Skip Navigation
Remote View
linux Linux @lemmy.ml
Kroxx @lemm.ee

Immutable Distro Opinions

I recently took up Bazzite from mint and I love it! After using it for a few days I found out it was an immutable distro, after looking into what that is I thought it was a great idea. I love the idea of getting a fresh image for every update, I think for businesses/ less tech savvy people it adds another layer of protection from self harm because you can't mess with the root without extra steps.

For anyone who isn't familiar with immutable distros I attached a picture of mutable vs immutable, I don't want to describe it because I am still learning.

My question is: what does the community think of it?

Do the downsides outweigh the benefits or vice versa?

Could this help Linux reach more mainstream audiences?

Any other input would be appreciated!

250 comments

  • It's definitely great for the mainstream. Think of Linus Sebastian who has somehow broken every OS except for SteamOS.

    It's not great for me who uses Arch Linux btw with the expectation that if the system doesn't break on its own, then I will break it myself.

    • Honestly, I would say it isn't great for anyone who has to do something low level even once. Now that there are open source nvidia kernel drivers that has solved a pretty big issue for most people who would be interested in immutable distros, but there are still many other drivers and issues that your regular user may face.

      One example off the top of my head is that flatpaks specifically can't ship systemd services if I recall correctly. A lot of wayland apps for thigns like input have to use daemons because of wayland's security model. Lact for AMD and now Nvidia GPU control, ydotool, or even gui versions of such tools for remapping input.

      Snaps require custom kernel modules that aren't used outside of ubuntu, so I hesitate to trust them regardless of any of the other issues people have with them.

      This basically leaves appimages which aren't available for everything and don't always seem to work at least not as reliably as flatpak. I even tried to package the rstudio forensic software as an appimage myself, so I could have an easy way to use that proprietary piece of software, but I just couldn't get it to work. I couldn't get it to work with distrobox either using the official methods they provide to install it on linux. I did get it working in a chroot for some reason, but it had graphical issues. In the end, I made a PKGBUILD for arch and got it working that way.

      The point of all this is that a lot of times people say immutable is great for average, non tech savvy people, but I believe that literally everybody ends up needing to do low level stuff at least once or twice every so often. Which simply isn't a great experience since you end up having to do layering which throws these theoretical average users right back into the normal complexity of a mutable system, but with even more uncertainty in my opinion.

      Now then with all of these caveats. I do still agree that immutable distros are great for the aforementioned group of people and I know this statement contradicts a lot of what I have described above. The reason why I think they are great for the less tech savvy people however isn't because of any actual technical merit of the systems design though. Immutable distros are great for people like Linus Sebastion because it limits what they can do. You simply have to accept what is there the same way that you have to on proprietary systems like Mac and Windows. Those systems force you to do things a certain way unlike Linux and that is what people like Linus need because they have no business mucking around with the system to begin with.

      Lastly, all of this only works because devices like the Steam Deck are being run on specific hardware thus guaranteeing there compatibility. This is what we ultimately need. There would be much less need for low level operations to get drivers or change settings to make wifi or audio work right on a billion different devices if these people were buying linux compatible hardware in the first place.

    • And anybody who thinks that Linus doesn't look for those ways to break Linux is deluding themselves. He's a fucking asshole.

      • He can be an asshole, but I believe finding bugs is part of his job.

        Would you rather have him find them and complain to a community who might know what they could be, or someone else who will just complain and buy a MacBook instead?

  • Immutable distros are great for applications where you want uniformity for users and protections against users who are a little too curious for their own good.

    SteamOS is a perfect use case. You don't want users easily running scripts on their Steam Decks to install god knows what and potentially wreck their systems, then come to Valve looking for a fix.

    Immutable distros solve that issue. Patches and updates for the OS roll out onto effectively identical systems, and if something does break, the update will fail instead of the system. So users will still have a fully functional Steam Deck.

    If you're not very technical, or you aren't a power user and packaged apps like Flatpaks are available for all your software, then go for it. I prefer to tinker under the hood with my computers, but I also understand and except the risk that creates.

    Immutable distros are a valuable part of a larger, vibrant Linux ecosystem IMO.

  • what does the community think of it?

    It's important to note how the Linux community interacts with change. In the past, whenever a change has been significant enough to influence individual workflows, it often provoked strong reactions. This was evident when systemd was introduced and adopted by distros like Arch and Debian. Even though systemd was arguably superior in essential aspects for most users, it failed to meet the needs of at least a vocal minority. Consequently, community endeavors were set up to enable the use of Debian or Arch without systemd.

    Similarly, the introduction of immutable distributions seems to upset some people, though (at least to me) it's unjustified. Immutable distributions don't necessarily alter the traditional model. For instance, the existence of Fedora Silverblue doesn't impose changes on traditional Fedora; let alone Arch or Debian.

    But, overall, most Linux users aren't bothered by it. Though, they often don't see a use for themselves. Personally, I attribute this at least in part to existing misconceptions and misinformation on the subject matter. Though, still, a minority[1] (at best ~10%) actually prefers and uses 'immutable' distros.

    Do the downsides outweigh the benefits or vice versa?

    Depends entirely on what you want out of your system. For me, they absolutely do. But it's important to note that the most important thing they impose on the user is the paradigm shift that comes with going 'immutable'. And this is actually what traditional Linux users are most bothered by. But if you're unfamiliar with Linux conventions, then you probably won't even notice.

    As a side note, it's perhaps important to note that the similarities between traditional distros are greater than the similarities between immutable distros. Also, Fedora Atomic is much more like traditional Fedora than it is similar to, say, openSUSE Aeon or Vanilla OS. Grouping them together as if they are a cohesive group with very similar attributes is misleading. Of course, they share a few traits, but overall, the differences are far more pronounced.

    Therefore, it is a false dichotomy to simply label them as traditional distros versus immutable distros. Beyond these names, which we have assigned to them, these labels don't actually adequately explain how these systems work, how they interact, how their immutability is achieved (if at all), what underlying technologies they use, or how they manage user interactions. The implications of the above. Etc.

    Could this help Linux reach more mainstream audiences?

    The success of the Steam Deck and its SteamOS are the most striking and clear proof of this. So, yes. Absolutely.

    1. Not accounting SteamOS users.

  • I've used Bazzite for the last year or so after distrohopping for a while and landing on Arch. I learned how 'atomic' distros, as the Fedora folks call them, work. It sounded like my phone, where apps are relatively sandboxed and automatically update. I said 'this is how computers should work' and stuck to it.

    I wouldn't use standard Silverblue/Kinoite or standard Fedora. The uBlue images include so many drivers and fixes on the image that make the primary distros look incompetently made if you're not a power user. They wouldn't like me saying that because their work is only possible because of what Fedora does. But by that I mean, you will eventually run into something that doesn't work and it always comes down to some licensing or scope issue that the developers simply don't care about.

    Having to do literally anything extra to get your NVIDIA GPU drivers frankly isn't acceptable when that's not the case for AMD cards. Let alone having to modify grub in the worst case if your distro doesn't boot properly. If I have a part or plug something in that isn't some hyper specific piece of technology, it should just work, because it isn't 1999 where you need driver CDs anymore.

    The main tradeoff is that for users who aren't very technical, installing anything outside of flatpaks probably won't make any sense. They have guides, and stuff like brew and distrobox isn't that difficult when you understand it. But having 4 different ways to install stuff (flatpak, brew, distrobox, layering) sounds ridiculous and confusing on its face.

    I have a practically 0 maintenance system with Bazzite and that's the way I like it even though I'm perfectly capable of running anything else and modifying it to my liking. The average user isn't going to care about anything they're missing by not being able to modify certain files, or if they do, there's probably a better way to do whatever it is they're trying to do that doesn't involve running random bash scripts.

    I would recommend Aurora and Bluefin to all my Windows/Mac friends who aren't gamers, and Bazzite or Bazzite-gnome to everyone who is. I would never recommend anything else at this point, not even something like Mint, because I consider the uBlue images to be just that good and the tradeoffs of the weird program installation to be more than worth it. Other immutable/atomic distros are too immature (like Arkane Linux) or work fundamentally differently to Fedora Atomic and rely more on things like snapshots (like OpenSUSE Aeon/Kalpa) so I'm not really comfortable recommending them either.

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

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

  • what does the community think of it?

    Everyone has their own opinion, personally I think they're a great idea and have lots of great applications. But just like rolling vs non-rolling release it's a personal and application dependant choice.

    Do the downsides outweigh the benefits or vice versa?

    Again, depends, for my personal computer I wouldn't use it because I think it could get complicated to get specific things to work, but for closed hardware like the Deck or even a fairly stable desktop used as a gaming system it's perfect.

    Could this help Linux reach more mainstream audiences?

    It could, it can also hamper it because people might start to try solutions that only work until next boot and not understanding why, or having problems getting some special hardware to work (more than it would be a mutable distro). But there is a great counter to this which is that once it's running it will be very difficult to break by user error.

    At the end of the day I think it's a cool technology but that people should know what they're getting into, just like when choosing rolling vs non-rolling distro, it's not about what's better, but what suits your needs best.

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

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

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

  • I don't mind flatpaks, but overall I don't enjoy how software installs on immutable distros if it's not flatpacked. It's quite a kludge.

  • Bazzite is great. I was using Nobara before it, and Solus before that and Bazzite has been the best experience I ever had on Linux, I don't plan on changing distros as long as it remains a thing.

  • TL;DR: My desktop PC uses EndeavourOS and the only immutable experience I have is SteamOS 3. I can't say one approach is better than the other, but I like having the newest software and packages in my system. And that's best provided with a rolling release. I also think that sandbox systems like Flatpak and the several alternative installation methods besides the system package manager is an added complexity for a new user in Linux.

    I don't mind using an immutable system (BTW another term that describes this kind of system is Atomic, which comes from Fedora), as long as it is designed around it and works well. The only immutable system I use is on my Steam Deck with the pre-installed SteamOS 3. My generic desktop personal computer is using an Archlinux derivative EndeavourOS with a rolling-release, where I have much greater control over the system.

    Both systems have their strengths. I don't think that my mutable and always up to date system is breaking more often than the other system. The best part of it is, its always up to date and I get the newest applications. I try to not use much Flatpaks or AppImages (but do for certain apps, where I have no other choice for ease of use). And an immutable system naturally basically asks me to use Flatpaks and other user space package formats that is not handled by the distribution itself.

    Even though I have some thoughts on it, I am not excluding one approach. Many say that immutable distributions are good for new users to Linux. I think this adds some complexity and problems, because they need to use sandbox systems like Flatpak. And that's if they know that they are using Flatpak, because sometimes the app distribution gives options like AppImage and custom installer scripts as well. This is all confusing for someone who just starts with Linux. On top of it, the sandbox of Flatpak requires some additional setup and configuration for some apps, to access certain hardware or filesystems in example.

    All in all, I tend to like the traditional "mutable" distribution system as a rolling release model the most. But I'm an not excluding any other and would use a good "immutable" one; I just didn't try any other than the one in my Steam Deck.

250 comments