built from traditional distribution packages, but deployed via images.
Hell no. https://nixos.org and https://guix.gnu.org ftw
this post was submitted on 04 Nov 2022
25 points (100.0% liked)
Linux
48141 readers
592 users here now
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Linux is a family of open source Unix-like operating systems based on the Linux kernel, an operating system kernel first released on September 17, 1991 by Linus Torvalds. Linux is typically packaged in a Linux distribution (or distro for short).
Distributions include the Linux kernel and supporting system software and libraries, many of which are provided by the GNU Project. Many Linux distributions use the word "Linux" in their name, but the Free Software Foundation uses the name GNU/Linux to emphasize the importance of GNU software, causing some controversy.
Rules
- Posts must be relevant to operating systems running the Linux kernel. GNU/Linux or otherwise.
- No misinformation
- No NSFW content
- No hate speech, bigotry, etc
Related Communities
Community icon by Alpár-Etele Méder, licensed under CC BY 3.0
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
i don't see why the concept of building immutable images using existing distro packages and tools shouldn't apply equally well to nixos and guix as it does to deb and rpm distros.
Nix and Guix are already reproducible and have immutable store; no need for images in that case, and they more flexible. I'd need to read the article more throughfully for the deployment argument
My problem with this idea is that I generally do not like the defaults most distros use, I like experimenting and I often switch desktop environment or uninstall / clean up stuff I don't need.
I'd be ok if the image is just kernel + init system + shell, and maybe some small core components / tools.. but if the OS comes preloaded with huge software libraries, like typical KDE / GNOME distros do, then it's gonna be a lot of dead weight that I'd have to keep updated even if I do not use it.
Immutable images are great for devices with specific purposes meant for a particular software stack (like Chrome Books, the Steam Deck or so) but for a more general purpose computer where I actually want to deeply customize the UI for my workflow, I don't want to carry around whatever popular software the maintainers of the popular distro might have decided to include.
I think the focus must be on an image-based design rather than a package-based one. For robustness and security it is essential to operate with reproducible, immutable images that describe the OS or large parts of it in full, rather than operating always with fine-grained RPM/dpkg style packages. That's not to say that packages are not relevant (I actually think they matter a lot!), but I think they should be less of a tool for deploying code but more one of building the objects to deploy.
How is this different from any linux distro with docker installed on it?
Its the opposite. What he is talking about is images based OS, like Ubuntu Touch is doing it, also the Steam Deck and stuff like CoreOS. I think Android and ChromeOS are also doing that. Its not a bad idea in general.
Can you explain what image based OS means?
The core operating system is a single read-only file (ROM, as in custom ROM on Android) and all the user files and customizations are on a different partition or such. Since the core system is fixed you can just swap it with a newer ROM when updating (and also go back to the old one if the update fails somehow.).
There is something sinister about his vision. I think it is fine for server OS to all be identical (docker is that already) - probably what you want, although less flexible. But for personal computing... that makes it very impersonal, to force bit-to-bit conformance on people.
This is not what this is about. You can customize it without problem, see Steam Deck. Its about the core system files being read only and easy to upgrade.
Ah yes, the guy who funfamentally objects to the unix philosophy and is doing everything to make GNU/Linux the exact opposite of it... Yeah, no. Not interested.
in what way(s) specifically do you think he objects to the unix philosophy?
have you read his rebuttal to that claim (point #10 here)?
(disclaimer: i am using systemd on some, but not all, of my gnu/linux systems today... and after years of finding it irritating I am actually coming around to appreciate it.)
Lennart's influence over Linux distros are why I've been moving more to the *BSD camp.
Who?
The systemd and pulseaudio guy.
The guy that made the terrible audio stack? Got it.
Lennart Poettering
His view is perfect for appliances, or devices where you don't want the user in control (e.g.: kiosk machines, steam decks, corporate laptops, supermarket checkouts).
But it's terrible for the linux machines that we love to tinker with, machines for developers of OS tools and alike.