50
submitted 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) by Sunny@slrpnk.net to c/linux@lemmy.ml

Hi there folks, I'm still learning about Linux and have yet to dip my toes properly in any arch based distro. Have for the moment fallen in love with the immutable distros based on Universal Blue project. However I do want to learn about what arch has to offer to and plan on installing default arch when I have time. But have been wondering why I haven't heard of any immutable distros from arch based distros yet.

So, am left wondering if there are talks within that Arch community of building immutable distros?


While writing this post I found a project called Arkane Linux, which seem to be very interesting. Does anyone have nay experience with it? Is there a specific reason why immutable wouldn't be a good idea when based on Arch?

Project: https://arkanelinux.org/

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] yala@discuss.online 36 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago)

But have been wondering why I haven’t heard of any immutable distros from arch based distros yet.

If your question is "Why doesn't Arch have its own atomic/immutable spin/flavor like Fedora and openSUSE have in their Silverblue/Kinoite and Aeon/Kalpa respectively?", then the answer simply lies in the fact that Fedora and openSUSE have a lot more incentive for venturing the unexplored waters of atomicity/immutability as their enterprise counterparts exist and will benefit majorly from it. And I haven't even mentioned how most of the new stuff first appear on Fedora (systemd, PipeWire, Wayland etc) before they're adopted on other distros.

The enterprise counterparts also allow funding that is essential for erecting this from the ground. But, even then, the shift towards atomic/immutable is a difficult one with a lot of hardships and complexity. From the ones that have developed their atomic/immutable projects retroactively (so GuixSD and NixOS don't count as they've been atomic/immutable (and declarative) from inception), only Fedora's (I'd argue) have matured sufficiently. But Fedora has been at it since at least 2017, so they've had a head start compared to the others.

In contrast to Debian (through Canonical), Fedora (through Red Hat) and openSUSE (through SuSE), Arch has literally no (in)direct ties to enterprise. Hence, it will only adopt an atomic/immutable variant if the incentive is high from the community or if it's very easy and only comes with major benefits. But, as even openSUSE is currently struggling with their atomic/immutable variants, it has a long road ahead before it becomes something that can be easily adopted by Arch. Hence, don't expect Arch's atomic/immutable variant any time soon.

However, if any derivative suffices, then at least the likes of blendOS, ChimeraOS and even SteamOS are worth mentioning here.

[-] imgcat@lemmy.ml 0 points 5 months ago

In contrast to Debian (through Canonical), Fedora (through Red Hat) and openSUSE (through SuSE), Arch has literally no (in)direct ties to enterprise.

LOL Fedora and opensuse are copying from the commercial distros, but Debian is not copying Ubuntu (literally the opposite)

[-] yala@discuss.online 3 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago)

Fedora and opensuse are copying from the commercial distros

How are they copying if Fedora and openSUSE Tumbleweed are upstream to RHEL and SLE respectively?

Btw, I don't understand what your comment was set out to do. Could you elaborate?

[-] biribiri11@lemmy.ml 4 points 5 months ago

Don’t feed the trolls :)

[-] imgcat@lemmy.ml 2 points 5 months ago

What matters is the important stuff like deciding what package format to use, how to handle the biggest bugs, default filesystem, systemd or not, and who gets to decide all this stuff and so on. Some distros follow the company decision and some do not. Get it?

[-] yala@discuss.online 1 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago)

Thank you for clarifying.

I'm not very familiar with how stuff works over at (open)SuSE. However, for Fedora, we know that they've gone against Red Hat's policy more than once. At the end of the day, it is ~~(at the very least in name)~~ a community distro.

But, I think we can at least agree on the fact that Canonical's influence on Debian is definitely less than Red Hat's influence on Fedora or SuSE's influence on openSUSE.

Btw, consider conveying this better next time 😅. I think most others, like me, misunderstood you 😜.

Have a nice day!

[-] GnomeComedy@beehaw.org 1 points 5 months ago

Tell me you don't understand what those distros are without telling me you don't understand what those distros are.

load more comments (13 replies)
this post was submitted on 27 May 2024
50 points (91.7% liked)

Linux

47946 readers
1583 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