this post was submitted on 21 Apr 2025
59 points (94.0% liked)

Linux

53372 readers
575 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

Related Communities

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

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Look, I've only been a Linux user for a couple of years, but if there's one thing I've learned, it's that we're not afraid to tinker. Most of us came from Windows or macOS at some point, ditching the mainstream for better control, privacy, or just to escape the corporate BS. We're the people who choose the harder path when we think it's worth it.

Which is why I find it so damn interesting that atomic distros haven't caught on more. The landscape is incredibly diverse now - from gaming-focused Bazzite to the purely functional philosophy of Guix System. These distros couldn't be more different in their approaches, but they all share this core atomic DNA.

These systems offer some seriously compelling stuff - updates that either work 100% or roll back automatically, no more "oops I bricked my system" moments, better security through immutability, and way fewer update headaches.

So what gives? Why aren't more of us jumping on board? From my conversations and personal experience, I think it boils down to a few things:

Our current setups already work fine. Let's be honest - when you've spent years perfecting your Arch or Debian setup, the thought of learning a whole new paradigm feels exhausting. Why fix what isn't broken, right?

The learning curve seems steep. Yes, you can do pretty much everything on atomic distros that you can on traditional ones, but the how is different. Instead of apt install whatever and editing config files directly, you're suddenly dealing with containers, layering, or declarative configs. It's not necessarily harder, just... different.

The docs can be sparse. Traditional distros have decades of guides, forum posts, and StackExchange answers. Atomic systems? Not nearly as much. When something breaks at 2am, knowing there's a million Google results for your error message is comforting.

I've been thinking about this because Linux has overcome similar hurdles before. Remember when gaming on Linux was basically impossible? Now we have the Steam Deck running an immutable SteamOS (of all things!) and my non-Linux friends are buying them without even realizing they're using Linux. It just works.

So I'm genuinely curious - what's keeping YOU from switching to an atomic distro? Is it specific software you need? Concerns about customization? Just can't be bothered to learn new tricks?

Your answers might actually help developers focus on the right pain points. The atomic approach makes so much sense on paper that I'm convinced it's the future - we just need to figure out what's stopping people from making the jump today.

So what would it actually take to get you to switch? I'm all ears.

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] hobbsc@lemmy.sdf.org 1 points 32 minutes ago

nothing. I am a bazzite and bluefin convert. it feels like a dream after 20+ years of futzing about with Linux.

[–] gi1242@lemmy.world 3 points 2 hours ago

i use arch. I've got it set up and it works really well for me. I'd only switch if I had some feature I needed in atomic that I can't have in arch. (not just a feature atomic has, but a feature I need that atomic has)

[–] Euphoma@lemmy.ml 1 points 1 hour ago

I did, then I came back to arch because I couldn't get vr working after more than a year of using nixos. I may come back though, my config still exists

[–] Horse@lemmygrad.ml 1 points 2 hours ago

updates that either work 100% or roll back automatically, no more “oops I bricked my system” moments, better security through immutability, and way fewer update headaches.

i have used arch derivatives for 3 years and only fucked my system once, it took less than half an hour to fix so this isn't particularly compelling for me

chasing the new hotness is not something i do with my daily driver, might check it out on a laptop if i'm bored

[–] ikidd@lemmy.world 9 points 5 hours ago (1 children)

I wonder if OP and about 3/4 of the people in here understand the difference between atomic and immutable.

[–] LunarLoony@lemmy.sdf.org 4 points 38 minutes ago (1 children)

I'm not sure I do, please can you explain?

[–] ikidd@lemmy.world 2 points 28 minutes ago* (last edited 24 minutes ago)

Atomic distros update in a monolithic block and if it fails, it's as if no part of it occurred.

Immutable distros have a readonly filesystem and you can't change any part of the system without explicitly remounting the files to write, then doing your updates. It's not necessarily atomic when that update occurs, either.

You don't need to layer or containerize applications you install in an atomic system, you can install an application as normal with the system package manager, it just has to complete successfully to be installed, then it becomes part of the overall A/B update system.

Immutable distros need to containerize the installations, or use layering to apply applications to the underlying RO filesystem, which makes installing software rather a pain in the ass at times.

OP keeps using the word "atomic" but the questions and explanation are more about "immutable". And my answer to them about why wouldn't I use an immutable system is pretty much the last, installing/updating/troubleshooting non-system software is a pain in the ass. On a dev station, it's a nightmare.

[–] 3aqn5k6ryk@lemmy.world 2 points 3 hours ago

The reason most people still stick with windows/Macs. Current OS just works. I personally run mint, it works.

Before this i run windows 10 LTSC. The only reason i jump to mint is because it is almost the same as windows.

[–] racketlauncher831@lemmy.ml 2 points 5 hours ago* (last edited 31 minutes ago) (1 children)

Back in the day when embedded devices are running Linux kernel 2.6, the kernel is gzipped and saved to an SPI flash, then extracted to RAM and run from there.

Does that sound immutable enough to you?

The decision on this design wasn't for an immutable system, but just that flash chips were expensive. Immutability was an accidental achievement.

Actually we developers dreamed every day we can directly modify the operating system ad hoc, not needing to go through the compile-flash-boot agonising process just to debug a config file.

You see, my point is, when a system is in good hands, it just does not break. End of story.

Maybe the next time before you guys press Enter after pacman -Syyu (not exclusively saying your distro is bad, Arch pals, sorry), think about the risk and recovery plan. If you are just an end user expecting 100% uptime and rarely contributing (reporting bugs at least), consider switch to a more stable distro (I heard Debian is good), and ask yourself if you want an immutable distro, or do you just want a super stable system.

[–] corsicanguppy@lemmy.ca 1 points 1 hour ago* (last edited 1 hour ago)

dreamed everyday

every day. Two words, my dude.

go through the compile-flash-boot agonising process just to debug a config file.

Overlayfs was a thing since; what, Kernel 2.2? We had debugging and in-situ mods where required.

[–] Mwa@lemm.ee 11 points 8 hours ago* (last edited 8 hours ago) (1 children)
  1. I don't really want to use Containerized packaging (flatpak,appimage)
  2. They don't offer many desktop envoirments (typo sorry)
  3. I like my current distro
[–] corsicanguppy@lemmy.ca 1 points 1 hour ago (1 children)

Containerized packaging is toxic. Let them learn on their own time and not take you down with them!

[–] Hadriscus@lemm.ee 1 points 57 minutes ago

What does that mean ?

[–] communism@lemmy.ml 6 points 7 hours ago* (last edited 7 hours ago)

My main reason is one you listed. My setup works well for me; I enjoy it; and I don't feel the need to fix what ain't broke (when the "fix" likely involves breaking a lot of things I need to fix, and generally a lot of time and effort). Plus, from what I can tell, if you are particular about parts of your system, the immutable distros on offer are not diverse enough to cater to you—eg can I use my preferred init system, runit? All the immutable distros I know are systemd (which I am not a big hater of, but I like and am accustomed to runit already).

Edit: saw what you said at the end about what it would take for me to switch. It would be if I had a real use case for it, eg I regularly had problems that an immutable distro would solve, or I could see a way that an immutable distro would drastically improve my workflow.

[–] deadcatbounce@reddthat.com 2 points 6 hours ago

An atomic distro is one which is in my understanding, has a basis in libostree, right? I'm familiar with the Fedora/RedHat versions but not any others.

Immutable distributions, for me to are wonderful when they are sparse. I don't want anything on my OS which I don't use at least once on a while.

If I install Fedora (RPM) Workstation to a large extent I can remove programs that I don't want. Whereas SilverBlue (libostree), I'm stuck with whatever the maintainers template (is there a blocking mechanism?).

However, with sparse Fedora-IoT, I can't break it - to a large extent - and it doesn't have anything I don't want.

I always install minimal versions of OSs, from Fedora (Everything iso), to Debian (debootstrap) to ArchLinux to Exherbo to Talos, just keep them cleaner longer. Then I fix them until they break!

I think they're ideal for those starting out in Linux because they are not ready to break; not saying that they're not for others too.

There's enough documentation, at least for Fedora atomic distros, to make your own custom spin.

I'm not switching for any desktop, unless the basic OS is minimal; but have switched for Raspberry Pi OS to Fedora IoT (atomic distro), at least temporarily.

[–] silentjohn@lemmy.ml 31 points 11 hours ago (4 children)

oops I bricked my system

I honestly can't think of a single time I've done this in the 20 years I've been using linux.

what’s keeping YOU from switching to an atomic distro

I dunno, it just seems like the latest fad. Debian/Arch work just fine.

[–] StarlightDust@lemmy.blahaj.zone 2 points 4 hours ago

I've used Arch for 10 years as a primary desktop (well, Artix for the last 4) and barely had it bork on me. When is has, I've been able to boot it from grub in single user mode, mount my LUKS root drive, and downgrade whatever broke.

SteamOS has been fine for me on the SteamDeck.

I tried Bazzite for about a month then one day networking just broke and the documentation just wasn't there.

[–] atzanteol@sh.itjust.works 12 points 11 hours ago (2 children)

The whole "I bricked my system" thing is just ridiculous.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] Kirk@startrek.website 6 points 9 hours ago (4 children)

idk I've gotten mine into a state i couldnt fix more times than I can count. Immuteable distros have been a game changer for me and if I'm being honest I think they're going to be the biggest thing for mainstream adoption in Linux's entire history.

[–] racketlauncher831@lemmy.ml 2 points 5 hours ago

I think "atomic" means "a bunch of actions grouped together as one action", so that the system won't end up in a state where some required actions are missing and becomes unusable. But it doesn't mean it's unto itself making a system unbreakable: If your system starts in a state of malfunctioning, then it also takes a series of actions to fix it, be it atomic or not.

Most Linux distributions start in the state of functioning after installation.

[–] silentjohn@lemmy.ml 7 points 9 hours ago (1 children)

I'm curious what you're doing to your system that bricks it so often that would be considered a risk for a normal every-day normie user?

[–] Thorned_Rose@sh.itjust.works 2 points 4 hours ago (1 children)

Upvoting but please stop using the term "bricking" this way. Bricking is permanent and there is no recovery. You have turned your device into a useless brick.

[–] silentjohn@lemmy.ml 1 points 2 hours ago

I'm quoting the OP. His argument is that atomic distros are the future because people are out there bricking their systems.

updates that either work 100% or roll back automatically, no more “oops I bricked my system” moments

[–] BaconIsAVeg@lemmy.ml 1 points 5 hours ago

Nothing good ever comes from 'mainstream adoption' though.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] themoken@startrek.website 7 points 10 hours ago (1 children)

I agree. I have become more amenable to things like Flatpak or Podman/Docker to keep the base system from being cluttered up with weird dependencies, but for the most part it doesn't seem like there's a huge upside to going full atomic if you're already comfortable.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] atzanteol@sh.itjust.works 21 points 11 hours ago

Near as I can tell they're primarily aimed at desktop users who want to treat their computer like a smartphone.

I do software development and need a ton of tools installed that aren't just "flatpaks". IntelliJ, Pycharm, sdkman, pyenv, Oracle libraries and binaries, databases, etc. The last time I tried this I ran into a bunch of issues. And for what gain? Basically zero.

[–] thenextguy@lemmy.world 39 points 12 hours ago (1 children)

Lack of interest. It doesn't solve any problems that I have.

[–] atzanteol@sh.itjust.works 24 points 11 hours ago

But just think about all the problems you're not having that you could be solving!

[–] Artopal@lemmy.ml 7 points 9 hours ago

You just said it yourself. I do like to tinker. I can install a distro in 15 minutes. I can fix my system. I do make backups. Why would I need or want an atomic distro again?

[–] golden_zealot@lemmy.ml 6 points 8 hours ago (2 children)

I really like Debian stable, and have for a very long time. I'm not too fearful of fucking up the system because Debian stable is more stable than most anvils, and I have timeshift installed with regular backups configured which get stored locally and to a RAID 5 array on my NAS system (which is also running Debian). Anything super duper important I also put onto a cloud host I have in Switzerland.

If I want to do something insane to the system, which is rare, then I test it extensively in virtualization first until I am comfortable enough to do it on my actual system, take backups, and then do it.

I am working to make my backup/disaster recovery solution even better, but as it stands I could blow my PC up with a stick of dynamite and have a working system running a day later with access to all of my stuff as it was this morning so long as a store that sells system hardware is open locally. If it were a disk failure, or something in software, It would take less than a day to recover.

So what keeps me from switching is that I really do not see a need to, and I like my OS.

[–] digdilem@lemmy.ml 1 points 13 minutes ago

Same. Been using debian stable for over two decades. It does everything I need,

At work we use EL distros in vms. All of them are backed up by image every 3 hours, so a non-booting system is generally best dealt with by simply restoring the whole vm from before the change.

I'm not opposed to atomics, but I don't have the need and haven't yet invested much time into learning their differences.

[–] limelight79@lemm.ee 3 points 8 hours ago (1 children)

Similar for me. Debian works.

And I'm just too busy with other things to bother trying different distros. I want my computer to work with a minimum of fuss.

That said Bazzite does sound interesting and might go on my gaming system. Debian stable isn't the best choice for that. Lol

[–] golden_zealot@lemmy.ml 3 points 7 hours ago (1 children)

Yea I like to play around with some different distros in virtualization occasionally to see what's up, but I have found Debian just always meets my needs 98% of the way in addition to basically never breaking.

I know Bazzite is built specifically for gaming, but I can play pretty much everything I want on Debian using my Nvidia card and Proton. The Nvidia drivers were a lot easier to install than I think a lot of people make them out to be, but I might just be lucky with my hardware or something. Armored Core VI runs great for example, and I'm even using Gnome, not KDE.

In my experience I'm kind of hard pressed to see the benefit of Bazzite over Debian when it comes to gaming actually, but I don't know a tonne about Bazzite so I'll digress.

[–] limelight79@lemm.ee 4 points 7 hours ago

I struggled getting Zwift (online cycling game) running on Debian, and the issue turned out to be that WINE on Debian is a major version behind.

I did get it working, and everything else works (retro game emulators), but it's like, huh maybe that wasn't the best choice.

[–] paequ2@lemmy.today 9 points 10 hours ago (1 children)

what’s keeping YOU from switching to an atomic distro?

I tried switching to VanillaOS a month ago. I had a hell of a time getting my niche use-case to work, consisting of using Syncthing to sync my Obsidian notes to a server via Tailscale. Apparently, I had to create a custom VanillaOS image just to install Tailscale? Also, I couldn't get wl-copy to work. Also, docs were out of date and missing.

See notes: https://lemmy.today/post/25622342/14849341

I like Arch because I have control over the system. At least with VanillaOS (not sure about other immutable distros), it seems like I'm supposed to give up control or fight with the system to let me do what I want.

I actually have accidentally bricked my Linux system in the past, but that was a long time ago and I learned from the experience. So it's not a problem I currently have.

I still haven't gotten to doing this, but actually, I was thinking the locked down nature of VanillaOS might be fine for my parents. They currently only use their Mac for browsing the web and not much else. Seems like VanillaOS might be a good fit for users that don't have very demanding computing needs.

[–] med@sh.itjust.works 2 points 4 hours ago

Sounds like I won't be using Vanilla because that (obsidian + synching + tailscale) is definitely my primary need.

The last time I played with it, I just remember thinking, cool - but why?

[–] Shimitar@downonthestreet.eu 10 points 11 hours ago

Doesn't solve any problem I have. Why switch?

Also, interesting concept the immutable one, but just... Why?

[–] umbrella@lemmy.ml 3 points 8 hours ago* (last edited 5 hours ago)

ive been meaning to even try another distro for a while, regardless of being immutable or not.

but my machine works just fine how it is. why change it?

[–] pr06lefs@lemmy.ml 21 points 13 hours ago* (last edited 13 hours ago)

I switched to nixos years ago. Its better now than it ever has been as far as available packages and etc. But it does present issues if you get off the beaten path - the "now you have two problems" issue. For instance:

  • if software is not packaged for nixos already, you won't be able to follow the 'build from source' directions on its github page or etc. You have to make a nix package or at least development environment first. That can be tricky and you won't have help from the software dev.
  • If software downloads exes that require libraries to be in a certain standard location, well, they won't work. Android studio for instance, downloads compilers and so forth. There are workarounds, mostly, but it can take a while to discover and get working and I'm sure many people give up. Again, the android studio software and documentation will be no help at all.

That said, more and more projects are supporting nix, and nixpkgs has gotten really big. I think they support more packages than any other distro now.

[–] nezach@discuss.tchncs.de 9 points 12 hours ago (3 children)

I have a small testing field. My mother is using Opensuse Aeon and my father in law is using Fedora Silverblue. Since I am their IT support it's fine. I asked what they wanna do on their Laptops and figured it doesn't matter if they use windows, mac or any linux distro. Since I am most comfortable with linux, it is what they are using now. They are happy and I am getting the same amount of questions as before. Had no real trouble since then.

[–] Thorned_Rose@sh.itjust.works 1 points 4 hours ago

This is my usecase too. I don't personally feel any need for an immutable, but for family that regularly jams up their systems, bit makes sense. Unfortunately when I tried Aurora, it just wouldn't boot no matter what. No idea why. Mint on the other hand just worked. Hopefully Aurora will get developed more and just work also because I would love to use it for family.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] mosiacmango@lemm.ee 12 points 12 hours ago* (last edited 12 hours ago) (1 children)

Ive been using pop-os for my desktop for years. Ive had no update headaches, roll back issues, or anything else that would compel me to swap distros for one that made these things better.

So to answer your question:

None of the above are compelling features that justify the work to switch off an already very stable distro.

[–] FreeBooteR69@lemmy.ca 3 points 10 hours ago

Pop_OS! is a decent OS, been using it for a few years on my living room PC. On my gaming rig i been using Bazzite which i like where it's going, love kde, but i can't get surround sound working and for the life of me can't figure out how to fix it. Might move on to another distribution, but we'll see.

[–] Dariusmiles2123@sh.itjust.works 3 points 9 hours ago

Because it took me a few years to create my perfect Fedora workstation installation.

If one days it becomes bricked, I’d probably switch to an immitable distribution, but I’m sticking with workstation as long as it works.

Also there is no real upside to switching for me.

[–] whatsgoingdom@rollenspiel.forum 11 points 13 hours ago (2 children)

Probably because everyone is still constantly recommending Mint as a good distro for beginners.

[–] LeFantome@programming.dev 10 points 11 hours ago

People recommend Mint mostly as a better Ubuntu I think. Ubuntu is still the most popular and, increasingly, not the best distro to start with.

Fedora currently fills the space that Ubuntu used to fill. Probably the biggest caveat with Fedora now is the lack of codecs by default.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] CsXGF8uzUAOh6fqV@lemmy.world 8 points 12 hours ago (1 children)

I like fucking around and finding out. I also don't like roll backs, real men only roll forwards :)

(don't take that too seriously please)

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] MangoPenguin@lemmy.blahaj.zone 2 points 9 hours ago (1 children)

For me it's too much time investment, I don't want to tinker with my OS. The fact that it's so common to screw up a system that atomic distros are becoming much more popular is a good example, I want an OS that doesn't get screwed up in the first place.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›