134
Misconceptions About Immutable Distributions
(tesk.page)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 15 Oct 2023
134 points (97.9% liked)
Linux
48376 readers
861 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
- Posts must be relevant to operating systems running the Linux kernel. GNU/Linux or otherwise.
- No misinformation
- No NSFW content
- No hate speech, bigotry, etc
Related Communities
Community icon by Alpár-Etele Méder, licensed under CC BY 3.0
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
Yes these distros are all about making thing that were easy into complex, “locked down”, “inflexible”, bullshit to justify jobs and payed tech stacks / some property solution existence.
We had Ansible, containers, ZFS and BTRFS that provided all the required immutability needed already but someone decided that is is time to transform regular machines into MIPS-style shitty devices that have a read-only OSes and a separate partition for configs. All in the hopes of eventually selling some orchestration and/or other proprietary repository / platform / BS like Docker / Kubernetes does.
Correction, a small country and a kitchen appliciance of your choice
😂 😂 😂 😂 clearly have not worked a day in your life with immutable MIPS devices. If you did I believe your comment would be able to power half of the planet then.
Did you even read the article? You definitely should!
I did, and especially the "flexibility"-argument should change your mind.
Just look at NixOS for example. It's just as configurable as Arch (from what I've read), but immutable. And it's also not more complicated, just different.
Immutable OSs only restrict you as much as you want them to be.
Also, the underlying technologies (like OSTree, nix-config, A/B-Root, and so on) aren't proprietary.
Just look at uBlue, they've utilized OSTree to share system configs.
While some things really just aren't possible anymore or require workarounds, it opened the door for many, way more interesting routes.
Also, you don't need to be angry.
Nobody will take anything away from you. Mutable distros will still persist for many many years, maybe forever?
We should be exited what the future brings!
Yes I did, the article is very well written and effectively debunks a lot of misconceptions however those distros are still an unnecessary extra step that don't provide a sufficient gain / improvement over "mutable" distributions and/or properly done setups.
"just different" is by definition "more complicated" as most people going on the "immutable" hype will have to change entire workflows and tech stacks to end up gaining nothing. Moreover immutable distributions (or the majority / most popular of them) will simply add a ton of extra engineering hours and you can't debug/fix things as quickly as you would otherwise will.
As the article said security isn't even a valid argument for immutable distros and I'll give you even more reasons. Properly done setups run on container technologies that allow for a more decent way of immutability - typically snapshots. If you're going bare metal then use ZFS / BTRFS instead of the Ext4 crap and will also be provided you with that. Snapshots can be easily made automatically on schedule, manually, moved between systems etc. and won't get in the way of your developers.
True, but this hype is much like Docker and it will invariably and inevitably lead people down a path that will then require some proprietary solution or dependency somewhere that is only required because the "new" technology itself alone doesn't deliver as others did in the past.
As with CentOS's fiasco or Docker it doesn't really matter if there are truly open-source and open ecosystems of immutable distributions because in the end people/companies will pick the proprietary / closed option just because "it's easier to use" or some other specific thing that will be good on the short term and very bad on the long term. This happened with CentOS vs Debian is currently unfolding with Docker vs LXC/RKT and will happen with Ubuntu vs Debian for all those who moved from CentOS to Ubuntu.
We had good examples of immutable distributions and architectures before as any MIPS router and/or IOT device is usually immutable and there are also reasons why people are moving away from those towards more mutable ARM architectures.
We don't need to see the future to understand what immutable OSes bring to the table - we just have to look at the shit show that was made around MIPS.
Yeah, it's a big reason why I'm never in a hurry to adopt 'the next big thing' until it's proven to be the next big thing or I have an immediate use for it.
No point in bogging myself down in theory when practicality works just fine.
That kinda reminds me of android xD
Read only system with partitions for data and more
Android isn't that "cut and dry tho" they can unlock the partition.
Yeah
Take a look at serpent os. It aims to provide a lot of the same benefits without being locked down
I believe this answers it in detail: https://lemmy.world/comment/4574094
?? I was just providing a suggestion
Yes and you did very well on that and I believe as well you can understand my POV on immutable distros after all the posts did. We're most likely creating the next Docker / Docker Hub / Kubernetes BS by pushing them and immutability was proven by MIPS to be clusterfuck.