would have to get past change control. The cattle vs. pet's server issue has come to the desktop.
I can't think of one that's truly locked down the way you describe it. What would be the incentive to install a distro that truly locks me out?
@@sebastianbauer4768 I worked for a company that manufactured detectors that went on Electron microscopes. Of course, we supplied a computer with windows. Considering how specialized was their use, they should have been locked down to everything and everyone, including Windows Updates. In fact, in many companies and Universities the lab manager would disconnect the local USB ports and would have the users go to another computer on the network to save their data to a usb stick. An immutable distro would be perfect for user and the manufacturing company to avoid borking the system which could require a $5000+ visit from an engineer.
@@sebastianbauer4768 My perspective is a bit skewed as someone that works for an insurance company... In the corporate Microsoft world the trend is to lock down the windows desktop with group policy as much as possible, and only use approved services to get your work done, many financial services require this for cyber security and to meet audit requirements. Ideally (in the dystopian sense of the word) such approved services have a full audit trail as well. To me immutable distros look like a Linux answer to the desktop problem, and given how customisable Linux is, it could go way beyond the capabilities of windows group policy.
Like the video was suggesting there isn't much reason for a hobbyist to install an immutable distro. The only reason I would do it, would be to tinker and figure out how they work so I could get a comfy corporate job doing it. Working through the subtle bugs and building everything from code in your lab environment can be fun for a hobbyist, but it really pays off if you are going to deploy it to a production environment with 1000+ desktops. These 1000 desktops are then unchangeable/immutable until the next deployment is approved. And ofcourse the immutable distro makers are more than willing to sell such companies some extra closed source tools and support to make that happen, kind of like how enterprise RedHat funds free Fedora to make enterprise RedHat better.
@@sebastianbauer4768 It still creates enough of a wall to make the stuff only the IT guy should be touching, get touched by the IT guy alone. For a company, that can be attractive as there is less of a chance that someone not as well versed with a computer can't work because they messed up a system folder.
It's basically the equivalent of putting the solvents and detergents on the high shelf or in a locked cabinet so a toddler doesn't drink it. Sure a particularly determined kid might be able to move and climb a ladder and circumvent the lock, but you can hope someone smart enough to do it is also going to be smart enough not to drink the funny liquid in the colourful bottles.
@@cdgonepotatoes4219 not sure what you mean. The purpose of immutable systems isn’t to prevent people from screwing them up, it’s to prevent the system from getting into a unknown state so that automatic systems like updates no longer can produce known results. Frankly a lot of applications are writing to directories they really shouldn’t be writing to. What being immutable does is make sure only the distribution tools(which make the system mutable in some form) are writing to these directories, thus the distribution creators can reasonably predict the current state of the system and safely transform it to a different state without destroying user data.
That’s why for example fedora atomic can transition from one spin to another(called rebasing) by literally ripping out the entire base system and replacing it with another and it’ll be as clean as a fresh install.
The problem with not immutable systems is that, yes, you can change stuff in /usr/bin or /lib. But that will break horribly the next time the package manager updates the things you changed, either undoing them or failing. Anyone knowledgeable enough to safely work in areas controlled by automatic tools is knowledgeable enough to do it in a immutable system as well.
Honestly sounds great considering everytime I misinstall, misconfigure, or just want to uninstall something that didn't come from package manager I have to reinstall my os. That and my os nukeing it's self from a failed graphics driver update on a regular basis. There's a reason I am back on Windows 10.
Kinoite: Fedora Silverblue but with KDE.
As effectively and functionally a computing ignoramus (although I do try to keep up {& thank you}) Linux is brilliant because if it breaks I just download "it" (usually a new Puppy Linux) again and off I go. ...Whereas with Windoze or Mac I have absolutely no idea if it falls over. If most people could just get over the appearance of the the desktop fixation... [Continued on page 94]
Still on 10, but I have a mini with Mint! I hold my breath in horrific anticipation every time I turn my updates on in 10! Of course, I DO NOT let Microsoft update my computer automatically, so when I turn it on I expect the worst! Every time I update that system, I have to reboot the system in order for whatever update they're insisting I need to download. The process never takes under an hour. Updates with Mint......2 minutes and I'm done! Bye Windows!
Interesting, but "You will lose control over your system." As soon as I heard that it put me off. I am running Debian stable, but I need to be able to configure my system which requires editing system files manually. I don't want any additional hassle. Also, I use a small 60Gb SSD as a boot drive, and my home directory resides on my RAID. I have another 60Gb SSD and every time I make any changes or install new software over and above general updates, I clone my boot drive using DD. If anything goes wrong, I have a good copy to boot from.
To me immutable sounds like snake oil to me. I just run q4os Linux, this fraction of a c.h. immutable system is just sounds ghey to me.
I wouldn't go that far: stating that the immutable distros take over. But it definitely is something which will stay for the many users who benefit from it. For a geek/nerd/tweaker these distros are horrible, for regular users who don't need to install that much software, who don't demand the highest possible performance (Flatpak instead of regular package) and who just want a stable system immutable distro's are great. I myself prefer to have easier access to most of my system. I expect that we will see a division: some immutable distros will become more popular, some of the regular distros like Arch will remain very popular.
Well, you can pretty much do anything you want in opensuse Aeon. with transactional-shell you can edit the base system however you want.
NixOS is great for tinkering, not sure about other distros. If you’re a big enough nerd to want to tinker with your system you’re a big enough nerd to learn nix.
@@cenunix Arch, Fedora or OpenSUSE gecko with nix next to the AUR/copr/whatever_OpenSUSE_uses could also be an interesting option. Possibly this is the ideal solution for tinkerers. Whenever you are not happy with one solution you use the other.
Arch is a good distro (the packagemanager is excellent) but there were a few problems in the last years, the biggest ones that they had a nonfunctional glibc for many games and backporting a gamebreaking bug from AMD in the kernel to the LTS-kernel. The first problem (glibc) had to do with many game-developers using the wrong oldfashioned method for hashing and the Arch-glibc-packager having a beef with that and refusing to compile glibc with support for the oldfashioned hash-method. The 2nd problem was very interesting: an AMD-developer made a > vs >= mistake which made the CPU only see 256 MB of graphics card memory at any time. Ironically the AMD-developer missed this bug due to newer AMD CPU's and GPu's allowing the CPU to see all the graphics card memory at any time if you turn resizable bar on, but many of us have either an older CPU (Zen2 or older) or older graphics card (RDNA1 or older). I knew what was going on when I noticed that my buddy did not have this problem on his Arch system, he has a 6900 XT and 5900X.
I am 25 years Linux Admin, every year some new Bullshit 😂
I am an SA. Where I work an immutable distribution would not work because we have scientific users who also are developers. Yes. They break things regularly. But then they sometimes need tools and packages that are not part of the standard environment. There are cases where immutable might make sense when the user doesn’t need to add or make changes to the system or add applications outside the standard environment. Of course, snaps or flatpaks bypass limitations for users on immutable distributions.
NixOS definitely is the sweetspot for me, fully customizable but still immutable
Give them toolbox for all their tinkering.
I see a Switched to Linux video pop up, I click Like. Then I watch the video.
Valve’s steam deck Linux distribution is immutable as well and uses flat packs
Just what newbies considering coming to Linux need.. More confusion 🤦
Linux is easy to break and easy to fix, lets keep it that way.
F Android
Sorry but your statement about the security benefits is totally weak and half-baked. That phishing and adware are the most common maleware is only true for the private person. Your oversight lies in who uses Linux and who is interested in it. For organization and institutions like schools, universities, hospitals, authorities and business, the biggest threat is ransomware at the moment. It causes data lost and huge downtimes. Immutable OS makes ransomware attacks much harder. You can't encrypt a read-only partition. Immutable OS are much more interesting for people who wanna let other people with low competence use PCs to get work done. Immutable OS doesn't eliminate the damage on the rest of the system but can be helpful for prevention and plays a key part in damage regulation.
Ransomware encrypts to user data partitions, which is accessible. You are correct about industry/business, which I did address as being one of the good use-cases for this model.
@@SwitchedtoLinux The issue of ransomware doesn't just lie in encrypted data from users. Well organized institutions have backup solutions to minimize the data loss. You still lose the latest data created but you're still able to recover most data. The biggest damage is done by spreading malware that goes deeper into the system and ransomware that encrypt data of the operating system. This causes huge investigation tasks and long downtimes to reinstall the OS.
I experienced the downtime caused by Crowdstrike in my job. We couldn't work and to avoid further financial issues, we took minus hours to minimize wage costs for our already poorly performing company. While it was just a bug, such an issue proves the importance of atomic OS to maximize the runtime and minimize financial loss.
Cant you use rpm-ostree
i use MX Linux as my daily driver its Debian based with easy updates
Every now and then I install Linux and test it. The easiest to install and use is Linux Mint however I always find the same issues. Hard to install programs and sometimes difficult to even find certain programs. For example I have a Lightscribe DVD writer. I can find a few programs for Writing DVD's but can't use the Lightscribe part of the Writer for labeling the DVD. Another example is I have NordVPN but it is much more difficult to use on Linux. You have to use the terminal to change servers on Linux but on Windows you use an interactive map and just click on the city or country. Basically I feel you should be able to just click on a program to install it just like in windows.
That's not a limitation with Linux, that's a limitation with NordVPN. Proton VPN and Surfshark VPN has a GUI on Linux. Said GUI is on Flathub, meaning that on SteamOS, Fedora, Mint, and others it's as simple as opening App Store GUI and selecting install for those apps.
Nixos's relationship to my various python tools lead me to leaving it. I still very much liked it and the core concept.
Then you can just use Blue Build coupled with Nix Home Manager. Is how I manage my system - my system image is configured semi-declaratively in a github recipe file and the user config files I care about is managed by home-manager (which also manages my flatpak and distrobox setups) on a separate github repo.
I would also like to add speaking of containers and isolation and now this whole immutable trend. Another cool concept of btrfs is that you can have a distro within a distro (yes, you read that right) you simply create a subvol anywhere on the desktop, (be easier if its on the root dir but subvols don't really care where its created) extract a base image of a distro along with its kernel (be sure to preserve its permissions while extracting). You then reboot your system.
Then you manually tell grub to boot into that subvol using the rootflags options and presto. you are now booting into another distro, unaware that its residing on the desktop (or wherever that subvol is residing) of your main distro. you could even do a sudo rm -rf / to it and no data loss because you are booted inside of it. Your main distro will still be intact once you reboot again. If that's not containment, then i don't know what is.
Immutables are great, however there are some malicious forces behind the open source scene pushing more restrictive things and there is an obvious push towards centralisation, so if we not carefull Linux distros can become as restricive as android or worse ios/windows also appimage is better sure you have to containerise them yourself but it follows the linux design better do one thing and do it well both snaps and flats are trying to replace package managers with a unified system/ if your distro doesnt support flats or snaps you have to install the support packages while appimages just work if done right no need to install anything. which is what it all started with portability
It will not. Just today, someone makes a separate repo for wayland protocols. If even wayland protocol can be forked, then so can the very open build process for these "immutable" distro (hell, I did it with 7 clicks, and that was back when Universal Blue hasn't refined the system into the separate Blue Build system today).
In terms of security, it should also be noted when all applications are snap or flatpak then every application is also sandboxed thereby limiting what they can and can't do.
Awesome channel dude, subbed.
Debian doesn’t really need to be immutable seriously…it is very stable by itself and is not a rolling release….it already feels like a immutable distro.
Agreed there, it only breaks when you try to force new stuff to run on it outside of Flatpaks.
LTS distros such as Debian and Ubuntu would actually benefit from the immutable model when it comes to upgrading the system from one major version to the other, which would be a much faster and more reliable process than in a traditional distro, where if you upgrade and are not careful you can easily break the entire system, especially when you have third-party repos installed.
Whaaa? The whole point is you do indeed install things but not suffer breaks. What good is Linux if you must worry about dependency conflicts? Or the whole issue of cruft which builds up over time.
Immutable is not for rolling distros. Debian would benefit from immutability as much as any other distro. OSTree is like having your entire distro in a git repo
It's not just about stability. It's also about security. If your OS partition is mounted as read-only, it's harder for attackers to install maleware into the OS. They not only have to bypass the user rights management, but also either bypass the write protection, or design the attack around the distro package manager and wait for the user to reboot.
In addition, the containerization allows users to install programs without the need to access the OS file system which means there's no reason to install programs into it. Even though these programs are friendly when installed, they can turn evil with just an update.
Limiting the access to the OS file system reduces the attack surface further. And it also limits how much damage the user can cause to the system too. While you only look at what you do with Debian, organizations and institutions like schools, universities, business and authorities don't wanna deal with an OS where users can cause much damage. They want an OS with high reliability, easiness to maintain, reduced downtimes, and lowest security threats. An immutable OS is here much a no-brainer move.
Just a tip: Your lighting is too high as in vertical not brightness, it makes you look weird with the shadows etc
I have full deskspace lighting (top and bottom), but the lights often cause lines in the video that I still trying to resolve.
@@SwitchedtoLinux Sounds like a PWM issue, you'll need to search for "flicker free" lighting.
I use Tumbleweed with Btrfs and YAST system snapshots. It's kinda like a poor man's immutable system in that the snapshot tools automatically takes system snapshots that I can rollback to whenever needed. So it's immutable but you have to do it manually. But that's OK with me. I can change whatever I want and get the benefits of immutability. Nice.
Getting real sick of techbros in the Linux space deciding everything needs to be "image-based" and "containered". If I wanted that kind of restrictive behavior, I wouldn't be using Linux, I'd be using a Mac. Stop trying to steal marketshare from Apple, you're not going to beat them at making OSs for the Fisher-Price set.
I agree with your statement about NixOS being too complicated for the "normal"(?) user. I know there are a) situations where control of your distro at the molecular level is needful and b) some personalities obsess to the degree that they MUST control things to the molecular level, but dat ain't me, thankfully. And I think that's true for most Linux users (and most of the Windows users coming to Linux and the ones we're trying to attract to Linux)...we just want to get stuff done without faffing about with endless OS details. As a writer, I have WAY too many distractions already! Don't push me down another rabbit hole.
To that end I remain on Debian systems (LMDE6 now and happy).
Nixos is immutable but otherwise completely different from the others as it does not rely on containers and is not built in the same way. It uses a native, highly robust approach to isolating dependencies, allowing simultaneous installation of multiple versions of packages, etc. (You don't actually install things, you just add them to your configuration files.) It supports containers of course but they are rarely if ever necessary.
Not for everyone certainly, with a steep learning curve to start because it relies on unfamiliar concepts like declarative system configuration and graphs instead of stacks. Poor documentation but great, helpful community. But once you start grokking it most things are actually much simpler to install, configure, reconfigure, uninstall cleanly, etc. than on traditional Linux. (And you never need to spend time getting a new computer set up just right. Do it once then just copy and build your system configs on any computer.)
The ARM-based versions of macOS (like iOS) stores the OS image on a separate partition in an immutable fashion. This is how it’s done on smartphones and even Windows has a system image.
Imagine you had a separate disk for the operating system, and your personal data elsewhere, like in a diary book with a lock and key that only you know where it is, and color slides of family reunions and vacations, weddings and funerals kept in the basement with the projector. No amount of cyber hacking will alarm you.
Eh, every competent Linux user already has his home-directories on another partition or another SSD. If you like that SSD encrtypted then it is very easy to set it up. Nothing new!
Define "elsewhere". If it's "elsewhere" in your PC or on you home network, it can be attacked. If it's not connected, it's probably safe - but then how much hassle is it for you to write data to it when you need to? Plus it isn't just the user writing files to a drive upon request anyway - the OS can be writing things to it as well in background (e.g. spooling emails) and if the disk isn't there to write to, then the system could lockk up or crash.
So I am not sure what problem you believe you have solved there.
@@peterjansen4826 You mean on a network mount right?
@@peterjansen4826 true, but Atomic systems go beyond just that ... but it's also true that the best practices basically forced on you by atomic systems can all be replicated on regular Linux Distros ... the real advantage is that you are forced (strongly encouraged) to follow good system management practices, (which also strongly encourages people who like to 'tinker' the tools to 'tinker' in a different direction than just Distro hoping and Desktop ricing.
If you're into development and gaming, then the Atomic versions are well suited for a stable environment with all the tools (Bluefin has versions for development or gamers, and a few different desktop builds.) If you're into Distro hoping and 'ricing' then yeah, a regular Distro is probably where you should be for now.
@@RetiredInThailand I am definitely not into distro-hopping (I have been using the same distro in the last 5 years) or DE-hopping, I have been using dwm the last years and I don't see myself change that in many years into the future. I don't RICE much either. I just like it to be able to quickly install new software without having to take a bunch of extra steps. For example, yesterday (maybe late) I discovered the helix-editor, it basically is like a properly modified vim/nvim with all the basic features builtin in the text-editor, written in Rust. It is nice that I simply have to type sudo pacman -S helix and then within 2 seconds after typing my password it is on my system and I can use it. I don't have to first start a special environment, I don't have to take extra steps to be able to start it up easily the next time.
Don't get me wrong, I like the concept of atomic distro's, I think that it is a great concept for at least around 50% of the Linux users. I love the idea of setting up the entire distro with a simple config-file which you can share and which you can use on later installs. Awesome! It just isn't the easiest solution for me at the moment. It is great though for people who do struggle to not break their system, it also is great for companies who want an easy and reliable setup for many PC's.
I think this will be really good for mainstream Linux distros. For my daily driver, if I need to use a specific version of python, I don't want to be able to accidentally destroy my system.
I don't want all distros to follow this model though; I dual boot two Linux distros and one of them is specifically for experimenting.
What does immutable linux mean? You can not change the filesM
The root system is read only.
@@MichaelSharpTechniSmart I thought they were that already?
Chrome OS is well-suited to this format because it's not supposed to be for tinkerers. When I had a Chromebook I only ever rebooted every 6 weeks when a new update came, and it was always rock solid. But I used Silverblue for a while and didn't find the benefits to outweigh the disadvantages. It's ironic that Fedora has one of the more recognisable immutable variants, because one of the stated benefits - stability - hardly applies to it due to the Workstation edition being so reliable!
Questions:
How does software installation work? How about drivers?
What about developer tools like compilers, installing libraries, etc., basically, what new hoops do I have to jump through to build and run my programs on immutable distros?
Immutable isn't for you. That's the answer.
@@SwiatLinuksa or you build an immutable distro that has all the tooling, that can work too. There is also ways to be semi-immutable with overlays.
On fedora atomic distros they promote podman (non-root docker) for development environments and flatpak for user GUI applications.
"toolbox create tmp" creates a container from the current equivalent non-atomic system image, with your /home,/dev,... bound to the originals but a separate /bin,/etc,... So you can use dnf like normal and install packages there.
When you have some software you'll be using often (vim) or that's more relevant to run on the true host (qemu, desktop environment, drivers), you can apply "overrides" to the base image with "rpm-ostree install vim". Then whenever you download the image it will rebuild it with the additional packages, so you'll have that installed on the base system.
toolbox is a nice system, you can have one throwaway and drop it then replace it regularly. And for those you want to keep you can have a "setup environment" shell script which imo is a neater way to go about it, or you can just upgrade the system like normal on each container.
Adding drivers that are not packaged, or a custom kernel is where it gets a lot more complicated as you have to build your own package. At that point it's definitely easier to just use a regular distro and install it manually, as there isn't yet enough tooling for the average user to just be able to git clone and make install.
@@SwiatLinuksa Sometimes I just have to shake my head. I mean, linux users want software to be developed for linux right? (I've used linux for 15 years.) But it seems like instead of removing developer hassle, additional barriers keep getting built up. Let this sink in, game developers are choosing to target Proton not because they want to but because it is more feasible.
Also why do the distros need to be immutable in order to download updates without overwriting the original files? We could still have the benefit of reverting to a previous update without resorting to the limitations of an immutable system.
Overlays or something like toolbox, depending on what you need.
Thanks for the explanations, I have learn something new. Now let me reveal something to you in return: as you already know, there are hundreds of various distros, catering for needs of different people. Why do you want all of them do what you paricularly prefer doing? One cannot have it all. You have many choices that will do exactly what you wannt them to do. Complaining that ice cream isn't warm enough is pointless. It ought to be cold.
And as per security, aren't the same issues relevant to most, if not all, distros that modern malware doesn't massively target kernel? We all must be vigilant and responsible online.
If you are unwilling to put in time and effort to learning something, then you will never know its limitations either. Anyone who has used Linux for a few years understands that it does NOT do everything - but for stuff it doesn't do, there's usually an alternative or a workaround, sometimes you might to do research to find it.
The "me me me, now now now" generation of Steam Deck users who believe they are Linux experts don't want to do that research because they are too lazy. That, in turn, means they do not recognise the limitations of Linux and therefore have unrealistic expectations of it. Because their parents never said the word "no" to them, they expect to sit on their thrones and sulk until someone else fixes it for them, and usually free-of-charge.
@@terrydaktyllus1320uh, what? SteamOS is made to be a game console. But even then, SteamOS, Vanilla OS, blendOS, NixOS... They want user to properly understand their system when making change.
You're not a smarter Linux user for installing packages via apt when flatpak, distrobox, or brew would have sufficed. Just because you're a racer doesn't mean you need to drive at 200km/s on a normal road.
@@FengLengshun "uh, what? SteamOS is made to be a game console."
Yes, we agree so far.
"But even then, SteamOS, Vanilla OS, blendOS, NixOS... They want user to properly understand their system when making change."
Sorry, who wants to understand? Why would you use an immutable distro if you want to understand anything? That makes no sense as a statement. "Immutability" means "someone else takes responsibility for protecting you from your own mistakes. It's the opposite of "understanding".
"You're not a smarter Linux user for installing packages via apt when flatpak, distrobox, or brew would have sufficed."
Of course I am. As a Gentoo user that installs all packages from source, I have a very deep understanding of how its Portage package manager works and how to resolve any issues. Portage (and compiling from source) is different to binary package management because issues usually occur before you compile the code, not afterwards.
"Just because you're a racer doesn't mean you need to drive at 200km/s on a normal road."
I am not a "racer", especially as Gentoo has this silly "meme" about it that everything takes a long time to compile anyway. So it's a very poor analogy on your part.
I know i'm in the minority here, but I don't hate snaps. I actually got to like them after some apprehension
When they work, they're great. I think they're actually more compact than Flatpak, but I'm not sure of that. What turned me against them was that they always failed at some point on two older laptops I had. (I write, so old hardware is great for me and I like repurposing!) I'm sure it was simply that the hardware drivers were too new for the laptops, but anything that didn't work perfectly on ALL of my hardware didn't make the cut.
In contrast, Flatpaks have always worked on everything I've ever owned, so I just stick with them because they apparently have better coverage, at least in my case. Plus I don't like Canonical in the same way I don't like Microsoft or Apple. I really didn't like the way Canonical FORCED Snaps on me without me having to jump through a few hoops. Ubuntu usually is the gold-standard of driver support, but they failed me there when the Snaps wouldn't run, so that sticks with me. Canonical is Microsoft made over to me in the path they're taking with Ubuntu.
I am not sure you are minority. About half the Linux users love them, half hate them. There is just not a lot in between.
MS is still the best OS.
BLASPHEMY!!! lol. Use what you need to :)
Yes: iOS, iPadOS, and macOS all have boot-verification on the OS. This can be surpassed if you know which developer tools to enable & security features to disable, however.
I don't understand the logic of buying a locked-down device in the first place and then cracking it open. Why not just buy a more open device from the beginning?
It's like the people who buy Windows 10 and have to keep stripping the telemetry out every time Microsoft performs an update. They could better use that time just learning Linux as an Open OS instead and not fight against it.
@@terrydaktyllus1320 Most people probably aren't doing what you're suggesting, it's going to be a niche group; tinkerers, security researchers, OS developers, etc.
I don't disagree with you, I've been trying to convince one of my uncles to switch to Linux for like 7 years. He's just stubborn as a mule & won't.
@@polymatrix "Most people probably aren't doing what you're suggesting,"
Sorry, what am I "suggesting"? You can read comments on YT every day with people defending their use of Windows because they can keep killing the telemetry on it. It's a fact, not a suggestion.
"it's going to be a niche group; tinkerers, security researchers, OS developers, etc."
So what, what has "the proportion of people" got to do with it anyway? The people that don't tinker with Windows won't ever use Linux anyway - so I am not even including them in my points.
"I don't disagree with you,"
No, you do, you did so in the first paragraph - unless you're now doing a u-turn and contradicting yourself, of course...
"I've been trying to convince one of my uncles to switch to Linux for like 7 years. He's just stubborn as a mule & won't."
Where did I mention "convincing" people? I made an observation that time spent fighting an OS that doesn't do what you want it to do might be better spent learning a new OS that you don't fight against. I could care less what your uncle does or doesn't do ultimately.
@@polymatrix "Most people probably aren't doing what you're suggesting, it's going to be a niche group; tinkerers, security researchers, OS developers, etc."
That's precisely the group I was talking about. People who don't tinker won't use Linux. Do try harder to keep up.
"I don't disagree with you, I've been trying to convince one of my uncles to switch to Linux for like 7 years. He's just stubborn as a mule & won't."
I am not trying to convince anyone - I simply make an observation that time is spent better learning a new OS that loves your privacy than fighting against one that hates it. Whilst I have no reason to not wish your uncle the very best of health and efficient computing, ultimately what he does or does not do has nothing to do with me.
And can you guide me with it.
ill let that one mature i rather want to break linux in all kinds of weird ways also i will never ever use user folders i do not use them on windows so not planning to use them on linux a rule i learned from windows is it will murder itself eventually and do i want to deal with recovery of files hell no i want my system volatile that said files i keep can be redownloaded so it aint the worst thing if i loose everything as i hold no value over even things i created as majority was created to waste time so guess i am wasting time once again
Yup
Nix OS can already do all of this and more..
My main issue with an immutable system is that UNIX doesn't really make the distinction between system and user, and the user is going to need to be changing a ton of system files in everyday use (for instance, to configure the Wi-Fi). Even just altering the physical location of the device (like on a laptop) makes immutable distros difficult.
Most "immutable" distros aren't immutable, they just have atomic updates. On fedora atomic distros you can install rpms, add /usr overlays, edit /etc, and so on. The only thing that fedora atomic does that is inconvenient is requiring a reboot since overlaying and applying system changes requires you to reboot into the new root. Though that is not the case with things symlinked to /var and for /etc.
😂 i have been with computers since early 80ies and try to understand what immutable and atomic could mean in software? Maybe called something else in swedish
OSTree = git
Atomic change = git commit
@@AndrewTSqImmutable is not later changable, we can create a new copy with a change, but the old state still exists/
Atomic is all or nothing. If both a and b need updating there is no partial state where a is update and b isn't yet.
Immutable usually refers to the system package manager /etc and /home are still writeable for obvious reasons.
The point is to allow the system to be upgraded atomically and from a single source. And thus ensure it's easily rolled back to a BOOTABLE state. You can still mess up your permissions and lock yourself out of your account if you try hard enough of course. But you'd always be able to change the boot options to boot as root and fix your stuff, you'd never be in a situation where the only solution is to boot a secondary media.
Absolutely 100% bad thing. I need my operating systems as open and hackable as AmigaOS, because an OS should serve my purposes whatever they may be. Security should be achieved by easy and transparent sandboxing, not by locking down my access to my own computer.
Companies,Schools,Hospitals,Military bases,immutabe distros shows it is necessary.
No, companies, schools, hospital and military bases will continue to test their systems against predetermined security standards before being confident enough to deploy them.
"Immutable" is not the same "indesctructible" or "completely secure". You need to become better informed on the topic.
@@terrydaktyllus1320 i didnt called for your Pathetic Opinion,come back to your basement
I did not call your pathetic opinion
nixos ;p
Well Doc being and old guy and having the Atari computers and the Commodore and and even a Tandy 1000. Then building my 1st IBM X86 cloner and seeing what they could do was very disappointing. It took me a long time for me to see x86s computers to catch up with the Atari's and Amiga's. I remember the GUI's of those computers was amazing. Someplace we got away from the truth of an OS should only be seen when needed and able to share PC recourses not push adds and stuff you do not want on us. Do you thing we will ever get back to those days????
We're still in those days. Just choose a distro that works for you and lets you use Linux how you want to. You can even just get the source code yourself and build it your way.
Not with Windows or IOS but we've been there and are still there with Linux.
Me: Timex/Sinclair 1000 --> Commodore 64 --> Commodore 128 --> IBM clone 386DX-40 --> a million self-built clones after that. I always wanted a Tandy CC2 and Amiga but didn't have the $$$ lol.
why would it be bad for a metered connection when they can just send the diffs and patch the images
Some of them, like Nix, by default, re-downloads EVERYTHING at each change. That can be changed, but it is default in that one.
You can make any os immutable with zfs. I think.😊
The IMMUTABLE write-only file system is what nsa.gov uses to backup everyone's kitty porn.
In my opinion they should be called atomic distros, more accurate. A change either succeeds or fails, there is no in between.
Immutable means the underlying OS does not change for integrity purposes. Atomic refers to how the OS gets updated.
@@christ.4977 some of them are also declarative vs imperative to throw in another important distinction. It's all pretty exciting tbh. If you like that sort of tech that is ...
@@sebastianbauer4768 NixOS mentioned!
@@christ.4977the thing is: they change. Not even accounting for abroot or rpm-ostree command, you can change the files in etc for most of these distro.
Just enable selinux
I don't know, everybody knows what happens when you make a copy of a copy.
The more I look at all the different Linux distributions, the more attractive BSD looks.
You still have distributions of BSD to consider and all of the same foibles one may encounter in Linux, except BSD-flavoured. Worst still is trying to make Linux binaries run on it; BSD has the means with a compatibility layer, but it's not nearly as turn-key compared to many Linux distributions.
Absolutely, my thinking exactly. Linux has become a pile of garage hacks held together with duct tape. Under the hood it's incredibly messy. BSD is properly engineered, consistent, clean, follows Unix principles to the letter, and allows you to run modern applications. I am thinking OpenBSD and nsCDE.
@@bluephreakrat least the binaries are installed in a sane location
@@mojojojo1529hey a fellow NsCDE user. Nice
I will never use an immutable distro.
Immutable distros are the future. Clunky OSs with integrity risks and get bloated over time should be a thing of the past. Configuration drift is a big problem this solves. The base OS should be simple, secure, and out of the way. All the apps should run on top. People fighting this trend are on the losing end. They're like the people back in the day calling the internet a fad and a trend. 😂
"Immutable distros are the future."
If you think they are your future then I wish you every success. But please don't speak for me, I don't need an immutable distro. I know enough about Linux to not be in constant fear of making a mistake and expecting someone else to clear up my mess for me - which is what an immutable distro is. It's like training wheels you put on a kid's bicycle with no expectation that the kid has to eventually learn to ride on two wheels and remove them.
"Clunky OSs with integrity risks and get bloated over time should be a thing of the past."
There are two types of Linux distro, apart from immutable "Linux for Babies" ones - there are fixed released distros like Ubuntu that people reinstall every one or two years and that therefore don't have the opportunity to get bloated before they get reinstalled anyway; and there are rolling distros like Gentoo (what I use) and Arch that just know what files belong to what packages at all times and therefore know what files to remove or update anyway, so don't get bloat.
In simple terms, you don't know what you're talking about - which is why I'd expect you to stick with a baby's immutable distro anyway. If it works for you, so be it. But becoming an expert takes time and effort, and you're clearly not even close yet.
"Configuration drift is a big problem this solves."
I've never heard of the term "configuration drift", despite having used and worked with Linux since 1996.
" The base OS should be simple, secure, and out of the way."
Sure, but an immutable OS isn't "simple", is it? It might be simple for you as the end user but someone has to put in extra complexity (like immutability) "under the hood" to make it that easy for you - that brings in extra software that is not in a "standard" ("not for babies") distro which introduces more bugs and security issues. You just expect someone else to put in the hard work of protecting you from those bugs and security issues.
"All the apps should run on top."
That statement means nothing.
"People fighting this trend are on the losing end."
I am not fighting it. I've stuck with Gentoo for 21 years now, it's not going to change any time soon. I am just very amused by the "new Linux poseurs" that want the "glory" but without the "effort". If some people want to pander to your laziness and give you a distro that suits you, then good luck to you and them. It doesn't affect me, it's just extremely amusing to see it.
"They're like the people back in the day calling the internet a fad and a trend."
Yes, and they were probably fishermen, airline pilots and painters that didn't have a clue about how computers and networks worked either - and then said silly things that turned out not to be true. It's funny how these things go in circles, caused by people who haven't got a clue what they are talking about.
@@terrydaktyllus1320 I'm not a Gentoo person, and I have zero against it, I just don't have the time, or energy to setup multiple systems as I can switch between 7 systems in my day, but I agree I don't need an immutable distro, and hand holding either as I run Manjaro Gnome Linux, and in the past few years I've had very few issues that weren't of my own doing messing around in the AUR like trying to make Blu-Ray playback work forgetting to install a package, or figuring out that I Installed a Kernel my laptop does not like so it won't wake up from sleep mode correctly, so I have to roll back one, etc.., and only use something like Flatpak, or App Images are last resorts If I can't find the package need any other way on Manjaro.
Also I've been using Linux on/off since about the same time as you, starting with Red Hat Deluxe, and Corel Linux, and being a gamer I did not make the full switch till around 2015, when more games on STEAM just worked with AMD. So yeah good luck to these people, as immutable distros are not the future for me, and I'm glad to know I'm not alone in this.
What do you mean? The code base Debian is basically the immutable distribution and things like Mint based on it are more stable than windows, thats why servers use linux. This will only be the future for corporate wage slaves who's masters don't want to pay for a windows license but also still want the same level of control over them as windows. Nobody will use one that is not forced to use it for work, everyone else will laugh at it.
So, how would this be different than running BTRFS with snapper? I use it on my EndeavourOS setups and they have ran flawlessly. And I am great at breaking systems. I can edit my system and restore instantly when needed.
Immutable systems are for obsessive-compulsive types who
MUST
CONTROL
EVERYTHING.
Or IT managers.
You're still going to have lots of random files laying around. The difference is that with an immutable OS the only files in the immutable folders are those from the base system or overlayed packages. No surprise binaries you compiled 5 years ago, no legacy file in /opt that remains there even though the software that used it stopped using it. If you install "fedora 41 Silver Blue" your system folders are the same as a fresh install.
But simple btrfs snapshots are fine for many people. At the end of the day the goal is to have a running system that does what you want.
For me, as a Bazzite user? Rollback is much wider, as I have 90-days of image files on my GHCR, making it simpler to pinpoint when and where an issue occurred. If something broke, I don't even get the broken image- I just ignore it and run the last image I have until I felt like fixing the issue a week later.
A freeze is a freeze is a freeze. A snapshot is a rollback is an update. States and Change. Persistence is a write with an ACL out to get them. It's apples vs apple cores. Not a What but a When.
Immutable distros make sense in a corporate or server environments, but even then only to an extent. A good team of sysadmins will most likely never want to lose the capability to modify systems on the fly, whether to tweak certain settings or make incremental updates or just do basic sysadmin work. OS immutability became a trend when K8s started, but K8s is *NOT* the answer to every single problem under the sun, because of so many new levels of complexity. Immutable distros make 0 sense on desktop computers. Because even driver update then are a hassle. Not to mention installing anything that is not in your base image.
I'm waiting for a RUclipsr to explain the difference between switching to an Immutable Distribution vs. relying on Timeshift (in an LTS base like Debian).
It's extremely simple - "Timeshift" is incremental, you can always go back to a previous image. "Immutable" means you always go back to the default image.
LMDE6 + Timeshift for me is the best. No massive storage requirements for complete system images, and the time factor is a huge point. If you use the Btrfs file system then Timeshift images only take a second or two to make. For normal life, if you're not an obsessive-compulsive-type person, immutable only makes sense if a) the OS is your life's fetish or b) you're deploying to several machines and need super-consistency. For the every day user just trying to use the OS as a means to an end instead of THE end, it's too labor-intensive.
Timeshift doesn't allow you to pick a boot volume. If your system is in a broken state that doesn't let it boot, you have to get a secondary media and restore it from there. You could probably set up such a system manually but here it works out of the box.
It's also inherently declarative. If I need to move my system, or the boot drive is broken, downloading the base image + overrides will be the exact same 100% of the time, no back-up needed.
Makes it super easy to switch to a completely different system. With timeshift you'd potentially have remaining packages only relevant to KDE on gnome or conversely. Here if I want to switch to KDE from gnome I can just download the image and have the fresh experience, and then rollback like nothing happened (save for a few config files in home sadly..). Not really an every-day occurrence but it's nice to have. I've definitely broken systems trying to switch out a desktop environment for another.
No question about what is installed. If it's in /bin, it's in the package repository. No random "make install" binary laying around (but not being able to just do that easily can also be a pain point)
Promotes the use of containers for "throw-away" software. If it's not necessary to install it in the base image, you're encouraged to use a container which can be cleaned up by just dropping it. Imo it's a nice way to do things. You could definitely do that regardless but here it's nicely integrated by default.
Security, to an extent. It's all btrfs so at the end of the day you totally can go around and hack stuff but it feels a lot safer that the only easy way to edit the system is through the package manager. And no software is going to fully break the OS by just running.
@@terrydaktyllus1320 Careful when you say "image" Timeshift creates snapshots. They are not the same as an image.
@@MichaelSharpTechniSmart I don't use Timeshift, I have no need of it.
I use snapshots regularly at work within the context of VMware, I know what one is.
It can still be considered an image of a backup because you can revert back to it in the event of a failure.
You understood what I meant, I understood what I meant. If I need correction from you in the future, I will ask for it.
Sounds like our buddy Cody is having the same issue Plasma 6 has been having with customized themes. I recently moved to the Flatpak version on my EOS version since the Arch repo version is very buggy. Of course my Debian install is using the older stable version, I wonder if LMDE is using that version as well.
Having played with 45 distros over the past two decades, if there's no requirement for me to switch from my current linux distros (Mint & LMDE6), I'm not going to switch, especially to a distro using GNOME or Plasma.
Immutable operating systems are nothing new, on the consumer side we could say that they date back to the 7th generation of consoles.the Xbox 360, PS3, and PSP all had locked-down operating systems that were updated using mechanisms reminiscent of those we see on Android and ChromeOS (Xbox OSes are heavily modified Windows variants and particularly the Xbox 360 and the original Xbox ones the only thing they had in common with Windows was the kernel, which was also highly modified, in a similar way to Android and others non-conventional Linux-kernel based OSes) it's a bit funny, because Microsoft already has experience in this field and they could use that model to solve the disaster that is updating Windows
Apple saw that and they took inspiration from them to create the walled garden that are the iDevices today.
I think it sounds too locked down and too rigid and when it comes to virus management and other types of threats you'll have challenges updating your system on a regular basis. I think the whole concept just adds another layer of slowdown and who knows whether each individual immutable distro has been thoroughly tested or just tested by one company.
Immutable Linux is great for any system where a ‘casual’ has to touch it. A public kiosk, your grandmother, a 6 year old with a penchant for destruction…
If your systems are already locked down with RBAC, are personal workstations used by professional adults, or simply test systems, do yourself a favor and just administer a regular OS with automation tools. You’re gonna thank yourself later.
The "fashionistas" are crowing about how great immutability and NixOS actually is when, in reality, we've had embedded (=immutable) Linux on systems, including kiosk ones, for decades anyway.
There's no common sense to putting an immutable distro onto a writeable media anyway. What's the point?
@@terrydaktyllus1320immutability and embedded distros solve different problems. Embedded distros attempt to solve size constraints, immutable distros attempt to solve change constraints. Not all immutable use cases are small (I work with telecom and the radio access network is almost always an immutable OS these days). It has its place.
A really helpful explanation. As for myself, although I am a long time Linux user of moderate ability,with a background in Math, I am still skeptical about immutable distros. Fear of change? Maybe so.
I was skeptical as well but I took the leap to Silverblue and haven't regretted it. It's still customizable but things just work in a way Windows and Mac users take for granted these days, especially when sticking to Flatpak/AppImages for apps. Honestly Silverblue 40 is so solid for me I kinda wish it was a LTS OS now as I feel no desire to make any changes or accept the risk they may entail.
I would like to know why updating won't break your programs if your dependent files are in the same file as your program and might if your dependent programs are in a separate file? Is it because some programs can't update the dependent programs without breaking and don't update if they are in flatpacks?
The immutable systems generally rely on Flatpaks/Snaps, which are containerized with their own dependencies.
@@SwitchedtoLinux Is there something inside the flatpacks that tell them whether or not they can update so they don't break or are they just isolated and never allowed to update?
Sounds like a good idea to me, but there are some tendencies that still make me dislike the Linux development: gtk strips away a lot of functionalities, gtk-3 is worse than gtk-2, Wayland strips away a lot of functionalities, and all this stuff is praised, while it makes the system less usable. I would like backwards development that backs to good version and takes another development direction. For me it seems like the Linux community praises a lot of crap in the name of futurism or just ... hipness and being cool rather than retarded. And I still don't understand why anyone uses Unity. Unity is futuristic hipness in a nutshell and just irritating crap for people that wish configurability and usability. OK, I just read the "12 Immutable Linux Distributions", and it gives a bad impression: some of them are using Unity, which stinks of "corporate strategy" to me, meaning: "our customers are idiots, we need something simple and stable for idiots". The other group are of the NixOS kind, which might be the right way to go in the future, but just now it is still overly complicated.
I think I get your core point and probably agree with it, but what do you mean by "strips away a lot of functionalities" when you're just "adding optional stuff" with the likes of gtk and Wayland anyway. If you don't want to use that stuff and just stick to the Linux CLI (something that I do on some older and lower-powered machines), then nothing stops you doing that.
And, yes, there is a lot of "fashionista" software around. It got ridiculous when, for example, it became necessary to have some built-in graphics acceleration to run a particular Linux terminal.
Linux may now occupy 5% of the desktop, but there's a lot of poseurs in that figure - just crowing about on social media as to how "l33t" they are with Linux on a Steam Deck.
When fedora, suse, oracle and ms' azure move to immutable for their servers you might be right, but at present it's just a small trend.
Server and desktop have totally different requirements. Servers are usually set up very minimally and in a way that the machine itself doesn't matter, and you don't want them to have down time every time you update. A desktop OS is expected to be rebooted frequently and needs to be stable and ensure the continuity of the system. If the server eats the dirt you switch it to another machine. If your desktop eats the dirt you need to be able to recover the one copy of your data that's stored on there, you can't just pull the docker/package on another machine.
They do have core os though, that's mostly meant as a minimal docker host. Since in that use case you'd have many hosts and rebooting one would be fine.
@@leeroyjenkins0 suse and fedora's desktop versions are mainly aimed at the sysadmins taking care of their servers. If there's suddenly a break between desktop and server those sysadmins might as well go back to windows, use macs or any other Linux distro.
As an arch user, immutable is everything I absolutely despise, but this is good for a company and I’d rather use that at work than windows. I hate windows. Also, SteamOS is immutable arch and valve chose arch (after dumping Debian) because the rolling release made it easier for them to choose exactly what and when they wanted to update things, rather than just following the Debian release schedule.
snapshots with btrfs solves this problem without the need of having a immutable distro. The reason why people don't use snapshots because of how it takes up space and time. Not so if you are using btrfs. Its subvolumes behaves more like an immutable distro by simply booting into a backup subvolume and, restoring and creating is instantaneous and only takes up space from just the changes, its not a clone like a traditional snapshot, because btrfs snapshots are atomic.
In other words. no need for immutable distros with btrfs.
"snapshots with btrfs solves this problem without the need of having a immutable distro."
How about just a good backup strategy?
@@terrydaktyllus1320 this is in regards of system restore in case your system gets borked by a bad update is what immutable is all about. snapshots with btrfs already does this now without needing to switch to a immutable distro. Its not a replacement of backing up your data. immutable distros is also not a replacement as a backup either except unlike btrfs snapshots, you lose control of your system by going immutable. You should always have a backup anyways.
Btrfs uses subvolumes for snapshots so in case a bad update. You simply reboot to a previous subvol and destroy the borked subvol and try again. This whole A and B concept. Btrfs has immutable beat lol.
@@terrydaktyllus1320btrfs snapshots are not hardware back-ups. They're two completely separate concepts.
Btrfs are COW, so mostly free on short time-lines. And in fact mostly free at large for most people.
Back-ups require a separate drive. And restoring from them is definitely not as fast. Snapshots are 2 clicks away.
2 different use cases.
It's not the same. It works fine for many people but an immutable distro ensures your volume is consistent with some base image. Btrfs snapshots just allow you to rollback to a previous "more sane" state with no guarantee of the state of that previous state.
@@leeroyjenkins0 honestly that does not matter because btrfs creates its own subvolume. you could do a sudo rm -rf / you simply destroyed that subvol. You simply boot up to a previous one. Base system is still intact.
So in perspective. You could change subvols like a cd changer changing discs is how i best describe this without losing a ton of disk space like a traditional snapshot image.
Nixos is not an immutable or atomic desktop distributions - it’s a declarative system. It was my daily driver before I switched to Aurora-dx.
NixOS is "Linux for Babies"... "I am keeping these trainer wheels on my bicycle and I am NEVER going to remove them or learn to not need them".
The distro for lazy millennials that strut around pretending to be Linux experts on social media just because they own a Steam Deck.
It's actually capable of all three, being declarative, atomic and immutable. You manage everything declaratively in files, have an immutable nix store and have rollback system updates. I don't get why you would disagree with the contributors that made it, on the categorization.
@@terrydaktyllus1320Are you one of these irrational rust haters too? Imagine thinking NixOS is for babies when it's one of the least beginner friendly Distros out there because you have to understand declarative system management on top of imperative systems, you seem to believe you can never intersect with imperative methods when using it, but that just means you haven't used it long.
@@BlackTakGolD put Nixos and Guix System in the declarative systems because it’s a better description on how these distributions work
@@oscs4556 Sure it's more characteristic to call it that, but it is also immutable in large part and atomic. You can just call the color orange, orange, but to be more descriptive you can also say it's #FFA500. The contributors define NixOS as immutable and atomic and it meets the definition largely as far as I can tell.
Another point is that the more complex system the more mistakes (I am talking about hardware complexity and hardware bugs). You may modify kernel switches, system config files to workaround. So I think the immutability is not the good way.
I agree. People seem to forget that a system that is made easy for them to use has to have more complexity "under the hood" that has to be created by someone else. That additional complexity leaves gaps for more bugs and security issues, and which, when they happen, are going to be beyond the scope of any user to resolve.
One of the intentions behind immutability is that you as a user won't be making those complex system mistakes. I see immutable distros as a decent offering to hand to non-technical users - like with SteamOS, it will work out of the box and takes some know-how and overrides to allow access to system files.
The other thing I've liked the idea of for these distros is the ability to "natively" run other distro files (.deb, .rpm, etc), and I'm keen for VanillaOS to iron out it's Android integration.
I have half a million entries in my host file, they didn't get there by themselves. I need the control at every level, take that away and I won't be happy. In fact, that is the very reason I dislike Android.
Lazy. Earn your money.
LOL