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.