Skip Navigation

Immutable Operating Systems: Yay or Nay?

I've seen a lot of talks on the benefits of immutable distros (specifically Fedora Silverblue) but it always seemed to me as more of a hassle. Has anyone here been daily driving an immutable distro? Would you say it's worth the effort of getting into?

43 comments
  • I've been running Silverblue for 2 years. Apart from the hiccups mostly at the beginning of that time, things have been running very smooth and I haven't had any issues worth mentioning. Things that have been and still are hassles are e.g. missing media codecs (ffmpeg and friends) and kernel configs & modules (e.g. drivers such as nvidia). I had to learn a few new tricks with flatpak but my major use case - Steam - runs as flawless as it does on other platforms.

  • I'm keeping a close eye on the various immutable distros. I've tried NixOS a couple of times now, but I ran into issues with software compatibility. My development tools would constantly have issues, which if I put in a ton of work I could generally workaround... Then there was some software that I just couldn't run, and you can't just run a standard "Linux" binary because all of the libraries that most binaries would expect, such as libc, libssl, etc are not in /usr/lib, but rather they are in the Nix store so those binaries need to be patched to search for their required libraries in the correct place.

    The final nail in the coffin for my last go around at NixOS was I need to use a specific piece of software that does time keeping for work, and it operated fine until one day it signed me out and the button to sign back in did nothing. Even when I started the program from the CLI, there were no errors. If I can't sign in, I'm effectively not "on the clock" so that is an absolute show-stopper for me. I replaced NixOS with Fedora, and it worked perfectly fine after that. It is a shame because I quite enjoyed the idea of having a reproducible system that allowed me to blow away the system, then reinstall it, point it to a flake I built, and run a command resulting in everything being back the way it was.

    I've been wanting to give VanillaOS and Silverblue/uBlue a try, but to my knowledge neither of them support a dual-boot setup, and I run Windows alongside Linux for the occasional game that doesn't work in Linux (as well as a backup environment to be able to access my tools for work, such as the scenario I mentioned earlier). I've heard that you can somewhat get around this by having separate drives and while my Windows install is technically on a different drive, the drive that I use for Linux also has a partition for games in Windows, as that boot drive is only a 240GB drive and I believe both of those distros require that you dedicate the whole drive to it.

  • I've been daily driving openSUSE Aeon/Kalpa for the better part of two years now. I don't see any good reason to return to a traditional distribution for a desktop machine. I very much know what I'm doing as a linux user/admin, having been using it for years, and the no-fuss/no-hassle nature of an immutable system is exactly what I want for my workstations. And ultimately my servers.

  • I dunno, not being able to turn off the sound is a deal breaker for me.

    /s

  • I'm not using an immutable distro, but I am daily driving a KVM-based Gentoo setup where most of my VMs use transient (immutable) storage and iSCSI where persistence is required.

    I'd say that immutability has a ton of benefits for security and reliability, but it's important to be able to customize things when needed. I'm not sure an immutable distro would offer much in the way of customization though.

    In my case I am generally unable to harm my system without meaning to, and I'm able to test new configurations without issue. I have lost data before when accidentally saving to a transient disk, but this is something I could fix with better scripting.

    I'd say that in general, incremental backups are a better solution if you're only looking to avoid messing up the system. But immutability is a good option if you like containers or have some other way to configure things before locking them down.

  • The ideal end state is "why not both?", I think. Have an immutable "base" system, and utilize mutable overlays on top for any necessary tinkering or involved activities.

    Casual users need not interface with the overlays at all (or do so through very controlled mechanisms, like how Flatpak/Snap, Steam game containers, etc work today), while developers, tinkerers, and those that are curious can create throwaway environments that they can mess with to their heart's content.

    WSL on Windows has its warts, but it shows how such an ecosystem is possible (if you treat Windows itself as a Black Box That Must Not Be Modified). I think the immutable distro ecosystem is on the right track, with technologies like Toolbox/Distrobox to bridge the gap, it will just take time for the tooling, practices, and ecosystem around them to mature and not be as much of a hassle as they are today.

    Today, I am running both immutable and non-immutable setups on various machines. My work computer (development) and gaming rig are on a traditional setup, as my specific development needs are not 100% compatible with a toolbox environment, and gaming-adjacent applications like Discord are slow to adapt to the needs of Flatpak containerization. I have a laptop that's 100% just used for media consumption and shitposting, which is a good use case for immutable distros today and is running Fedora Kinoite.

43 comments