You are allowed to modify stuff but it is not actually changing the install as is.
This is achieved by different techniques like file system overlays, containerisation, btrfs snapshots and so on.
The idea is to replicate the classical behavior you know from embedded devices that have their core functionality in ROM with even firmware updates only overlayed or modern smartphones: You can modify your system but in the end there’s always the possibilty to “reset to factory settings” as in: the last known working configuration.
This kinda response is so funny to me. I’ve seen similar attacks on Rust, and all I can assume is either you’re in the 0.01% of users who are ideal use cases and have never had an issue caused by something that could have been prevented by immutability, or you just have that crab bucket, “well I put up with the frustration, so everyone else should have to too!” mentality
I’m not even here to claim that immutability is ideal for everyone, but “haha you like to not waste your time unfucking your OS” is not the epic burn you think it is
After seeing folks on lemmy who wiped their /boot and did other funny stuff I must ask you: do you think your argument is all that righteous?
The idea of immutable distributions does not trigger me: there are valid use cases for that too. But the whole parroting of brainrot “I’ve got my system fucked, so immutable distros go brrrrr” sounds more and more like a band of childlike people looking for anyone to blame but themselves
I don’t care if something could or could not have been prevented with immutability with my system, but I always care of the following: this next thing I am going to do with the system, am I prepared to deal with it if something goes sideways or not. Now that looks like a burn to you or what?
Kinda. Generally the user files (including custom installed applications) are on a rw partition. Whereas the system files (OS files, root folder, etc) are on a ro partition. When updates are applied to the core system they come as complete images. No compiling from source on the fly.
The advantages to this is that it should be near impossible to break your system. If you need to roll back to a previous version the system just/downloads/mounts the previous image. There is less flexibility in terms of changing system files. But the idea with immutable distros is that you shouldn’t be modifying system files anyways, and there are different ways to accomplish things.
A really good example is Android. Android (non-rooted) is kinda-sorta an immutable distro. Except it uses an A/B partition method, where the active system downloads and installs to the other partition, triggers a flag, then a reboot picks up the flag and boots from the newly installed partition. If anything goes wrong, another flag is triggered and it boots from the “good” partition.
It’s not quite the same, but at a high-level it kinda is.
Someone might correct me if I’m wrong but it’s that, plus extra tooling to redirect the stuff that needs to be writable, plus more extra tooling to allow you to temporarily unlock the read-only parts in order to do system updates, plus a system updater that puts the whole system more-or-less under version control.
It’s similar to using Deep Freeze on Windows where outside of specific writeable directories anything that shouldn’t be changed isn’t allowed to change.
Wait, what? I’m legit not familiar with immutable distros, is it like you’re only allowed to modify certain directories?
In simplified terms:
You are allowed to modify stuff but it is not actually changing the install as is.
This is achieved by different techniques like file system overlays, containerisation, btrfs snapshots and so on.
The idea is to replicate the classical behavior you know from embedded devices that have their core functionality in ROM with even firmware updates only overlayed or modern smartphones: You can modify your system but in the end there’s always the possibilty to “reset to factory settings” as in: the last known working configuration.
So, baby-proofing Linux?
We prefer “security hardening” but yes that… Also works lol
I’d describe it as making computer systems reliable.
This kinda response is so funny to me. I’ve seen similar attacks on Rust, and all I can assume is either you’re in the 0.01% of users who are ideal use cases and have never had an issue caused by something that could have been prevented by immutability, or you just have that crab bucket, “well I put up with the frustration, so everyone else should have to too!” mentality
I’m not even here to claim that immutability is ideal for everyone, but “haha you like to not waste your time unfucking your OS” is not the epic burn you think it is
After seeing folks on lemmy who wiped their /boot and did other funny stuff I must ask you: do you think your argument is all that righteous?
The idea of immutable distributions does not trigger me: there are valid use cases for that too. But the whole parroting of brainrot “I’ve got my system fucked, so immutable distros go brrrrr” sounds more and more like a band of childlike people looking for anyone to blame but themselves
I don’t care if something could or could not have been prevented with immutability with my system, but I always care of the following: this next thing I am going to do with the system, am I prepared to deal with it if something goes sideways or not. Now that looks like a burn to you or what?
Kinda. Generally the user files (including custom installed applications) are on a rw partition. Whereas the system files (OS files, root folder, etc) are on a ro partition. When updates are applied to the core system they come as complete images. No compiling from source on the fly.
The advantages to this is that it should be near impossible to break your system. If you need to roll back to a previous version the system just/downloads/mounts the previous image. There is less flexibility in terms of changing system files. But the idea with immutable distros is that you shouldn’t be modifying system files anyways, and there are different ways to accomplish things.
A really good example is Android. Android (non-rooted) is kinda-sorta an immutable distro. Except it uses an A/B partition method, where the active system downloads and installs to the other partition, triggers a flag, then a reboot picks up the flag and boots from the newly installed partition. If anything goes wrong, another flag is triggered and it boots from the “good” partition.
It’s not quite the same, but at a high-level it kinda is.
Edit: article I found about it
https://linuxblog.io/immutable-linux-distros-are-they-right-for-you-take-the-test/
Yes, kind of.
Someone might correct me if I’m wrong but it’s that, plus extra tooling to redirect the stuff that needs to be writable, plus more extra tooling to allow you to temporarily unlock the read-only parts in order to do system updates, plus a system updater that puts the whole system more-or-less under version control.
It’s similar to using Deep Freeze on Windows where outside of specific writeable directories anything that shouldn’t be changed isn’t allowed to change.