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.
    • Guenther_Amanita@feddit.de
      7·
      11 months ago

      Did you even read the article? You definitely should!
      I did, and especially the “flexibility”-argument should change your mind.
      Just look at NixOS for example. It’s just as configurable as Arch (from what I’ve read), but immutable. And it’s also not more complicated, just different.

      Immutable OSs only restrict you as much as you want them to be.

      Also, the underlying technologies (like OSTree, nix-config, A/B-Root, and so on) aren’t proprietary.
      Just look at uBlue, they’ve utilized OSTree to share system configs.

      While some things really just aren’t possible anymore or require workarounds, it opened the door for many, way more interesting routes.

      Also, you don’t need to be angry.
      Nobody will take anything away from you. Mutable distros will still persist for many many years, maybe forever?

      We should be exited what the future brings!

    • superguy@lemm.ee
      4·
      11 months ago

      Yeah, it’s a big reason why I’m never in a hurry to adopt ‘the next big thing’ until it’s proven to be the next big thing or I have an immediate use for it.

      No point in bogging myself down in theory when practicality works just fine.

    • morrowind@lemmy.mlOP
      2·
      11 months ago

      Take a look at serpent os. It aims to provide a lot of the same benefits without being locked down