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.
Well, if you like Arch and NixOS the most, I think you're a tinkerer/ someone, who likes his OS in one definitive way.
That's totally fine, I love that!
But Silverblue is, I think, more catered towards people who love reliability and prefer it over customization.
I, for example, find SB pretty much perfect how it is.
… well, actually, not 100%. I use uBlue (main), which is basically a modified image of the Vanilla SB with some minor QOL-tweaks, like a few exchanged apps, automatic updates, and so on.
You can also create your own images with this project, with effects similar to Nix.
But if you want your own, individual, config, Nix is just better.
I'm really excited what immutable distros will bring in the future. I follow them (Nix, SB, VanillaOS, etc.) closely and think, that immutability will be the future of Linux, even if that's a trope.
We already containerized everything and never touched the base OS on servers too for decades now, why not on desktop too?
That's the main advantage of Linux, and we should use that.
Ill try and give ublue a go, One of the main issues I generally have with multiple operating systems is that I'm looking for something with a good out of box user experience for the general user. So far, I find that nobara actually gets the closest to this, so it's what I've been recommending. But if ublue is nice and simple and good enough, I might recommend that instead.