Linux

47918 readers

1184 users here now

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Linux is a family of open source Unix-like operating systems based on the Linux kernel, an operating system kernel first released on September 17, 1991 by Linus Torvalds. Linux is typically packaged in a Linux distribution (or distro for short).

Distributions include the Linux kernel and supporting system software and libraries, many of which are provided by the GNU Project. Many Linux distributions use the word "Linux" in their name, but the Free Software Foundation uses the name GNU/Linux to emphasize the importance of GNU software, causing some controversy.

Rules

Posts must be relevant to operating systems running the Linux kernel. GNU/Linux or otherwise.
No misinformation
No NSFW content
No hate speech, bigotry, etc

Related Communities

Community icon by Alpár-Etele Méder, licensed under CC BY 3.0

founded 5 years ago

MODERATORS

[email protected]

187

What's up with all these immutable distributions? What are the benefits and disadvantages of them? (lemmy.ml)

submitted 1 year ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

49 comments fedilink hide all child comments

For once I feel a little out of touch after I took a bit of a break from following the news to focus on studying, and suddenly everyone is talking about immutable distributions. What are they exactly? What are the benefits and the disadvantages of immutable systems?

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

[–] [email protected] 7 points 1 year ago (1 children)

As far as use cases where immutable distros would be more or less convenient, it appears to me that due to the security and reproducibility factors, immutable distros are better for server or enterprise environments where updates need to be rolled out quickly and smoothly, which are most actual Linux systems out there and where Linux companies make their money (hence why they seem like the hot new thing right now), and for desktops where people are primarily concerned with not wanting to "break" anything. But a classical distro, IMO, would be better for folks like me who do want the control to change or customize things down to the core parts of the OS. As far as I'm aware, you don't have much freedom to tinker with an immutable distro until it's wiped away with the next update.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 year ago

NixOS/Guix still give users the control to change anything at any time. That's because they aren't image based and instead they achieve immutability with the Nix package manager (symlinks and a declarative system configuration file).

I agree with immutable OS on servers being great, but I also believe immutable systems are a good choice for desktops. Especially managed desktops (eg. my moms) work well with an image-based OS. Flatpak is often enough for those few gui apps and there's less risk of automatic updates failing (eg. pulling power plug while updating).