Products > Computers

Fedora Silverblue: the ultimate immutabile distro!

(1/3) > >>

DiTBho:
see here  :o :o :o

50ShadesOfDirt:
Interesting ...

One of the things I have to do to make an OS "mine" is to install someone's OS (Windows, Linux), and then spend X amount of time stripping the bad stuff out. X time is larger for Windows, and smaller for Linux.

Immutable means I don't have to do any of this ... leaves me slightly uncomfortable, but hey, that's what testing is for. In a VM it goes ...

I hope Fedora SilverBlue immutabilitiy started from a reasonable (end-user) perspective, in that there is nothing "bad" in it from the start (data collection, etc.)

Thanks for the tip!

SiliconWizard:
I don't like Flatpak much to begin with, but that's just me.
As to being immutable, how do they allow security updates if the whole OS is not being updated for 13 months straight?
I have not read the entire functioning of their "immutable" distribution, so probably it's obvious, and probably "immutable" is a bit of a stretch.
I don't really see a benefit compared to using a filesystem allowing easy rollbacks, apart from the marketing. But maybe it has a market - just curious what it is.

ejeffrey:

--- Quote from: SiliconWizard on December 04, 2023, 10:32:38 pm ---As to being immutable, how do they allow security updates if the whole OS is not being updated for 13 months straight?

--- End quote ---

It sounds like each major release has 13 months of security updates, not that it only updates every 13 months.


--- Quote ---I don't really see a benefit compared to using a filesystem allowing easy rollbacks, apart from the marketing. But maybe it has a market - just curious what it is.

--- End quote ---

I think the idea is that instead of applying updates to a live system and then rolling back if something breaks, you apply updates to a private region and then roll-forward after it completes.  I can see this being an interesting idea for servers or for embedded/real time applications where you really want to minimize downtime.  But it still requires a reboot to move to the new state, so I don't really see it as a huge benefit on a desktop system.

I don't buy the "nothing breaks" idea.  It's been ages since "system catastrophically broken by the updater" was a serious problem in any major linux distribution, at least in my experience.  For the most part, in Linux, the reason updates break things is that users have customized the environment, and the new versions change something incompatible with those customizations.  You can help avoid "accidental" incompatibility by careful packaging, and perhaps the immutable system naturally does this, but real changes are still going to cause problems.

SiliconWizard:

--- Quote from: ejeffrey on December 05, 2023, 07:03:40 pm ---
--- Quote from: SiliconWizard on December 04, 2023, 10:32:38 pm ---As to being immutable, how do they allow security updates if the whole OS is not being updated for 13 months straight?

--- End quote ---

It sounds like each major release has 13 months of security updates, not that it only updates every 13 months.

--- End quote ---

Precisely, my point is that it's not "immutable" if it updates on a regular basis. It's just marketing. Immutable is just one of these trendy buzzwords now.

I get the relative ease of use compared to rolling back things, but I personally don't really buy the whole concept either.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page