Linux

5376 readers

14 users here now

A community for everything relating to the linux operating system

Also check out !linux_memes@programming.dev

Original icon base courtesy of lewing@isc.tamu.edu and The GIMP

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

Ategon@programming.dev

anzo@programming.dev

dwraf_of_ignorance@programming.dev

Immutable distro on a PC. Thoughts and experience? (lemmy.ca)

submitted 4 months ago by cyborganism@lemmy.ca to c/linux@programming.dev

29 comments fedilink hide all child comments

I'm about to go ahead and go 100% Linux on my PC and completely get rid of Windows. The latest advancements in Windows application compatibility for Linux has taken strides and it's now easier than ever to run Windows apps thanks to Wine and Bottles and Steam's Proton. There's literally nothing I can't do in Linux that I could do in Windows.

The distro of choice I will probably go for is going to be Kubuntu. But I've been looking at immutable distros as a more stable alternative. But, it sounds to me like it's more adapted for smaller devices and IoT, like the Steam Deck or similar handheld devices.

Have you installed an immutable distro on your PC? What distro did you use? What was your experience like? What were the pros and cons according to you?

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] superkret 4 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (2 children)

I ran Fedora Silverblue for the past few months. The selling point that convinced me was that the system you install is the exact same the developers use for testing.
I also hoped it would just update itself without any intervention. And I was fine with default Gnome and Flatpaks.

My experience was that it actually offered no real world benefit. Arch had fewer visible bugs. It crashed a few times, in a way that the only way out was cutting power. The auto-update didn't work, I still had to manually check for updates and click "install", and every update requires a reboot. Sometimes it needed 2. Video streaming was jerky even in the flat hub version of Firefox.
And it's pretty limiting: Many command line tools I'm used to were missing, even Gnome Tweaks was missing (WTF?). Of course I could "layer the image" and alter it to include what I need, but that defeats the entire purpose. And system tools don't work well in containers, either.

There's basically no in-depth documentation on how to do stuff that is standard on other distros but now doesn't work the same due to the immutability. And it had just too many inexplicable quirks to use it as a zero maintenance grandma OS.

I switched back to Debian. Installed just the minimum required base system, the minimum required packages to run Gnome shell, and got all my software from Flatpaks. It looks basically the same, is more stable and bug-free, and I can tinker on the command line if I feel like it.
I made an

alias Upd="doas apt update && doas apt dist-upgrade && doas apt autoremove --purge && flatpak update"

which is so much faster than using the gnome software center.

[–] Frellwit@lemmy.world 3 points 4 months ago (1 children)

&& flatpak update

You can also include && flatpak uninstall --unused in your alias to clean up more space.

[–] superkret 1 points 4 months ago

Thanks, added it.

[–] cyborganism@lemmy.ca 1 points 4 months ago (2 children)

That's what I'm afraid of. Lacking features and having to take weird extra steps to get what I want and tweak the system the way I want.

I'm a bit of a power user and I'm wondering if a immutable distro could work for me over a regular one.

[–] superkret 1 points 4 months ago

IMO it felt a lot like running Android.

[–] bsergay@discuss.online 0 points 4 months ago

Lacking features

It's important to mention that the specific way by which 'immutability' and all of its associations are implemented, is key to determine what possible limitations are. Perhaps to gain a better grasp on this, consider reading this blog post. Note that due to the (very) active development 'immutable' distros enjoy, not everything found within that article is accurate.

and having to take weird extra steps to get what I want and tweak the system the way I want.

~~Does uninstalling snapd on Kubuntu fall under this?~~ Jokes aside, the way that 'immutable' distros want you to do stuff is simply unconventional compared to traditional distros. Heck, even the need to (soft-)reboot to apply changes to the base system is almost unheard of on traditional distros. However, unconventional does not necessarily imply weird. Care to elaborate when something goes from unconventional to weird?

I’m a bit of a power user and I’m wondering if a immutable distro could work for me over a regular one.

It depends on your priorities. There's a 'cost' that comes with going 'immutable'; mostly related to how it's still relatively immature and/or unpopular. However, even in this state, there are problems it solves and tackles that traditional distros don't.

Regarding 'being a power user', like what's even the wildest thing you'd want to do?