this post was submitted on 21 Apr 2025
110 points (94.4% liked)

Linux

54838 readers
741 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 6 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.

(page 2) 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] t_378@lemmy.one 4 points 1 month ago (1 children)

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.

This is my reason. I've been using Arch exclusively for a few years, but have used it on and off since 2008. I still don't consider myself an expert by any means, and I frequently pull the docs and old forum threads to solve issues I run into.

Documentation is the most important deciding factor for me. I didn't use more fully featured distributions, even if they were "easier" becuase if I can't look up the answer, and I have to live with something because I don't know what button to press... I mean you may as well just give me a windows box again.

[–] LeFantome@programming.dev 2 points 1 month ago

Arch benefits not just from documentation but from its repo. Whatever you get told you need, it is always a relief to find it waiting there for you already tuned for your distro.

[–] gi1242@lemmy.world 4 points 1 month 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)

[–] jimmy90@lemmy.world 4 points 1 month 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

[–] racketlauncher831@lemmy.ml 3 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month 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.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] DeltaWingDragon@sh.itjust.works 3 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Most of the ones out there are weird, anti-configurable systems like mobile phone OS.

The only ones that really seem like "the future" in my eyes are Nix and Guix.

And I'm not going to use those because I already have a good setup with my conventional distro (Debian). Anything less than absolute perfection will not get me to switch.

Nix is imperfect because it uses systemd. Guix is imperfect because it has a smaller selection of packages, and a more difficult configuration system.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Dariusmiles2123@sh.itjust.works 3 points 1 month 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.

[–] gerryflap@feddit.nl 3 points 1 month 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.

[–] DarkMetatron@feddit.org 3 points 1 month ago (1 children)

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

[–] Dungrad@feddit.org 1 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)
[–] inzen@lemmy.world 3 points 1 month ago (2 children)

I like the fact that linux is so easy to poke around in, even if it breaks. Breaking can be a good thing since that way I learn the most. I enjoy rebuilding my entire setup from time to time. I diskile the additional complexity.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] priapus@sh.itjust.works 3 points 1 month ago (2 children)

I think most users just don't really know much about atomic distros. A lot of people in this thread don't seem to really understand the benefits and mention downsides that don't really exist in most of them. I think eventually (and by that I mean in a VERY long time) atomic distros will become the standard. AerynOS is an upcoming one that seems to have a really amazing blend of it's atomic features without disrupting the user experience people expect from more typical distros. It won't replace Nix for me, but I hope it'll convince a lot of people to try it out.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] Heavybell@lemmy.world 3 points 1 month ago (2 children)

I use Gentoo, and atomic just doesn't seem like a fit for me. That said I could see it being great for people who don't tinker. If I were to get a family member to use linux I might pick an atomic distro.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] despaircode@lemmy.ml 2 points 1 month ago

Look, I'm a Slacker. It's not the Slack way.

[–] deadcatbounce@reddthat.com 2 points 1 month 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.

[–] MangoPenguin@lemmy.blahaj.zone 2 points 1 month 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)
[–] twice_hatch@midwest.social 2 points 1 month ago

Debian just works, it doesn't complain if I forget to update it for a couple years, and I don't feel like reinstalling my os this year

I use atomic distros on my server and a media centre, but don't see any reason to do it on my main systems. Stability is fine, and atomic distros make said tinkering more difficult.

[–] xavier666@lemm.ee 2 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

I once installed Bazzite on my PC. I am an sway user/addict. So thought about installing sway on Bazzite.

Below is my journey


Let me try to download and compile it.

Downloaded but it won't compile.

The libraries/dependancies are not installed. Here, try installing the packages via brew.

Nope, some of them are available and some are not on Brew.

Now what do I do? Okay, there is something called distrobox where I can install whatever I want.

Looks like I have to learn distrobox. Wait, sway is not a simple application, it's a full blown window manager. Even if it compiles, will it work?

Most of the people online (Discord) told me the process won't be very pretty.

Do I want to invest another week experimenting with distrobox?

Nope, installed Nobara the next day and I'm happy.


Disclaimer: Bazzite is a fantastic distro and it's powering my RoG Ally. Atomic distros are fantastic for the niche they fill.

[–] jjlinux@lemmy.ml 2 points 1 month ago

In my case, I tinker quite a bit when I'm bored, and immutable distros, as well as atomic distros, raise barriers that I'd rather not have to jump over to have my fill of tinkering.

[–] Pirata@lemm.ee 2 points 1 month ago

I'm currently testing fedora (upgrading from mint) and since I'm fairly new I don't want to venture into the fairly unknown territory that is Immutable atm.

Plus, I using a VPN, its crucial for my work, and I already see there are some issues with it because it has to be layered and blá bla bla.

Basically I'm just giving Atomic distros one or 2 years more so that the technology matures, software developers start taking it seriously enough to work around them, and for guides to start coming out.

[–] LeFantome@programming.dev 1 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

My current distro uses APK 3 as a package manager and that is already atomic. So I guess my current setup works fine, without any of the other hassles and limitations.

load more comments
view more: ‹ prev next ›