Informative post. Thank you!
bsergay
NixOS not the major inspiration for immutables
Do you mean strictly mean 'immutable' distros with this?
consumer OSes like Android and ChromeOS are.
So, if I understood you correct, you pose that Android and ChromeOS are the major inspiration for 'immutable distros'. Which, to be fair, could be true. Uhmm..., a quick search didn't result on any conclusive evidence of this. If you will, could you perhaps help me find with sources that back up this claim?
But yes, NixOS has some influence even it don’t get the idea of immutable distros well.
Sorry, I don't understand this sentence. Could you explain what you meant here?
Distrobox for accessing any package from any other repo; including those belonging to other distros.
After rereading my text, I came to the conclusion that I might have given of the impression that FDE and Secure Boot indeed compete with eachother. Which, as you've excellently noted, is not the case. Thank you for ensuring that others don't misunderstand this!
Hi, I'm @sergay@discuss.online with another username.
I agree with your post. While, Guix System looks the best on paper (after Fedora Atomic and NixOS), it truly requires a lot of expertise from its user. So, if OP is not interested in learning Guix System and/or the Guile Scheme language for the sake of running their OS, then they should look for something else. Because, as you've noted, they might have no choice but to contribute by packaging some of the software they need for themselves.
Regarding Secure Boot, that's definitely a problem. However, not all distros support it OOTB. I might have dismissed it earlier because I consider FDE to be more important than Secure Boot. But I'm aware that this is not on technical merits.
IMO one should not dare to touch any 'immutable' distros besides Fedora Atomic and/or NixOS unless they know exactly what they're getting into and why they prefer it over Fedora Atomic and/or NixOS.
Or, be like me, and use secureblue (or any other community image) and don't experience any of these issues.
Interesting take.
This seems more philosophical than on technicalities. If this is correct, would you mind elaborating on the philosophical side?
Even if this were the case, shouldn't the constant development and continuous improvement result in something that's (eventually) well-developed? The only way I could see this holding some truth is if by design the 'immutable' model (whatever that is) happens to be broken or something like that. Like, how some file systems are simply better than Btrfs (or any CoW filesystem for that matter) for specific tasks; i.e. ensure to use the right tool for the right task. So, do you pose that 'immutable distros' are by design not well-suited? If so, why?
So you (actually) acknowledge and imply that it will become ready at some point. Or not? Furthermore, like how do you reconcile this with Fedora's ambitions for Fedora Atomic? Or how NixOS is going strong (perhaps stronger than ever) while it's been in the making since before Ubuntu?
And advantages*. Or do you ignore those?
This is false. What makes you think that?
What's "them" in this sentence? The "old PCs" you had just mentioned? Or something else? Furthermore, if it is the "old PCs", doesn't this directly contradict with "they are unsuitable for old PCs"?