I find that many Linux users have a misconception about immutable distributions without knowing what it actually is. There is a lot of misinformation and generalization in the Internet about immutable distributions being “locked down”, “inflexible”, etc., when we could argue the same with many traditional distributions. In this article, we’ll look at what makes an immutable distribution, the concept of an immutable distribution versus implementations, misconceptions about immutable distributions (both pro and con), and why they exist in the first place.
They aren’t meant to be “flexible”. Immutable means it’s static, read only. You replace one image with another.
In the case of Silverblue you install using overlays, like Flatpak or toolbox/podman.
With NixOS you do get images, but in the form of clojures. BUT it also handles environments on a fundamental level, so you don’t need to reboot to install new system applications or services.
Have you considered Vanilla OS? There’s also uBlue, but I have hopes for Vanilla because it is user-firsf distro, whereas uBlue is more an off-shoot of Silverblue meant for users, but Ruth and same issues as with Silverblue.
Vanilla 2.0 is coming up soon and it seems like a great alternative for people with little to no know-how, or people who don’t want to mess around and find out.
Immutable can be flexible, just like NixOS is with
nix shelland other features I don’t yet know about.Containers are great but rootless has issues with programs that need capabilties like CAP_NET_RAW, so I also need rootful containers. That’s annoying and is an advantage with
nix shell.I’m not a fan of A/B root, which I believe VanillaOS uses. Also an advantage of NixOS is it’s big repo… On Fedora I had to package some programs myself in copr (tried out a less well-known wayland compositor) On NixOS I had to too, but it’s far simpler without the need to build on someone else’s infrastructure.