I recently bought netbook on AMD c50 for 20$ and firstly, i bought some ram and ssd, luckily ddr3 is very cheap, one or two 8gb sodimm modules and 256gb ssd, or in my case 360gb because price was the same when i ordered them, 360gb was even slightly cheaper, so what i was trying to say, this small cheap upgrade will make a world of difference, and when they’ll arrive I’m planning to install “tumbleweed kde” , whole cost of upgrade is 8$ for one module of 8gb ddr3 sodimm, and 17$ for 360gb ssd, 256gb price was the same as i said before
I don’t believe in immutable distros. They are not well developed now so it’s a bubble that should pop soon after people realize they are not ready yet and have a lot of disadvantages. Also they are unsuitable for old PCs and Nix seems relatively good for them so I don’t think Nix will die completely but we’ll have to see.
Wayland is meant to fully replace X11 and become the standard. Immutability as the idea itself has significant features that are advantages for some users but disadvantages or even deal breakers for others.
I can’t agree. Wayland should be THE display system we use. Flatpak can’t achieve full market dominance because the command line experience (especially for using cli apps) still sucks (and that’s where snaps come in to play). Immutable distros target an even smaller subset of users. Not only are they unsuitable for some use cases, but they’re also in complete opposition to some people’s workflows.
This seems more philosophical than on technicalities. If this is correct, would you mind elaborating on the philosophical side?
They are not well developed now
Even if this were the case, shouldn’t the constant development and continuous improvement result in something that’s (eventually) well-developed? The only way I could see this holding some truth is if by design the ‘immutable’ model (whatever that is) happens to be broken or something like that. Like, how some file systems are simply better than Btrfs (or any CoW filesystem for that matter) for specific tasks; i.e. ensure to use the right tool for the right task. So, do you pose that ‘immutable distros’ are by design not well-suited? If so, why?
so it’s a bubble that should pop soon after people realize they are not ready yet
So you (actually) acknowledge and imply that it will become ready at some point. Or not? Furthermore, like how do you reconcile this with Fedora’s ambitions for Fedora Atomic? Or how NixOS is going strong (perhaps stronger than ever) while it’s been in the making since before Ubuntu?
and have a lot of disadvantages.
And advantages*. Or do you ignore those?
Also they are unsuitable for old PCs
This is false. What makes you think that?
and Nix seems relatively good for them
What’s “them” in this sentence? The “old PCs” you had just mentioned? Or something else? Furthermore, if it is the “old PCs”, doesn’t this directly contradict with “they are unsuitable for old PCs”?
You have entirely misunderstood or intentionally misconcepted my comment.
This seems more philosophical than on technicalities. If this is correct, would you mind elaborating on the philosophical side?
There is no philosophical side. I don’t believe in them getting very major on desktops and laptops. That’s it.
Even if this were the case, shouldn’t the constant development and continuous improvement result in something that’s (eventually) well-developed?
Yes but the hype should disappear a long time before it happens. And that’s what I meant by the bubble. It’s very hyped, misunderstood and misused thing now. It will go away and then immutable systems will find their niche or die out.
And advantages*. Or do you ignore those?
This looks like an attempt to start a fight or act like the aggressive part of the Nix community. I said immutable systems have advantages and disadvantages (in the next comment I think) but you either didn’t read or decided to just fight instead.
This is false. What makes you think that?
Dual system partitions and Flatpaks are both not great for machines that use HDDs.
What’s “them” in this sentence?
Old PCs.
Furthermore, if it is the “old PCs”, doesn’t this directly contradict with “they are unsuitable for old PCs”?
It doesn’t because Nix doesn’t have the just mentioned disadvantages of immutable systems. Idk why you misunderstood this but imo it seems suspicious of you.
There is no philosophical side. I don’t believe in them getting very major on desktops and laptops. That’s it.
Alright. Thanks for clarification. Does “getting very major” primarily apply to adoption rate amongst users? Or does it primarily take into account adoption rate amongst distros?
Yes but the hype should disappear a long time before it happens. And that’s what I meant by the bubble. It’s very hyped, misunderstood and misused thing now. It will go away and then immutable systems will find their niche or die out.
Clear. Thank you. In your view, how should they be understood and used?
I said immutable systems have advantages and disadvantages (in the next comment I think)
I saw the part about advantages right after. However, I also noticed how the first disadvantage was written without nuance. The set of disadvantages and advantages that followed right afterwards was accompanied with “for some” (or something like that IIRC^[1]^). Therefore, to me at least, it seemed as if you meant that there were disadvantages overall. But some of these disadvantages may be perceived as advantageous to some. Which, I thought was perhaps more in line with the general outlook of your comment. Or at least, my understanding of it*.
Dual system partitions and Flatpaks are both not great for machines that use HDDs.
HDDs in general are not great :P . But, “unsuitable” =/= “not great”. So, this does not justify the (previous) usage of “unsuitable”. So, do you still stand behind the earlier use of “unsuitable”?
Old PCs.
Thank you for another clarification!
It doesn’t because Nix doesn’t have the just mentioned disadvantages of immutable systems.
Interesting.
I just noticed that I read your “Nix” as “NixOS”. Which is blameworthy*. Uhmm…, so I have to ask for some (more) clarifications then 😜. Did you strictly mean Nix; i.e. the package manager and/or language? Or NixOS? According to you, does NixOS fall into Nix; i.e. simply the system that’s built on Nix?
This looks like an attempt to start a fight or act like the aggressive part of the Nix community.
but you either didn’t read or decided to just fight instead.
Idk why you misunderstood this but imo it seems suspicious of you.
Fam. Chill. Please. I don’t intend to antagonize or whatsoever 😅. Like, the (overwhelming) majority of my previous comment were queries for clarifications and questioned related to how I initially understood them. There’s no need to make it more than that 😉.
All in all, thank you for clarifying and answering almost anything I asked. However, the following (I believe) still requires some attention:
Furthermore, like how do you reconcile this with Fedora’s ambitions for Fedora Atomic?
To clarify, from my understanding, it seems you regard/view ‘immutable distros’ at best as some niche. Which, to be fair, is absolutely fine. And perhaps you’re right; the future will tell. However, we know what Fedora intends for 2028; i.e. users of Fedora Atomic (and related ‘immutable’ projects led by Fedora) would constitute the majority of its user base. Furthermore, they’ve spoken since 2021 (IIRC) that Fedora Atomic (so likely Fedora Silverblue) will eventually become what people will install for Fedora Workstation. So, their ambition is clear. And their ambition contradicts with how you view it. How do you reconcile this with the fact that other distros (more often than not) join Fedora into whatever direction they depart? Examples of this include systemd, PulseAudio, PipeWire and some might even mention Flatpak and Wayland here.
You’ve since changed your original comment (which is fair), so I’m not able to directly quote*.
OMG that’s a lot of comment lol. My brain is gonna melt when typing a reply to THIS in English. But I guess I can try.
Does “getting very major” primarily apply to adoption rate amongst users? Or does it primarily take into account adoption rate amongst distros?
Amongst users. It’s possible that every big and medium distro will have an immutable spin soon but it won’t be too popular.
In your view, how should they be understood and used?
I’m sorry but expressing my opinion on it greatly increases the chance of running out of energy which will make my speech absolutely illogical and ridiculous.
I saw the part about advantages right after. However, I also noticed how the first disadvantage was written without nuance. The set of disadvantages and advantages that followed right afterwards was accompanied with “for some” (or something like that IIRC^[1]^). Therefore, to me at least, it seemed as if you meant that there were disadvantages overall. But some of these disadvantages may be perceived as advantageous to some. Which, I thought was perhaps more in line with the general outlook of your comment. Or at least, my understanding of it*.
My brain always returns an “out of memory” error of the if/else solving module if I try to feed it this part so sorry if my response isn’t complete. I indeed made it look like the features of immutable distros are disadvantages to more people than they are advantages to. This is my opinion which might be biased since immutability goes totally against my workflow and the workflows I make for other people.
But, “unsuitable” =/= “not great”. So, this does not justify the (previous) usage of “unsuitable”. So, do you still stand behind the earlier use of “unsuitable”?
Worse for = not meant for; not meant for = unsuitable imo because there are just better options; this leads to worse = unsuitable. Maybe not completely unsuitable but at least definitely not good for.
Thank you for another clarification!
You are welcome and thank you for not being toxic like at least approximately 2/3 of people on Lemmy (according to my not-so-accurate research).
I just noticed that I read your “Nix” as “NixOS”. Which is blameworthy*. Uhmm…, so I have to ask for some (more) clarifications then 😜. Did you strictly mean Nix; i.e. the package manager and/or language? Or NixOS? According to you, does NixOS fall into Nix; i.e. simply the system that’s built on Nix?
Ok listen idk much about Nix ecosystem/infrastructure. I meant NixOS here. Sorry for the confusion. The habit of not including the “OS” ending comes from the Android community.
Fam. Chill. Please. I don’t intend to antagonize or whatsoever 😅. Like, the (overwhelming) majority of my previous comment were queries for clarifications and questioned related to how I initially understood them. There’s no need to make it more than that 😉.
I’m sorry, mister/miss. My attitude to the society, people in general and Lemmy users is negative and suspicious by default. I have my reasons and, no matter how controversial it is, I’m not going to change it. Most of the people by far are bad and toxic so it’s ok to make this assumption the default. Again I’m sorry that this my assumption caused inconvenience for you.
To clarify, from my understanding, it seems you regard/view ‘immutable distros’ at best as some niche. Which, to be fair, is absolutely fine.
It may not be a small niche but everything has a niche (even X11, Wayland, GNOME and Windows 10) so immutable distros can have a big one or a small one. As you said, future will tell. I don’t see them getting a large (more than 10-20% desktop Linux users) niche any time soon.
How do you reconcile this with the fact that other distros (more often than not) join Fedora into whatever direction they depart?
I don’t think it’s the case or at least I don’t have any information on it. Fedora just tries making new and very perspective stuff the first and the stuff always succeeded in the past. In the case of immutable distros, I feel like it’s gonna be some nice to watch chaos because new users will have to understand how to disable immutability to install drivers and fixes which means much more research (because most answers will just say “disable immutability for the directories that the fix needs” and the user will have no idea of any of that) and terminal commands. At the same time, immutable systems may be less suitable for advanced users who like tinkering. This makes a huge part of the Linux user base. Then I can say “told you” with pride. Though immutable distros are great for cases when the system must be limited to a certain task(s). On the desktop it’s the enterprise usage but idk how many % they are. I think it’s in the single digits.
Also we’re searching for the Lemmy’s comment length limit with these ones!!!
OMG that’s a lot of comment lol. My brain is gonna melt when typing a reply to THIS in English. But I guess I can try.
Yeah lol. I’m sure we’ll (somehow) manage.
Amongst users. It’s possible that every big and medium distro will have an immutable spin soon but it won’t be too popular.
Aight. Thanks for (yet) another clarification. I obviously think that ‘immutable’ distros will heavily influence the future of Linux. Heck, I wouldn’t be surprised if all big distros will default to becoming ‘immutable’. However, that version of an ‘immutable’ distro may not exist yet. FWIW, it’s also (somewhat) in-line with Lennart Poettering’s vision.
I’m sorry but expressing my opinion on it greatly increases the chance of running out of energy which will make my speech absolutely illogical and ridiculous.
If anything, I’d love to read this. So please, whenever you feel like it, consider returning back on this.
I indeed made it look like the features of immutable distros are disadvantages to more people than they are advantages to. This is my opinion which might be biased since immutability goes totally against my workflow and the workflows I make for other people.
Fair. If it isn’t too much of a trouble, could you elaborate on your workflow? Like, are you constantly installing new stuff?
Worse for = not meant for; not meant for = unsuitable imo because there are just better options; this leads to worse = unsuitable. Maybe not completely unsuitable but at least definitely not good for.
I implore you to use other words going forward 😜. Perhaps I’m wrong, but to me, this seems like an example in which your ‘bias’ seeps through.
Ok listen idk much about Nix ecosystem/infrastructure. I meant NixOS here. Sorry for the confusion. The habit of not including the “OS” ending comes from the Android community.
Don’t worry about the confusion 😉. But thanks for your consideration! However, if I understood you correctly, this implies that you don’t consider NixOS an ‘immutable’ distro. Or at least not representative of ‘immutable’ distros. If this assumption is correct, could you elaborate on why you think that’s the case?
I’m sorry, mister/miss. My attitude to the society, people in general and Lemmy users is negative and suspicious by default. I have my reasons and, no matter how controversial it is, I’m not going to change it. Most of the people by far are bad and toxic so it’s ok to make this assumption the default. Again I’m sorry that this my assumption caused inconvenience for you.
No worries, fam. Again, I appreciate your consideration!
It may not be a small niche but everything has a niche (even X11, Wayland, GNOME and Windows 10) so immutable distros can have a big one or a small one. As you said, future will tell. I don’t see them getting a large (more than 10-20% desktop Linux users) niche any time soon.
Interesting notion on niche. Which I don’t think is necessary unjustified*. Though I am having a hard time coming up with a definition to how I understood your understanding. I initially thought of “everything that’s not (necessarily) mainstream”. But if you mention Windows 10 as an example, then that can’t be it. Perhaps “use” or “preference”? Could you (perhaps) define what you mean with “niche”?
I don’t think it’s the case or at least I don’t have any information on it.
Thanks for being transparent! Consider looking into the earlier given examples. Perhaps it’s even noteworthy to name some of the competitors that have perished against the alternative: Wayland vs Mir, systemd vs Upstart, Flatpak vs Snap etc.
Fedora just tries making new and very perspective stuff the first and the stuff always succeeded in the past.
Interesting. So, do you pose (as an alternative) that merely the successful is adopted? So they didn’t necessarily follow whatever Fedora did, but Fedora just happened to be on the winning team. Hence, the winner takes all.
Btw, what do you mean with “very perspective stuff”?
In the case of immutable distros, I feel like it’s gonna be some nice to watch chaos because new users will have to understand how to disable immutability to install drivers and fixes
On what ‘immutable distros’ is ‘immutability’ disabled for installing drivers? I don’t recall the last time “disabling immutability” was mentioned within the discourse for a legitimate reason or fix. At best, some people that don’t know how specific changes are meant to be applied on the specific distro they use, succumb to the infamous XY problem and try to do stuff the wrong way. But this is not a problem found exclusively on ‘immutable’ distros.
which means much more research (because most answers will just say “disable immutability for the directories that the fix needs” and the user will have no idea of any of that) and terminal commands.
Honestly, I have never encountered this. I don’t know where you get this idea from. I feel like you might have fundamentally misunderstood how (most) ‘immutable’ distros work. If possible, could you provide a link or anything in which that proposed solution is indeed mentioned most when tackling a specific problem found on an ‘immutable distro’?
Btw, I’m open to the notion that I completely misunderstood what you’re saying here. Therefore, if possible, could you mention your notion of what “disable immutability” entails. Like, how does that even work on something like e.g. Fedora Atomic?
At the same time, immutable systems may be less suitable for advanced users who like tinkering.
It depends. Some advanced users actually love the reproducible aspect that comes with (most) ‘immutable’ distros, because this enables them to tinker to their heart’s content without being afraid of losing a working system.
This makes a huge part of the Linux user base.
While I wouldn’t be surprised if this has been the case for the longest time, I do think that as Linux successfully attracts an ever bigger crowd, that eventually a huge part of the Linux user base will consist of normies. And, as it stands, I can only see them go for stable (by release cycle) distros or ‘immutable’ distros unless some other drastic changes happen in the mean time that enables your Average Joe to run a (semi-)rolling release distro without troubles.
My previous comment was perhaps too enthusiastic 😜 . I’d like to slim it down as follows:
First of all, thank you! It has been a lovely interaction so far. Your clarifications have been very helpful!
I’m still very much interested in how you think ‘immutable’ distros should be understood and used.
If I understood you correctly, you don’t regard NixOS as an ‘immutable’ distro (or at least not representative), would you be so kind to elaborate on this?
Some of your notions regarding ‘immutable’ distros don’t align with my own experiences; i.e. a user with over two years of experience with Fedora Atomic and who has played around with Nix. Especially the following parts:
In the case of immutable distros, I feel like it’s gonna be some nice to watch chaos because new users will have to understand how to disable immutability to install drivers and fixes which means much more research (because most answers will just say “disable immutability for the directories that the fix needs” and the user will have no idea of any of that) and terminal commands.
To be absolutely clear, these notions are (almost) alien to me. I’ve only come across these with new users that had fallen for the (infamous) XY problem. But that’s not even remotely representative. Hence, would I be correct to assume that your understanding of ‘immutable’ distros is relatively shallow? Which, to be absolutely fair, is totally fine.
Though, the possibility exists that your understanding of “disable immutability” is correct, but this particular phrase happens to be misleading instead. Hence, could you perhaps elaborate on what you mean with “disable immutability”? Like, how does that look like on any ‘immutable’ distro you’re familiar with?
I am sorry, mister/miss. Something weird happened to my Lemmy account and it was inaccessible for 2 days.
I’m still very much interested in how you think ‘immutable’ distros should be understood and used.
Immutable distros are good for cases when the machine is meant to be used for very specific tasks and applications while maintaining extreme stability and ease of updating. This includes OSes for ATMs, machinery control panels, enterprise office computers with very strict policies, educational computer class devices. I am not sure whether they are good for critical infrastructure such as aerospace industry and on-board computers so I can’t comment on that and it’s too early to do so anyways. Immutable systems can also be used for regular modern workspaces if stability (and possibly security) are preferred over absolutely everything else.
If I understood you correctly, you don’t regard NixOS as an ‘immutable’ distro (or at least not representative), would you be so kind to elaborate on this?
For me an “immutable distro” is defined more by its read-only (or R/W with write being disabled by default) root file system than by reproducibility or any other stuff. Afaik NixOS does not use any form of read-only FS so that’s why it is not an immutable distro to me.
To be absolutely clear, these notions are (almost) alien to me. I’ve only come across these with new users that had fallen for the (infamous) XY problem. But that’s not even remotely representative. Hence, would I be correct to assume that your understanding of ‘immutable’ distros is relatively shallow? Which, to be absolutely fair, is totally fine.
No matter how good your distro is, there always will be new users that need fixes or customizations that require extra steps and research on immutable (as in my definition) distros. This increases the chance of them giving up on Linux or creating angry/toxic posts on Linux related websites and communities.
Hence, could you perhaps elaborate on what you mean with “disable immutability”.
“Disable immutability” means “allow persistent changes for files and directories located in specific directories that are not in the /home directory/partition (“read-only” directories)”.
I am sorry, mister/miss. Something weird happened to my Lemmy account and it was inaccessible for 2 days.
No worries, fam 😉.
Immutable distros are good for cases when the machine is meant to be used for very specific tasks and applications while maintaining extreme stability and ease of updating. This includes OSes for ATMs, machinery control panels, enterprise office computers with very strict policies, educational computer class devices. I am not sure whether they are good for critical infrastructure such as aerospace industry and on-board computers so I can’t comment on that and it’s too early to do so anyways.
I think we very much agree on this. I am actually surprised 😜. Perhaps we (possibly) only ‘disagree’ on the following:
Immutable systems can also be used for regular modern workspaces if stability (and possibly security) are preferred over absolutely everything else.
I actually even agree with this. But, and here it comes, you limit the use of ‘immutable systems’ when it comes to regular workspaces to just a subset that complies with “if stability (and possibly security) are preferred over absolutely everything else”. However, I’d argue it will soon become the preferred model for most people; simply because I’d argue the net positives dramatically outweigh the (diminishing) net negatives. And this ‘clash’ in perspectives is literally a philosophical/ideological one. Which, I actually tried to allude to in my very first comment. Btw, neither of us is right or wrong; as mentioned earlier, only time will tell.
For me an “immutable distro” is defined more by its read-only (or R/W with write being disabled by default) root file system than by reproducibility or any other stuff.
Alright. So, you prefer to refer to ‘immutable’ distro in the literal sense.
Regarding the status of the read-only (or disabled R/W) root file system, does this have to apply to the complete root file system; i.e. absolute? Or does it suffice if only a select subset of the system is read-only (or disabled R/W)? I wanted to ask this, but later on you made clear that a system does not have to be completely and absolutely immutable for it to be considered immutable; a couple of read-only directories suffices.
Furthermore, is it required that an immutable system should remain immutable at all times for it to be considered an immutable system; i.e. changes are not allowed besides ‘hacks’? Or is it perhaps possible for a system to be deemed immutable if it only possesses immutability during runtime?
Thanks in advance for yet another set of clarifications 😜!
Afaik NixOS does not use any form of read-only FS so that’s why it is not an immutable distro to me.
Teaser; the Nix Store, i.e. /nix/store, is immutable.
“Disable immutability” means “allow persistent changes for files and directories located in specific directories that are not in the /home directory/partition (“read-only” directories)”.
Very interesting. So, on Fedora Atomic, rpm-ostree install <package> would be considered “disable immutability”. Right? But, this does not apply to flatpak install <package>. Right?
No matter how good your distro is, there always will be new users that need fixes or customizations that require extra steps and research on immutable (as in my definition) distros. This increases the chance of them giving up on Linux or creating angry/toxic posts on Linux related websites and communities.
To be clear, new users will most likely experience some issues on Linux for the time being. I don’t think that ‘immutable’ distros are immune to that. Nor do I think they’re particularly more troublesome. If anything, they allow for more stable experiences overall; which you seem to allude to as well.
I actually even agree with this. But, and here it comes, you limit the use of ‘immutable systems’ when it comes to regular workspaces to just a subset that complies with “if stability (and possibly security) are preferred over absolutely everything else”. However, I’d argue it will soon become the preferred model for most people; simply because I’d argue the net positives dramatically outweigh the (diminishing) net negatives. And this ‘clash’ in perspectives is literally a philosophical/ideological one. Which, I actually tried to allude to in my very first comment. Btw, neither of us is right or wrong; as mentioned earlier, only time will tell.
Idk if it changes anything but in that part of my comment the word “workspace” should’ve been replaced by “workstation”. I guess I chose a wrong word in autocorrect.
Regarding the status of the read-only (or disabled R/W) root file system, does this have to apply to the complete root file system; i.e. absolute? Or does it suffice if only a select subset of the system is read-only (or disabled R/W)? I wanted to ask this, but later on you made clear that a system does not have to be completely and absolutely immutable for it to be considered immutable; a couple of read-only directories suffices.
I think you have misunderstood my reply a lot. An immutable system is when everything (or almost everything) except for /home is read-only. Idk if my English was an issue there but it looks like you understood that part completely upside down.
Very interesting. So, on Fedora Atomic, rpm-ostree install <package> would be considered “disable immutability”. Right?
Probably. Idk anything about ostree. What I meant is that if you want to manually edit a file anywhere except for /home (or do any manual changes to the system like installing a GTK theme), you have to run a command (I forgot which one) to disable immutability for the directory it’s in (or only for the file; I don’t remember). For new users it can be a problem because it may be hard for them to find a good tutorial that covers all the steps, especially at the start of the “immutability boom” if it’s ever going to happen.
If anything, they allow for more stable experiences overall; which you seem to allude to as well.
As I just said, more stability means that issues are more stable and hard to solve as well.
Idk if it changes anything but in that part of my comment the word “workspace” should’ve been replaced by “workstation”. I guess I chose a wrong word in autocorrect.
Nope, it doesn’t. But thanks for clarifying!
An immutable system is when everything (or almost everything) except for /home is read-only.
Interesting. Here’s the thing; I am unaware of any so-called ‘immutable distro’ that fits this definition/description/notion/idea/understanding of an immutable system. So…, where do we go from here?
Idk if my English was an issue there but it looks like you understood that part completely upside down.
In retrospect, I think you actually did an okay-job at explaining your thoughts. But, yes; I did indeed misunderstand. Thanks for clarifying!
Probably. Idk anything about ostree.
In Fedora Atomic, most of /usr is immutable. IIRC, this is even the only directory (combined with the sub-directories found within) that are immutable. However, the command rpm-ostree install <package> allows the user to install packages into /usr. However, this change doesn’t happen during runtime. Instead, a new image/deployment is created with the newly installed package that you can access after a (soft-)reboot (or with –apply-live if you like to live on the edge).
Based on this, does this still apply as “disabling immutability”?
What I meant is that if you want to manually edit a file anywhere except for /home (or do any manual changes to the system like installing a GTK theme), you have to run a command (I forgot which one) to disable immutability for the directory it’s in (or only for the file; I don’t remember).
This seems to be based on your own experience. If so, would you be so kind to inform me on which distro this was?
For new users it can be a problem because it may be hard for them to find a good tutorial that covers all the steps, especially at the start of the “immutability boom” if it’s ever going to happen.
Currently, apart from the documentation provided by uBlue and Guix, there’s definitely a lack of good resources for ‘immutable’ distros. That’s simply a fact. But, thankfully, this is not a problem by design; we just need people that are willing to put in the effort.
As I just said, more stability means that issues are more stable and hard to solve as well.
Sorry, I’m having a hard time understanding this. Could you perhaps provide an example of this from e.g. Debian? It can be any distro that’s regarded as *‘stable’**.
Unless I’m wrong, you seem to have missed the following. It would be awesome if you could touch upon these as well:
Furthermore, is it required that an immutable system should remain immutable at all times for it to be considered an immutable system; i.e. changes are not allowed besides ‘hacks’? Or is it perhaps possible for a system to be deemed immutable if it only possesses immutability during runtime?
Thanks in advance 😊!
WOW, I just noticed something. You’ve been using the term “immutable system” for quite some time. And, I’ve primarily been using the term ‘immutable’ distro.
Interesting. Here’s the thing; I am unaware of any so-called ‘immutable distro’ that fits this definition/description/notion/idea/understanding of an immutable system. So…, where do we go from here?
In Fedora Atomic, most of /usr is immutable.
This is enough to cause most of the issues.
Based on this, does this still apply as “disabling immutability”?
Not really because this is a pre-installed tool that doesn’t require any hassle to get working.
This seems to be based on your own experience. If so, would you be so kind to inform me on which distro this was?
It wasn’t my experience. I’ve never tried an immutable distro myself because it goes against my personal preferences and needs. I saw that on YouTube. I don’t remember what distro it was unfortunately but I’m almost sure it was Fedora based. Also in case you didn’t know, GTK themes are usually installed in /usr/share/themes so disabling immutable is required to do so even if /usr is the only thing that’s immutable.
we just need people that are willing to put in the effort.
Sure but this excuse won’t help new users and won’t stop them turning away from Linux.
Sorry, I’m having a hard time understanding this. Could you perhaps provide an example of this from e.g. Debian? It can be any distro that’s regarded as *‘stable’**.
I meant the disadvantages of immutable systems here, not stability in general.
Or is it perhaps possible for a system to be deemed immutable if it only possesses immutability during runtime?
I have no idea what a runtime is so I can’t answer this question.
WOW, I just noticed something. You’ve been using the term “immutable system” for quite some time. And, I’ve primarily been using the term ‘immutable’ distro.
I use the term “immutable system” because someone can create an immutable fork of BSD or even Windows can become immutable. It’s not just about Linux.
You’re on fire, fam! Thank you for another quick one.
Before moving on, I want to make clear that I should correct some of my earlier statements. It probably doesn’t matter, but for sake of completeness.
I actually even agree with this. But, and here it comes, you limit the use of ‘immutable systems’ when it comes to regular workspaces to just a subset that complies with “if stability (and possibly security) are preferred over absolutely everything else”. However, I’d argue it will soon become the preferred model for most people; simply because I’d argue the net positives dramatically outweigh the (diminishing) net negatives. And this ‘clash’ in perspectives is literally a philosophical/ideological one. Which, I actually tried to allude to in my very first comment. Btw, neither of us is right or wrong; as mentioned earlier, only time will tell.
What I describe above is not meant for immutable systems, but for ‘immutable’ distros.
This is enough to cause most of the issues.
I didn’t imply otherwise 😜. I was just explaining how immutability works on Fedora Atomic.
Not really because this is a pre-installed tool that doesn’t require any hassle to get working.
Excellent. I agree. So, “disabling immutability” therefore only applies to ‘hacks’. Right?
It wasn’t my experience. I’ve never tried an immutable distro myself because it goes against my personal preferences and needs. I saw that on YouTube. I don’t remember what distro it was unfortunately but I’m almost sure it was Fedora based.
Thanks for being transparent! I also appreciate you sticking to your values.
Also in case you didn’t know, GTK themes are usually installed in /usr/share/themes so disabling immutable is required to do so even if /usr is the only thing that’s immutable.
I knew this (and also how ~/.local/share/themes could be utilized for this). But, fair; this is indeed something that Fedora Atomic’s old model didn’t allow. Or, at best, very ‘hacky’. Like, it’s basically not intended for the end-user to put stuff in here. Fedora Atomic’s new OCI-enabled model does allow this. But, yeah…; we ain’t (necessarily) here to discuss implementations. Fact of the matter and the issue at hand is that traditional distros don’t deal with issues like these. Right?
Sure but this excuse won’t help new users and won’t stop them turning away from Linux.
IMO, if a new user wants to use an ‘immutable’ distro, then they should just use one of uBlue’s images. They’re like the Linux Mint or Zorin or Pop!_OS of immutable distros. And, as previously mentioned, uBlue’s documentation is at least sufficient. Traditional Linux distros are not to blame if a new user breaks their Manjaro installation. Similarly, ‘immutable’ distros are not to blame if a new user breaks their not newbie-friendly ‘immutable’ distro.
I meant the disadvantages of immutable systems here, not stability in general.
I think I got you now. Like with the previously mentioned issue with placing themes inside the /usr/share/themes directory; on any traditional distro, you’d be free to place it there and you wouldn’t even have noticed a thing. While some 'immutable’ distros, like Fedora Atomic, make this hard. Do you think I understood you correctly?
I have no idea what a runtime is so I can’t answer this question.
The expression “during runtime” is used to express a running and/or currently in use system. So, if my device is off, then the expression “during runtime” does not apply. When I’m using the system or even if it’s just idling, then the expression “during runtime” does apply. However, it’s possible with Btrfs (and more sophisticated technologies) to create a partition/deployment/image on your disk that’s currently not running nor in use and which has some changes compared to your running system. Then, once again, the expression “during runtime” does not apply.
Perhaps, I could be even more elaborate. So, on the overwhelming majority of ‘immutable’ distros (Guix System and NixOS are literally the exception) that offer a built-in mechanic for installing packages to the immutable base system (like the aforementioned rpm-ostree that’s found on Fedora Atomic), the changes are not meant to be applied directly on the running system. So, for example, right after rpm-ostree install emacs, I can’t just type emacs in a console/terminal and expect it to open. Nor does it appear in the app drawer. Only after the (soft-)reboot will I be able to use Emacs; be it through the console/terminal or find it in the app drawer.
So, these are examples of ‘immutable distros’ that are only (meant to be) immutable during runtime, because it’s possible to apply changes to a system that’s not currently running/in-use/idle or whatsoever.
I use the term “immutable system” because someone can create an immutable fork of BSD or even Windows can become immutable. It’s not just about Linux.
Interesting. Thanks for that clarification.
WOW, I just noticed something. You’ve been using the term “immutable system” for quite some time. And, I’ve primarily been using the term ‘immutable’ distro.
The crux of this conversation lies here I believe. Your notion/understanding of an immutable system is probably more correct and more in line with what you’d expect from its name. However, the name “‘immutable’ distros” is unfortunately not descriptive. Contrary to what you’d expect, it’s not a distro that happens to be an immutable system; at least, not in the absolute/complete sense.
I agree with you that this is misleading and a poorly chosen name. Heck, Fedora agrees with you; they’ve changed “Fedora Immutable Desktops” to “Fedora Atomic Desktops” because of this. However, as bad as the name is, people use the term “‘immutable’ distros” when talking about Fedora Atomic, Guix System, NixOS, openSUSE MicroOS and Ubuntu Core.
That’s why I said this:
Interesting. Here’s the thing; I am unaware of any so-called ‘immutable distro’ that fits this definition/description/notion/idea/understanding of an immutable system. So…, where do we go from here?
And, to be honest, I’m not sure if you answered the bold question.
Thanks (once again) in advance! And apologies for this long comment 😅.
So, “disabling immutability” therefore only applies to ‘hacks’. Right?
Idk if everything can br called “hacks” but mostly yea.
(and also how ~/.local/share/themes could be utilized for this)
I know but idk if GUI apps and extensions can see themes installed in ~/.local and how many installation guides tell about that method.
Fedora Atomic’s new OCI-enabled model does allow this.
Idk how it works and how simple it is but gtk that.
Fact of the matter and the issue at hand is that traditional distros don’t deal with issues like these. Right?
Exactly.
Similarly, ‘immutable’ distros are not to blame if a new user breaks their not newbie-friendly ‘immutable’ distro.
But we’re talking about situation when user-friendly distros become immutable. If the user willingly chooses an advanced distro, it’s not the distro’s fault but, for example, you said that Fedora expects their immutable options to become mainstream. I know that Fedora and other immutable distros are often recommended for new users now. This means that the ones that recommend them consider them user-friendly. Imo this, as well as rumors about Canonical want to make Ubuntu Core the default desktop offering, destroys your point in the context of this discussion.
Do you think I understood you correctly?
Yes that’s exactly what I’m talking about.
The expression “during runtime” is used to express a running and/or currently in use system. So, if my device is off, then the expression “during runtime” does not apply. When I’m using the system or even if it’s just idling, then the expression “during runtime” does apply. However, it’s possible with Btrfs (and more sophisticated technologies) to create a partition/deployment/image on your disk that’s currently not running nor in use and which has some changes compared to your running system. Then, once again, the expression “during runtime” does not apply.
Thank you for the explanation. I appreciate it. And in this case I think my definition of immutability applies to these “runtime-immutable distros” too.
Only after the (soft-)reboot will I be able to use Emacs; be it through the console/terminal or find it in the app drawer.
Another (but small) confusion point for new users.
The crux of this conversation lies here I believe. Your notion/understanding of an immutable system is probably more correct and more in line with what you’d expect from its name. However, the name “‘immutable’ distros” is unfortunately not descriptive. Contrary to what you’d expect, it’s not a distro that happens to be an immutable system; at least, not in the absolute/complete sense.
I understand it.
And, to be honest, I’m not sure if you answered the bold question.
Idk what to answer. Full or partial immutability, it still creates the same issues I described.
Thank you for being patient with me! And thank you for yet another set of clarifications!
Idk if everything can br called “hacks” but mostly yea.
I’ve used the term ‘hacks’ a couple of times without properly defining it. My bad. So, I’ve used it in the context of “doing things the unintended and/or unsupported way”.
but idk if GUI apps and extensions can see themes installed in ~/.local
They should.
and how many installation guides tell about that method.
Arch wiki states it and there’s no reason (in this case) to assume it won’t work. Furthermore, FWIW, the documentation on uBlue does discuss theming.
Idk how it works
Currently, it involves creating your own image :P .
and how simple it is but gtk that.
So, as just mentioned, it’s possible. But, it’s definitely more cumbersome than placing it in /usr/share/themes.
But we’re talking about situation when user-friendly distros become immutable.
Are you referring to distros like Linux Mint, Pop!_OS and Zorin becoming immutable? While it’s definitely possible that I’ve alluded as such, I can’t recall it. Nor was I able to find it in my earlier writings. Could you explicitly state what you mean by this and when I’ve (at least) hinted at this?
but, for example, you said that Fedora expects their immutable options to become mainstream.
If, by becoming mainstream, you mean that over half of Fedora’s user base will be using them, then yes.
I know that Fedora and other immutable distros are often recommended for new users now.
If you meant uBlue images with “other immutable distros”, then I’m fine with this statement. However, if you meant other immutable distros, then I’d like to know which ones you meant. Furthermore, even Fedora’s own images are rarely recommended to new users. Generally, at least from what I’ve seen, Aurora, Bazzite and Bluefin (all three being uBlue image) are mentioned in these conversation. And, IMO, rightfully so.
This means that the ones that recommend them consider them user-friendly. Imo this, as well as rumors about Canonical want to make Ubuntu Core the default desktop offering, destroys your point in the context of this discussion.
Sorry. I lost you here. My bad. What’s my point in the context of this discussion?
Another (but small) confusion point for new users.
At least the terminal output makes it very clear that a (soft-)reboot is required. I’ve honestly never seen anyone mention this, i.e. the need to (soft-)reboot for the changes to take effect, as something that leads to confusion. I do understand the frustration that follows from the act of (soft-)rebooting though :P .
Thanks once again for another lovely set of clarifications! Thank you in advance!
Tbh I am not sure anymore if you’re being serious in this discussion or just trolling because I explained some things very clearly but you still misunderstand them a lot. I’m not willing to continue this. I apologize if I’m not right but I have to stay away from trolls and other kinds of evil people.
Apologies if I made you feel that way! And thank you for vocalizing your concerns!
It has never been my intent to troll you. Nor have I got any other evil motives.
I noticed how you’ve been one of the more vocal community members to oppose ‘immutable distros’. And I, as a major supporter of ‘immutable’ distros, am very interested to know why that is. That’s basically the whole idea of this conversation. At least on my part*. And, to be honest, I think we’re almost done. There was only one paragraph from your earlier comment that I didn’t get. And all the questions I posed are from that paragraph.
So, to make it simpler, I first want to clarify the following statement of my own:
Similarly, ‘immutable’ distros are not to blame if a new user breaks their not newbie-friendly ‘immutable’ distro.
With this, I don’t mean that ‘immutable’ distros are (by definition) not newbie-friendly. That would be the complete opposite of what I’ve been saying this whole time :P . Instead, I posed that ‘immutable’ distros can be categorized in:
those that are newbie-friendly
and those that are not newbie-friendly
And, thus, my statement should be understood as: “The mishaps/inconveniences etc of not newbie-friendly distros, does not invalidate the existence of other ‘immutable’ distros that actually happen to be newbie-friendly. Hence, we shouldn’t throw out all ‘immutable’ distros with the babywater; this idiom is referenced.”
Finally, if you didn’t misunderstand my statement in the first place, then I would like you to explain/elaborate what you had written here:
But we’re talking about situation when user-friendly distros become immutable. If the user willingly chooses an advanced distro, it’s not the distro’s fault but, for example, you said that Fedora expects their immutable options to become mainstream. I know that Fedora and other immutable distros are often recommended for new users now. This means that the ones that recommend them consider them user-friendly. Imo this, as well as rumors about Canonical want to make Ubuntu Core the default desktop offering, destroys your point in the context of this discussion.
My apologies for being persistent; I’m just very much saddened that the IMO great conversation abruptly ended when it was so close to resolution. Regardless, this will be my last attempt at engaging in hopes of continuing the earlier conversation. However, full disclosure, if you don’t respond, then I will leave you with a final message in which I will lay out what I got from this conversation and my overall view in regards to how it went etc.
So, without further a due.
I would like to cut the chase and be very direct:
Finally, we’ve come to a common ground on what an ‘immutable’ distro even is. However, it’s still unclear why the perceived inconveniences/difficulties are not merely related to implementation. Like, for all we know, in some future implementation of an ‘immutable’ distro, you could run whatever command you run to place your themes in /usr/share/themes, (soft-)reboot and find the theme in the designated folder. To me, it seems, as if you dismiss this possibility. If this is correct, why do you think that’s the case? Isn’t there more reason to be hopeful considering the mere fact that we’re currently able to apply tons of customization that were previously inconceivable?
You accuse the complete industry for misunderstanding and misusing ‘immutable’ distros. While, simultaneously, relying only on very basic second-hand information for your views on ‘immutable’ distros. Is this sensible to you?
It seems as if you’re not open to consider many other possible benefits that come with ‘immutable’ distros. The most recent addition/example of this would be openSUSE going in the direction of an OOTB measured boot with their openSUSE Aeon. Like, how did you even perceive this and did it make you rethink the possible benefits? Do you think it’s conceivable that other people might have legit reasons for preferring ‘immutable’ distros that go beyond what you had previously described?
Unfortunately, you’ve yet to respond. Therefore, I was unable to verify everything mentioned below. Regardless, for the sake of completeness, I would like to give a brief overview of our interaction and how I have perceived it.
My intent regarding this conversation:
Reach a common ground on our understanding of the topic at hand. Like, what even is an ‘immutable’ distro.
Highlight how the basic notion of an ‘immutable’ distro’ encompasses a wide variety of distributions that differ from each other more than traditional distros do.
Understand why, despite acknowledging the importance of implementation, you still believe it’s inconceivable for future implementations to overcome current shortcomings.
However, we weren’t able to get that far. This is IMO primarily due to the following:
Abrupt end of the conversation by you. This is basically the reason.
Your misrepresentation of yourself. I accurately point towards the pain point. However, you -for some reason- deny it or accuse me of intentionally misunderstanding. However, eventually; like a few comments down the line, you accept my earlier found pain point. This just makes conversation take way longer than it has to. Like when I rephrased your understanding of ‘immutable’ system to one in which some directories are immutable. You first accused me of misunderstanding, but later used partial immutability yourself.
Your use of words, phrases, and sentences without recognizing the need for definitions. When later prompted to give definitions, you’ve failed spectacularly at giving complete and/or sufficiently clarified ones. This prompts me to ask for clarifications, and the cycle continues… I believe this stems from your lack of familiarity with the subject matter. Like how I had to explain to you what runtime is. A word which is used in the actual definition of ‘immutable’ distros.
The points you actually raised to discredit ‘immutable’ distros:
Unfit for old PCs and/or HDDs. Answer: This is related to implementation. You even agreed to this when you noted yourself that this is not an issue on NixOS. So, busted.
Different workflow compared to traditional distros. Answer: I don’t quite recognize why this is a problem. The workflow on the very first Debian is different from how it’s today. Does that make Debian’s current iteration bad? No, obviously not. Similarly, it being different is not inherently a wrong/bad thing. So, again, busted. The important part is documentation/guides/tutorials that facilitate the needs of people that intend to switch and/or try it out. Which brings us to…
Lack of resources. Answer: This doesn’t make it inherently bad. It just makes it harder for users to learn how to interact with the system. And, again, this continues to improve as the user base becomes bigger. When I made the switch (over two years ago), resources were abysmal. However, today, projects like uBlue have produced good documentation for its users. And it will only ever improve. Yet, again, busted.
Tampers tinkering. Answer: In the absolute sense; no. There’s only very little you can’t do on current ‘immutable’ distros. And there’s active effort to work those things out. So, it’s related to implementation and/or maturity. It’s also not clear what prevents a future implementation of an ‘immutable’ distro to be interacted with exactly like how we interact with traditional distros. Consider looking into stuff like systemd-sysext if you want to see a glimpse of what’s yet to come. Thus, this point is also refuted.
There is perhaps a lot more I could go over, but I’ll suffice with this for the sake of brevity.
NixOS not the major inspiration for immutables, consumer OSes like Android and ChromeOS are. But yes, NixOS has some influence even it don’t get the idea of immutable distros well.
Do you mean strictly mean ‘immutable’ distros with this?
consumer OSes like Android and ChromeOS are.
So, if I understood you correct, you pose that Android and ChromeOS are the major inspiration for ‘immutable distros’. Which, to be fair, could be true. Uhmm…, a quick search didn’t result on any conclusive evidence of this. If you will, could you perhaps help me find with sources that back up this claim?
But yes, NixOS has some influence even it don’t get the idea of immutable distros well.
Sorry, I don’t understand this sentence. Could you explain what you meant here?
I could be wrong but I thought fstab only runs those commands on boot? If so you’ll need to manually unmount using “umount” for now. It shouldnt be there next reboot
Are you saying the drive still shows up on the side as ejectable? Or the mount directory is still there?
If the latter what directory is it mounted to? May just be as simple as deleting that directory if its empty. (Assuming its like /media/xxx/ or /mnt/yyy/)
Check with lsblk command if anything is in those directories
It’s mounted to /srv which is not empty, and I can also still browse some of the folders on the removed drive, which is also confusing :) I don’t understand how that’s even possible.
Edit: It does not show up as a drive, but the mount directory is still there with a folder structure and a single file.
Edit2: I deleted the folder which seems to have done the trick. Still confused about how and why it was still accessible…
Does lsblk say it was mounted to /srv? If the drive doesn’t show up in lsblk that means that /srv is non-empty and those files exist on whatever drive your root directory is on
I suspect that your /srv had already existed before you mounted that drive for the very first time, and there were even some files in /srv.
The mounting of the drive has made these “old” /srv files invisible. But it has not deleted them. Now you unmounted the drive, and they have come back like Zombies :)
When you mount something into a directory that already exists, the drive mount replaces the original contents. When the drive is unmounted, the original contents are restored.
fstab is just a config file so the computer knows what drives and storage volumes its supposed to have when it boots.
You can add and remove drives without ever editing fstab. Plugging something in should give you the option to mount it in your file explorer, and in the same place you should be able to “eject” it before disconnecting the actual cable.
Coming from non-linux, it’s not usually a problem. But now I know better :)
fstab is just a config file so the computer knows what drives and storage volumes its supposed to have when it boots.
You can add and remove drives without ever editing fstab. Plugging something in should give you the option to mount it in your file explorer, and in the same place you should be able to “eject” it before disconnecting the actual cable.
I know that, but this particular drive was meant to be permanently mounted and accessible, which is why I added it to fstab. I am removing it because it’s damaged and i have to replace it with something which isn’t to act as a permanent drive for the server.
I mean, yes. But on the other hand, I’ve removed usb-connected media without using that button thousands of times and never had an issue. I’m obviously not doing it when I am writing to or reading from the medium.
Either way, thanks again for taking the time to respond :)
Yes, and every single time, it was because filesystems have ways to recover when things go wrong.
But make no mistake, things went wrong. Every time. Even if no files were damaged, the next system accessing the volume would run into a file system that wasn’t exited properly.
And while “never do it while it’s being accessed” improves your chances, due to write caching you can’t actually know if the medium is still writing or reading. Or internally in the middle of a process organising data structures. Or being checked for damage by a background process because the filesystem was flagged for repair due to inconsistencies. Or in the case of spinning rust, in the middle of a background defrag. Or in the case of flash storage in the middle of a trim.
If you have a forgiving boss you could tell him “fuck you” to his face every morning… But why would you? Maybe one morning he’ll be cranky, and that one time he’ll take offence and actually fire you.
What GPU and driver are you using? Looks gpu driver related to me.
for context, i have been using debian 12 for last 6 months perfectly fine. Its just from last week my laptop is randomly freezing and then I have to hard reset it everytime this happens, (pressing power off button for few seconds to force shutdown).
That kind of looks like how a machine would look if the RAM is loose in the socket or otherwise have a bad contact. And since you mention that it’s random and sometimes there are no vertical lines, that’d be my guess rather than anything to do with graphical software. Is the RAM on your machine soldered on or is it detachable? If it’s the latter, I recommend taking the RAM out and reseating it to see if things improve (try this a couple of times, just to be sure the RAM is properly seated). If the RAM is soldered on then it might have something to do with out of memory. Does the system slow down a couple of seconds before freezing entirely? If it does then it’s likely it’s a OOM thing.
Oh, and for good measure, can you get to the tty (ctrl + alt + f2) when the system freezes? If you can then it’s probably a graphical thing and you can try restarting those processes. If the system is in a complete freeze then I’d say that’s another point for the OOM hypothesis.
yeah, i think you might be right about RAM. Because one day i was holding my latop in my one hand and i saw this screen flickering thing. that was the first time this issue happened. And yeah i can not login to tty when the freeze happens this mean system is completely blocked and is not a graphical problem. I dont think its OOM issue as i have enough RAM and no system doesnt slow down a couple of seconds before freezing entirely. The freeze is random and instant and it happens sometimes when i slide laptop so i think its due to RAM loose connection. Not sure if the RAM is soldered one or is detachable. I will try to replug it and see if it fixes the problem. btw the machine in question is macbook pro 2012 and thanks for replying kind stranger!
linux
Oldest
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.