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/
What is the benefit of an immutable distro?
For me:
and their consequences;
are the primary reasons why I absolutely adore atomic/immutable distros.
Furthermore, it minimizes all kinds of issues related to or caused by bit rot, configuration drift and hidden/unknown states. (Note that you won’t reap all of these benefits on all atomic/immutable distros.)
Yep, also ability to rebase to some other image. Maybe that’s what you meant by setting up a new system.
Rebasing is (strictly speaking) found exclusively on Fedora Atomic (though I wouldn’t be surprised if Vanilla OS has also started supporting this like Fedora Atomic does). While achieving something similar on NixOS or GuixSD isn’t necessarily hard, the term “rebase” is not used for either of these systems.
Setting up a new system with little to no nuisance is a direct consequence of managing your system declaratively. So no, I didn’t mean rebasing. Though, in your defense, Fedora Atomic does achieve it through rebasing. But, even then, it’s only one part of the puzzle.
Oh no… what is rebasing in this context? This isn’t something related to git, I imagine?
Anti Commercial-AI license
ostree is based on OCI images, the basis for containers and the like. “Rebasing” just refers to swapping out the OCI image containing your root with another.
You get all of this by using Btrfs in a regular distro.
Recently kdeconnect broke on me, I just rolled back the snapshot to the day before.
No you don’t. Refer to this reply I’ve written to someone else.
Btw, Btrfs is only a file system, snapshot-functionality isn’t automatically implied with it. See traditional Fedora as a reference; i.e. defaults to Btrfs, but doesn’t set up Snapper/Timeshift or anything to that effect.
But, even then, snapshot-functionality provides only of a small subset of the benefits in an inferior way (as I’ve explained in the reply to the other person).
What do you mean by declarative system configuration? that thing that nixos does that you set it up thru its config file?
I’ve also kept several month old btrfs snapshots on my system and I don’t see a problem with it, they only add like 3 GIB of storage each when they are that old.
Also I’m not sure what you meant by increased security? Is it more secure simply because you can’t edit the root filesystem?
Thank you for the reply!
What you refer to in NixOS is indeed its solution to offer declarative system configuration. But the other two mature immutable distros, i.e. Fedora Atomic and Guix System, have their own solutions. Though, Guix System’s solution is a lot more reminiscent of NixOS’. While Fedora Atomic leans on ‘the ways’ established for OCI (and hence containerfile(s) etc). Even less mature immutable distros, i.e. blendOS and Vanilla OS, have put considerable effort into the works for managing their systems declaratively.
My argument here is mostly just “No occupied storage on device is better than some occupied storage on device.”. But yeah, its significance is definitely up-to-debate. Perhaps I should have relied more on the built-in aspect; from the mainstream independent and/or highly popular traditional distros only (Garuda,) Linux Mint(, Manjaro, Nobara) and openSUSE Tumbleweed come with built-in rollback/snapshot functionality. But, regardless, the rollback/snapshot part of the equation is definitely the least special (if at all).
It’s indeed related to how some parts of the system are read-only during runtime (under normal circumstances). Hence, some types of attacks are circumvented from the get-go. This, by itself, doesn’t warrant the use of an immutable distro over a traditional one; even if the user is security conscious. However, if said user already intends to use a distro that takes security seriously (i.e. Fedora or openSUSE) for the sake of security (or at least it plays some role in their decision-making), then they might as well prefer their atomic counterparts. But yeah, for actual security, one should probs rely on Qubes OS instead. Though, atomic distros have given us the likes of secureblue; which may be the most secure Linux system for general-use we got (besides Qubes OS, if we even count that as Linux). The only other contender is Kicksecure.
Honestly, IMO the end-user benefit is mostly that it sounds cool.
All the benefits I’ve heard (including the ones in this discussion) don’t actually derive from “immutability” but from releases that stay the same for longer (which is what “more stable” used to mean), or the ability to roll back your system to some “known” working state (which you can do with snapshots and in a plethora of other ways).
What immutability means is that users are unable to alter their system, or at least not expected to… basically, it means what in corporate lingo would sound “altering your system is not supported” and that the distro actively makes it hard for you to do so.
This means users will not break their system because they followed badly some instructions they found on some badly written forum post anymore and blame the distro for it, but it also means that users who actually have a reason to alter their system and know what they are doing will have a hard time doing it (or be unable to), which is precisely why I left macos and went back to linux for my work computer some ten years ago (I spent half a day doing something I could have be done with in five minutes and said to myself “never again”).
For the team/company that builds it, an immutable distro will likely be easier to test and maintain than a “regular” one, which should then indirectly benefit the users (well… as long as the team/company interests are aligned with the users’ of course: shall windows get easier for microsoft to maintain, how much benefit would trickle down to its end users?).
Users who switch to an immutable distro should see a decrease in bugs short-term. In the longer run, I’d expect distros (especially the “commercial” ones) to reduce the effort they spend in QA until quality drops again to whatever level is deemed appropriate (if bread costs less I’m still not gonna buy more bread than I need… same goes for quality).
Basically, it all boils down to “immutable distros cost less to maintain” (which, don’t get me wrong, is a net positive).
I must say I find it slightly concerning to have heard several “veteran” linux users say that immutable distros are so great that they will install one on their parent/child/SO/friend’s PC but on their own.
It’s also a bit unnerving to notice that most of the push for immutability seems to come from companies (the likes of debian/arch/gentoo/etc. are not pushing for immutability AFAIK, and they certainly don’t have the initiative in this field).
I’m not sure how much immutable distros will benefit the community at large, and… I’m not even sure they will end up being very successful (windows/macos follow in whatever makes is more profitable for microsoft/apple, linux users have choice).
I hope that immutable distros will prove both successful and good for the user community at large.
edit: Forgot to explain the positives I hope for: since immutable distros should require less effort, I hope this will lead to more/better “niche” distros from small teams, and to distros with bigger teams doing more cool stuff with the extra manpower
I could see it being useful for like an office or something, where you do a big roll-out to a bunch of people. I’d assume having the system files be read-only and (presumably) the same on every system would eliminate a lot of guesswork for IT troubleshooting.
Essentially: read-only system files.
In immutable distros, you or any other programs that are installed on the system cannot modify the system files. That includes the system configuration files as well as applications. Its goal is to solve the problem of an entity gaining admin privlieges to your system and cause loads of damage. There are some addtional benefits too:
But then you also can’t make any changes to the system files. I thought the point of Linux was having more control
Config files are still editable. Most of them (rpm-ostree, for example) have a mechanism for managing packages, and subsequently rolling back if anything goes wrong or completely resetting, and leave /usr/local writable. For stuff like development and working with compiler toolchains, you should be using a container. I use vscode exported in a distrobox running Fedora 40, for example.
The entity gaining access to system files and doing damage, it’s me.
It all boils down to user preferences right. Some users prefer the maxium amount of control, while others, including myself, only use the pc for gaming and browsing, so I’d rather have a system that cannot be broken by myself and not deal with updates etc…
Pretty much zero for most users