Atomic Linux Distros: What Barriers Stand Between You and Making the Switch?
-
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 whateverand 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.
Nvidia RTX graphic card, Valorant, Microsoft Office suite, Adobe Creative Cloud, QuickBooks, AutoCAD, Revit, Visual Studio (full version), DirectX 12-dependent games like Microsoft Flight Simulator, Microsoft Teams, Visio, Power BI Desktop, Windows Mixed Reality, Dragon NaturallySpeaking, Adobe Premiere Pro, Adobe After Effects, CorelDRAW, Ubisoft Connect games, Cricut Design Space, MAGIX Vegas Pro, Acronis True Image, some more industry software.. just to name a few.
-
I tried Silverblue.
And I wanted to run it without layering, cause everyone tells you to avoid it, since it kinda defeats the purpose of an atomic distro in the first place.First of all, it was buggy. As an example, automatic updates didn't work, I had to reboot twice for it to actually apply.
None of the docs helped (actually, there wasn't any in-depth documentation at all). And no one had a solution besides "It should actually just work".
That's the main advantage (the devs test with the exact same system you run) gone right from the start.Then Firefox is part of the base image, but it's Fedora's version, which doesn't come with all codecs.
If you install Firefox from Flathub, you now have 2 Firefox's installed, with identical icons in the GUI. So you need to hide one by deleting its desktop file. Except you can't. So you have to copy it into your home directory and edit it to hide the icon.
Then I went through all the installed programs to replace the Fedora version with the Flathub version, cause what's the point of Flatpak if I'm using derivative versions? I want what the app's dev made.Then it was missing command line tools I'm used to. Installing them in a container didn't work well cause they need access to the entire system.
Finally, I realized even Gnome Tweaks wasn't part of the installation, and it isn't available as Flatpak.
That's the point where I tipped my hat and went back to Debian. Which isn't atomic, but never gave me any issues in the first place.Maybe it's better now, I was on the previous version. Or maybe the Ublue flavours are better. But I don't see any reason to start distro-hopping again after that first experience.
Honestly what you are describing here would bother me too. For example on my notebook I rely on configuring grub to use kernel argument
amdgpu.abmlevel=0which fixes the screen colors getting washed out when in battery saving mode, but I doubt I would be able to config grub on atomic distro. -
I don't think that's a very accurate assessment at all. NixOS, VanillaOS, and Bluefin are three of the first atomic distro's I think of and they're all heavily aimed at developers. All of them offer features to help separate development environments, which improve reproducibility of packages and environments. I prefer the Nix approach to containers, but each one definitely offers benefits for software development.
I do software development and need a ton of tools installed that aren't just "flatpaks".
Every atomic distro supports distrobox and other containerization tools, and many support Nix and brew.
I don’t think that’s a very accurate assessment at all.
It's the sense I got. It made everything harder for me.
Every atomic distro supports distrobox and other containerization tools, and many support Nix and brew.
I like the idea of distrobox but it's simply broken. Things just don't "work". I've hit weird problems each time I try to use it for anything meaningful (don't ask what - I don't remember and I was always jumping down rabbit holes to figure out how to just get things that should work working). And the shared home directory model is simply broken by design since you now get competing containers fighting over the same files. You can use per-container home directories and now you get to setup a linux environment from scratch for each distrobox. So much duplication of effort... What a terrible implementation of what is potentially useful idea.
I thought it would be kinda like using Docker but it's so much worse. Docker works well because the containers are often pretty simple with few requirements. Desktop environments are messy.
And frankly it's not really worth it in the end. pyenv, sdkman and others have basically solved that problem without adding weird things to debug. They genuinely "just work" and let you easily switch versions of java, python, groovy, etc.
-
Atomic distros dont stop you from breaking them, they just make it easy to undo breakage
I'm not trying to convince anyone, just explaining why I do the things I do and why I think the way I think.
Fixing it easily misses the point, for me personally. If I can just undo my mistake then I miss the strong incentive to figure out what went wrong.
Immutability itself is a wonderful thing.
I love to write code using as much immutability as I can but thats for work.
In my free time I want to raw dog a mutable linux distro because it's fun for me. -
Nvidia RTX graphic card, Valorant, Microsoft Office suite, Adobe Creative Cloud, QuickBooks, AutoCAD, Revit, Visual Studio (full version), DirectX 12-dependent games like Microsoft Flight Simulator, Microsoft Teams, Visio, Power BI Desktop, Windows Mixed Reality, Dragon NaturallySpeaking, Adobe Premiere Pro, Adobe After Effects, CorelDRAW, Ubisoft Connect games, Cricut Design Space, MAGIX Vegas Pro, Acronis True Image, some more industry software.. just to name a few.
You listed malwares. Nvidia works tho.
-
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 whateverand 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.
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.
-
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 whateverand 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.
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.
-
You listed malwares. Nvidia works tho.
Sure, but stuff like this makes the vendor lock real.
Forgot to mention solidworks and for example group policy’s (gpo) as well as windows vm / azure at work. -
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 whateverand 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.
Managing 30+ machines with NixOS in a single unified config, currently sitting at a total of around 17k lines of nix code.
In other words, I have put a lot of time into this. It was a very steep learning curve, but it's paid for itself multiple times over by now.
For "newcomers", my observations can be boiled down to this: if you only manage one machine, it's not worth it. Maaaaaybe give home-manager a try and see if you like it.
Situation is probably different with things like Silverblue (IMO throwing those kinds of distros in with Guix and NixOS is a bit misleading - very different philosophy and user experience), but I can only talk about Nix here.
With Nix, the real benefit comes once you handle multiple machines. Identical or similar configurations get combined or parametrized. Config values set for Host A can be reused and decisions be made automatically based on it in Host B, for example:
- all hosts know my SSH pub keys from first boot, without ever having to configure anything in any of them
- my NAS IP is set once, all hosts requiring NAS access just reuse it implicitly
- creating new proxmox VMs just means adding, on average, 10 lines of nix config (saying: your ID will be this, you will run that service) and a single command, because the heavy lifting and configuring has already been done, once
-...
-
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 whateverand 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.
I installed Bazzite on my PC. I am an sway user/addict. So thought about installing it on Bazzite.
Below is my thought process
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.
-
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 whateverand 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.
we're not afraid to tinker
what's keeping YOU from switching to an atomic distro
- Being able to tinker. Atomic distros are about choosing in advance to not tinker with a large part of your system. There's good reasons to do that, sure, but not good enough for me right now.
-
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.
I also think atomic distros will become the norm eventually, but I think there's a long way to go, and not just with user adoption. When I was looking into Nix I was very excited for quite a while, but eventually I realised it's just another way of handling the package distribution/integration problem. A brilliant one, I agree, but with upsides and downsides like any other answer. And I realised that the incredible work put in by the Debian packagers is a better fit for my needs, no matter that it's an older approach.
Perhaps one day, Nix or Nix-like will mature and grow to have the right options to fill my needs better. Perhaps one of the modern Atomics will be good enough for me. Or perhaps Debian et al will run out of steam and good works, or perhaps my needs will change. Or perhaps I'll die first, after a long and happy life using traditional community package distributions.
But I look forward to the glorious future of GUIX/HURD. Even if I never live to see it.
-
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.
Guix is source base rolling release if you plan to keep it up to date weekly, so I don't know why you feel it so distant from Gentoo. Binaries updates are still rolling released but their pace is slower.
-
I also think atomic distros will become the norm eventually, but I think there's a long way to go, and not just with user adoption. When I was looking into Nix I was very excited for quite a while, but eventually I realised it's just another way of handling the package distribution/integration problem. A brilliant one, I agree, but with upsides and downsides like any other answer. And I realised that the incredible work put in by the Debian packagers is a better fit for my needs, no matter that it's an older approach.
Perhaps one day, Nix or Nix-like will mature and grow to have the right options to fill my needs better. Perhaps one of the modern Atomics will be good enough for me. Or perhaps Debian et al will run out of steam and good works, or perhaps my needs will change. Or perhaps I'll die first, after a long and happy life using traditional community package distributions.
But I look forward to the glorious future of GUIX/HURD. Even if I never live to see it.
There's Guix sytem running on top of linux, so you don't need to wait for hurd,
-
Honestly what you are describing here would bother me too. For example on my notebook I rely on configuring grub to use kernel argument
amdgpu.abmlevel=0which fixes the screen colors getting washed out when in battery saving mode, but I doubt I would be able to config grub on atomic distro. -
Guix is source base rolling release if you plan to keep it up to date weekly, so I don't know why you feel it so distant from Gentoo. Binaries updates are still rolling released but their pace is slower.
I just really like portage, I guess. I know how to use it, and learning how to do the same thing in guix doesn't offer any benefits that I know of that matter to.me, yet. Maybe one day.
-
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 whateverand 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.
Customizations, especially theming, at the system level. Or just learning to modify system files on an atomic distro, in general.
I'm sure it's doable and I am genuinely interested in moving to atomic/immutable distros. But more for the security aspect than reliability as I've yet to break my install of Linux in a way that takes more than an hour to recover from. I've enjoyed the predictability of Debian and my very particular taste in UI makes for additional baggage just reinstalling, let alone moving to a very different distro.
-
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 whateverand 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.
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 wonder if OP and about 3/4 of the people in here understand the difference between atomic and immutable.
FWIW, I actually do understand the difference
.As the term "immutable distro" has -unfortunately- become a misnomer, I went with the (more) descriptive "atomic distro" instead. At least it rings better than names like "distro with transactional updates", "distro with (some degree of) managed state" or -heck- "distro with anti-hysteresis properties"
.Granted, perhaps the notion (and/or intention) to lump the likes of NixOS together with Endless OS under one oversimplified umbrella term isn't being helpful either. But I digress...
Though, I find solace in the fact that (at least within these discussions) Gentoo is regarded as a traditional distro
.Or..., put more formally: Creating and maintaining precise terminology for the diverse Linux ecosystem is incredibly challenging. While nerds like myself would enjoy the classification work, the effort required to keep terms accurate and widely understood in this ever-evolving landscape is no joke
.
Anyhow, I might as well hijack the remainder of this comment to thank you and everyone else that made contributions to this discussion. Much appreciated!
-
we're not afraid to tinker
what's keeping YOU from switching to an atomic distro
- Being able to tinker. Atomic distros are about choosing in advance to not tinker with a large part of your system. There's good reasons to do that, sure, but not good enough for me right now.
Atomic distros are not inherently immutable, although they often are because it's an easy byproduct of atomic design.
Atomicity means transactions are either applied in whole or not at all. That means that your system will never be stuck in a broken half-way state if it crashes during an update.
In practice, this is often implemented through filesystem images that are mounted for instant changes. These are then often mounted as read-only for immutability, but distros usually have options to use them as read-write as well for tinkering.
In my opinion, atomicity is the future. The risk of your system breaking during every upgrade is tolerable, but why not eliminate it altogether? Immutability is a different game and is mostly a preference thing.
