this post was submitted on 21 Apr 2025
68 points (94.7% liked)

Linux

53372 readers
584 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
[–] superkret@feddit.org 2 points 20 minutes ago

I tried Silverblue.
And I wanted to run it without layering, cause everyone tells you to avoid it, since it kinda defeats the purpose of an atomic distro in the first place.

First of all, it was buggy. As an example, automatic updates didn't work, I had to reboot twice for it to actually apply.
None of the docs helped (actually, there wasn't any in-depth documentation at all). And no one had a solution besides "It should actually just work".
That's the main advantage (the devs test with the exact same system you run) gone right from the start.

Then Firefox is part of the base image, but it's Fedora's version, which doesn't come with all codecs.
If you install Firefox from Flathub, you now have 2 Firefox's installed, with identical icons in the GUI. So you need to hide one by deleting its desktop file. Except you can't. So you have to copy it into your home directory and edit it to hide the icon.
Then I went through all the installed programs to replace the Fedora version with the Flathub version, cause what's the point of Flatpak if I'm using derivative versions? I want what the app's dev made.

Then it was missing command line tools I'm used to. Installing them in a container didn't work well cause they need access to the entire system.

Finally, I realized even Gnome Tweaks wasn't part of the installation, and it isn't available as Flatpak.
That's the point where I tipped my hat and went back to Debian. Which isn't atomic, but never gave me any issues in the first place.

Maybe it's better now, I was on the previous version. Or maybe the Ublue flavours are better. But I don't see any reason to start distro-hopping again after that first experience.

[–] epik_kiwi@lemmy.blahaj.zone 2 points 21 minutes ago

Really cool in terms of rebasing and rollback, but Flatpak isn't there yet (for me at least). Introduces lots of complexity without much benefit for me. They have their uses, but not for me yet. And honestly, I haven't bricked my system in long enough that I don't consider it a benefit I really care for.

Don't get me wrong, they are cool, and I hope development is continued but they aren't for me just yet.

[–] gerryflap@feddit.nl 3 points 36 minutes ago

I haven't tried them, so I cannot judge, but I'm just afraid I'll run into issues when I will have to go off the beaten path. Inevitably I'll have to do something hacky in order to fix some obscure software that the maintainers of the distro didn't think of, and that's currently already a big pain. But in such a strict setting it will be even more difficult. There will be no documentation and probably no guide or questions/answers on any forum either.

I'd be willing to try it for a productivity setup if I needed a reinstall, but not for my main PC because I just rely on too many hacks to get shit working.

[–] WereCat@lemmy.world 3 points 1 hour ago

It's cool but it's just more hassle than it's worth at the moment.

[–] DarkMetatron@feddit.org 2 points 1 hour ago

Atomic/immutable distros are just another tool in the tool box. It is great for systems with a limited use scenario like the SteamDeck or HTPCs. I also love to install immutable distributions on systems where the user (often IT-illiterate) and the administrator are different people.

On my desktop PC I will, for the foreseeable future, use a normal distro (ArchLinux in my case) but i am planing to look into changing my servers to immutable with docker. That could make updates/maintenance easier and reduce the risk for full server compromises

[–] Takios@discuss.tchncs.de 3 points 2 hours ago (1 children)

My current setup works perfectly fine, haven't bricked my system in half a decade.
The learning curve seems steep. It seems to introduce a lot of complexity without much benefit for me. Docs are sparse and everything that is already out there is written with "traditional" setups in mind.

[–] superkret@feddit.org 2 points 17 minutes ago

The learning curve is non-existent for its use case.
You boot it up, open the software center, choose the apps you like and run them.
It's like Android for the PC.

If you notice a learning curve, run into barriers, or try to wrap your head around containers and layering, you're already not the target demographic, and better off using a traditional distro.

[–] jimmy90@lemmy.world 2 points 2 hours ago

i'm currently using bazzite and nixos

two very different approaches to atomic, i'm not sure which one is better

one does the stable gaming thing very well and the other does magical things that are very impressive and efficient

honestly don't know which approach will prove to be most beneficial

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

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

I'm not interested, Fedora is ok.

we just need to figure out what’s stopping people from making the jump

Not everybody is interested. And certainly not everybody thinks that immutable distros are the end of history. Just you.

[–] hobbsc@lemmy.sdf.org 3 points 4 hours 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 4 points 6 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)

[–] 3aqn5k6ryk@lemmy.world 6 points 8 hours ago (1 children)

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.

[–] null_dot@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 4 hours ago

Pretty much me.

I've been daily driving debian for many years. I'm very comfortable here.

In 2025 with docker containers and flatpaks the benefits of an atomic OS don't feel very compelling.

[–] Horse@lemmygrad.ml 2 points 6 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 12 points 10 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 4 hours ago (1 children)

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

[–] ikidd@lemmy.world 5 points 4 hours ago* (last edited 4 hours 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.

[–] Euphoma@lemmy.ml 1 points 5 hours 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

[–] Mwa@lemm.ee 16 points 12 hours ago* (last edited 12 hours ago) (2 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
[–] iopq@lemmy.world 1 points 1 hour ago* (last edited 1 hour ago)

NixOS even has Cosmic, so the DE thing isn't true

[–] corsicanguppy@lemmy.ca 0 points 5 hours ago (1 children)

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

[–] Hadriscus@lemm.ee 2 points 5 hours ago

What does that mean ?

[–] silentjohn@lemmy.ml 38 points 15 hours ago (6 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.

[–] iopq@lemmy.world 1 points 1 hour ago

I bricked it because the Ubuntu LTS 22 to 24 upgrade failed and I forgot and rebooted anyway

[–] StarlightDust@lemmy.blahaj.zone 2 points 8 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 11 points 15 hours ago (3 children)

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

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] Kirk@startrek.website 7 points 13 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 3 points 10 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 13 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 4 points 9 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 6 hours ago (1 children)

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

[–] Thorned_Rose@sh.itjust.works 1 points 3 hours ago

Doesn't mean you have to repeat it 🙂

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
[–] atzanteol@sh.itjust.works 26 points 15 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.

[–] racketlauncher831@lemmy.ml 3 points 9 hours ago* (last edited 4 hours 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 5 hours ago* (last edited 5 hours 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.

[–] thenextguy@lemmy.world 46 points 17 hours ago (1 children)

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

[–] atzanteol@sh.itjust.works 28 points 15 hours ago

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

[–] communism@lemmy.ml 6 points 12 hours ago* (last edited 12 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.

[–] Artopal@lemmy.ml 8 points 13 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 7 points 13 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 2 points 4 hours 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 4 points 12 hours ago (2 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

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] pr06lefs@lemmy.ml 24 points 17 hours ago* (last edited 17 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.

[–] paequ2@lemmy.today 10 points 14 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 8 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?

[–] deadcatbounce@reddthat.com 2 points 10 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.

[–] Shimitar@downonthestreet.eu 10 points 15 hours ago

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

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

load more comments
view more: next ›