Atomic Linux Distros: What Barriers Stand Between You and Making the Switch?
-
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.
-
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.
Thank you for the correction. So then, a more tinker-ready OS could do atomic upgrades, but allow manual changes/customisation to the system internals. And also handle traditional distribution-style package installation.
I suppose some people might still want to upgrade certain packages and not others, but that seems a pretty rare case these days - or maybe I just don't hang out in the right crowds!
-
Thank you for the correction. So then, a more tinker-ready OS could do atomic upgrades, but allow manual changes/customisation to the system internals. And also handle traditional distribution-style package installation.
I suppose some people might still want to upgrade certain packages and not others, but that seems a pretty rare case these days - or maybe I just don't hang out in the right crowds!
I suppose some people might still want to upgrade certain packages and not others, but that seems a pretty rare case these days - or maybe I just don't hang out in the right crowds!
That would still be possible, actually! You can totally choose what packages to upgrade (depending on the distro). NixOS even lets you have multiple versions of the same package installed at once—another uninherent but easy byproduct of atomic design.
Atomicity is just a technical part of how it works under the hood. Normally when you install, uninstall or remove something, it directly does those modifications to your system. If your power goes out halfway through, you're in trouble.
Most atomic distros do those changes to a separate filesystem image instead. Then when it's finished, it instantaneously applies the all of the changes you did by mounting the new image. If your power went out halfway through, you'll just be booting to the old image, untouched and pristine.
That doesn't limit what you can or can't do. You can do all kinds of tinkering and all kinds of partial upgrades to the image (again, depending on the distro). But when it's all done, you can apply all the changes you did instantly.
Here's another example. One way to atomically change a single file is to use
mv. Moving within the same filesystem simply renames the file and does not transfer data.Imagine you're adding a ton of lines to a live script, including
rm -rf ~/tmpdir. If you directly modified it, there's a chance that something could execute it while it was only partially written to the disk and runrm -rf ~instead. Yikes.But if you wrote it to a separate file instead, you could apply your huge set of changes in an instant by using
mvto replace the original file. That's atomicity. It's also actually howsudoedit/visudoworks and one of the reasons why it's recommended over justsudo "$EDITOR".
