• ranzispa@mander.xyz
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    28 days ago

    I still miss the advantages for these cases.

    I can understand the kid example, but I feel that’s easily solved by not giving them root access.

    A htpc in which you just need to launch media

    Setup the system and install whatever media software. Update it every once in a while or setup auto updates. I do not see any difference between traditional os and immutable. You’re likely not modifying any system files anyway.

    A steam Deck like handheld in which you just want your game launcher

    The producing company controls software and updates, it should be immutable anyway as users likely do not have root access. Were users to have root access this may make sense. I’m not sure, maybe the immutability would make updates easier for the company?

    A PC for your technologically inept family members to just use as an email/browser/word processor

    Are they really going to brick their system? That would require opening the terminal. But I mean, fair.

    What I do not understand is why there are users swearing by bazzite and other immutable distributions. These examples you make is basically for users who just do the most basic operations with their systems. Fair, if this makes it easier for non technical people to use Linux I’m all for it. What I do not understand is why technically adept people are so excited for these kinds of distributions?

    • bluesquid0741b@aussie.zone
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      27 days ago

      I control a htpc with an Xbox gamepad. Bazzite I don’t even think about updates, it just happens instead of saying “should probably update” and unplugging my nose and keyboard from my other PC. Or leaving mouse and keyboard sit on the floor in front of my tv cabinet.

      Most handheld suppliers are shipping windows, replacing it with an immutable system is definitely the way to go. On screen keyboards are play I guess, but even my experience just doing a regular distro on a tablet it was a hassle.

      Look, I’m not going into detail on this anymore. But I want to say I’m surprised by how much people are pushing back. “Oh instead of using bazzite, you could setup rsync to do an a/b switch with your server if something goes wrong”. (Elsewhere in these comments).

      I just didn’t think it would be so much for people to accept there are use cases for why people do things differently to them.

    • j0rge@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      28 days ago

      I still miss the advantages for these cases.

      Zero-maintenance and upgrades.

      Update it every once in a while or setup auto updates. I do not see any difference between traditional os and immutable. You’re likely not modifying any system files anyway.

      You’re overthinking it, there’s no reason to care if the root disk is readable or not. If it updates reliably out of the box there’s no reason to touch it.

      Are they really going to brick their system? That would require opening the terminal. But I mean, fair.

      You don’t need to open a terminal to brick a traditional linux system they tend to do that on their own.

      What I do not understand is why there are users swearing by bazzite and other immutable distributions. These examples you make is basically for users who just do the most basic operations with their systems.

      I can’t speak for “immutable distributions” but for bazzite it’s to ensure working upgrades.

      What I do not understand is why technically adept people are so excited for these kinds of distributions?

      I’m technically adept at Linux I expect software to work. (system upgrades should work, app installation shouldn’t break the PC, etc.)

    • MangoCats@feddit.it
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      28 days ago

      easily solved by not giving them root access.

      Root vs non-root is, in a nutshell, a tangled mess with millions of opportunities for “oops, didn’t think of that” situations: https://www.cve.org/downloads

      Immutable keeps the legacy system confituration basically unchanged, but also restores it “from ROM” every time you power on. (not real ROM, but effectively.) In an immutable system, the attack surface is dramatically reduced, and much more diverse among systems than with a mutable OS.

      • ranzispa@mander.xyz
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        28 days ago

        I reckon this must be true. However I do not see this as a reason for wide adoption of immutable systems. I guess that is a fairly valid use case.

        I’d like to understand why some users are enthusiastic about bazzite. As of now I understood two of the reasons:

        • updates work and do not break the system
        • it is a bit more secure

        However I do not understand why these two things make their users so enthusiastic. It’s two things you rarely worry about when using a computer. They are indeed important, but in my opinion not much of a problem in modern distributions.

        In the other hand you have to install everything through flatpak, which is something which would really get to my nerves.

        I understand there are some good advantages, I just fail to understand which ones those are.

        • marcie (she/her)@lemmy.mlOP
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          28 days ago

          It requires literally zero work from me to maintain, that’s why I’m enthusiastic and want the project to do well. Saying mutable Linux is zero work is dead wrong. And if you do put work into your system, it actually sticks and doesn’t decide to explode one day over it.