I find that many Linux users have a misconception about immutable distributions without knowing what it actually is. There is a lot of misinformation and generalization in the Internet about immutable distributions being “locked down”, “inflexible”, etc., when we could argue the same with many traditional distributions. In this article, we’ll look at what makes an immutable distribution, the concept of an immutable distribution versus implementations, misconceptions about immutable distributions (both pro and con), and why they exist in the first place.
I'm helping a friend out with his laptop from time to time. They've used Linux Mint XFCE for many years and it's set to auto update. Now I got asked to help since the system stopped auto updating with an error message every boot. Seems like an issue with dpkg but I didn't have time so I don't know how to.fix it yet.
Another device is running Fedora Silverblue for a year or two and the only issue was an update failing because of some dependencie issue. But simply removing all overlayed packages and installing them again fixed it in no time.
I've also been using NixOS for a few months on my pc, laptop and server and it's great. Image based OS aren't flexible enough for my liking but are great for low maintenance setups.
They aren't meant to be "flexible". Immutable means it's static, read only. You replace one image with another.
In the case of Silverblue you install using overlays, like Flatpak or toolbox/podman.
With NixOS you do get images, but in the form of clojures. BUT it also handles environments on a fundamental level, so you don't need to reboot to install new system applications or services.
Have you considered Vanilla OS? There's also uBlue, but I have hopes for Vanilla because it is user-firsf distro, whereas uBlue is more an off-shoot of Silverblue meant for users, but Ruth and same issues as with Silverblue.
Vanilla 2.0 is coming up soon and it seems like a great alternative for people with little to no know-how, or people who don't want to mess around and find out.
Immutable can be flexible, just like NixOS is with
nix shelland other features I don't yet know about.Containers are great but rootless has issues with programs that need capabilties like CAP_NET_RAW, so I also need rootful containers. That's annoying and is an advantage with
nix shell.I'm not a fan of A/B root, which I believe VanillaOS uses. Also an advantage of NixOS is it's big repo… On Fedora I had to package some programs myself in copr (tried out a less well-known wayland compositor) On NixOS I had to too, but it's far simpler without the need to build on someone else's infrastructure.
Can be, as in NixOS is pretty much the only one, which I already alluded to.
But despite you and me, some average users would benifit from immutable systems, even A/B root.