this post was submitted on 23 Oct 2023
0 points (NaN% liked)

Linux

48328 readers
636 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
 

Hey! I’m currently on Fedora Workstation and I’m getting bored. Nothing in particular. I’ve heard about immutable distros and I’m thinking about Fedora Kinoite. The idea is interesting but idk if it’s worth it. CPU and GPU are AMD. Mostly used for gaming.

top 7 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] gecked@lemmy.sdf.org 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Hi! I've been using Fedora Kinoite (and now Bazzite Desktop) for about a year.

I'd say bazzite desktop would be a good fit for you if you want to give an immutable desktop a try. It automatically sets up an arch distrobox for steam and lutris, it even has one click installers for things like oversteer in the post-install welcome screen, it auto-updates and is generally just quite a nice improvement on based Fedora Kinoite.

Immutable distros ARE used differently, you will mostly use flatpaks for basic apps (Although a lot of people do that anyway), but any traditional packages you want to install will be done in distrobox. You CAN overlay packages to the base system, but it should be seen as a last resort.

Let me know if you have any questions :)

[–] jaykay@lemmy.zip 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Interesting. Standard question, why Kinoite and why Bazzite over others? Aren’t you worried bazzite is more bloated than pure Kinoite? Or is that just my mutable distro fear lol Any resources about distrobox/layering etc you recommend?

[–] gecked@lemmy.sdf.org 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I use Kinoite over silverblue and other Fedora versions simply because of the desktop. I choose Fedora atomic over other immutable distros because I simply think it's the easiest/most convenient. VanillaOS might be pretty good, but from what I can tell it's on an Ubuntu/Debian update schedule which isn't what I want. I tried NixOS but it's complexity just wasn't appealing.

I use Bazzite over Kinoite because it has all of the tweaks I want, honestly the amount of "bloat" isn't as crazy as you'd imagine.

I don't have any resources about distrobox unfortunately, but I'm sure they're around.

[–] jaykay@lemmy.zip 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Awesome, thanks for the reply. VanillaOS is out then, I really despise anything ubuntu. I’ll try nix on my spare laptop and try Kinoite if that fails. Thanks :)

[–] TeryVeneno@lemmy.ml -1 points 1 year ago

Funnily enough, it seems the VanillaOS team does to since for their 2.0 release they dropped their Ubuntu base. Even if you’re not a Debian guy, I’d recommend checking them out since they’re doing really cool stuff no one else is.

[–] Guenther_Amanita@feddit.de 0 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

I see many people here wondering, why they should consider an immutable system.
As someone, who thought the same a few months ago, and now chose Silverblue, here are reasons why:

  • Atomic updates: never worry about half applied installations anymore. Either your OS updates successfully, or it will just work like before.
  • Less bugs and better security: every install is the same, so devs can fix one bug or exploit, recreatable on every system.
  • Automatic updates (configurable): they get downloaded by the way, without you noticing. And if you reboot anyway, you boot into your updated OS. No waiting times. The system manages itself.
  • Way harder to break
  • Changes are easily undoable: if an update breaks anything, you can just select another image and reboot, without recovering anything.
  • No junk accumulation over time, the OS is kept clean
  • Clear distinction between "your" stuff and the OS
  • You can "swap out" the base OS cleanly and keep your stuff. Want KDE? No need to reinstall, just paste one command and delete everything Gnome-related, and you are now on Kinoite.
  • Flexibility: choose between dozens of different images, like one that replicates SteamOS or Ubuntu, has the MS Surface kernel build in, offers Hyprland, and so on...
  • And much more!

My #1 reason is, that everything is worry free.

Those advantages above don't apply to "normal" OSs, even, if I keep everything in Distrobox and Flatpaks.

Immutable OSs aren't called "The future of Linux" without reason. They usually shouldn't impair anyone, and make the whole Linux ecosystem better in any aspect.

[–] lemmyvore@feddit.nl 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

I'm sorry but none of the above sound different from a regular distro. Maybe I haven't got the gist. You can have snapshots and atomic updates on a regular distro, you don't have to reinstall to switch from Gnome to KDE, I can install all kinds of stuff cleanly anyway thanks to package managers, I don't use root often so the system files are effectively read-only as far as I'm concerned, and so on.

As far as security is concerned I don't see the big deal, I mean I get why a read-only OS would in theory be harder to break into but it can still be modified for updates so I guess it's not really "immutable" after all.

What am I missing?

Edit: before anybody points it out, I do know about the rebase layers and I think it's an interesting approach, but ultimately still gets the same results as packages. It may be helpful for distro builders but doesn't make much difference as a user.