Consider deleting this one if you will ;) .

I think you're right. Thank you!

Btrfs snapshots + Snapper have been (somewhat) pioneered by openSUSE Tumbleweed. Yet, they see value in developing openSUSE Aeon (i.e. their attempt at an 'immutable' distro); otherwise they wouldn't be putting resources into it.

Hence, Btrfs snapshots is (at best) only able to fulfil some aspects we've come to expect from 'immutable' distros. But there's more to it than that.

One of the most simple (and, yet, perhaps most defining) feature that 'immutable' distros come with is atomic updates; i.e. updates either occur or not, there's no in-between messed up state caused by energy outage or whatsoever.

There's a lot more to it than that. To mention a few more:

• reproducibility
• declariative system management
• (some) prevention of cruft accumulation, bit rot and configuration drift
• better security related to read-only part of OS
• a lot less undefined/hidden/unknown state

Not all 'immutable' distros possess these qualities. Nor are they aspired by all of them. Hence, lumping them up together is actually a blatant oversight that's been committed way too frequently.

Regardless, if you're interested, consider trying out Fedora Atomic^[1]^, NixOS or openSUSE Aeon for yourself and see what it's all about.

1. Either through Fedora's own images or the ones provided by uBlue.

We'd rather like to see that anyways 😜.

OP, it seems as if the fear mongering and misinformation may have reached you through your cautious disposition.

I've gone through every single comment found below your post and at times I've been dumbfounded and/or astonished by the ludicrous claims that are spouted.

FFS, someone even expressed a problem found on imperative systems... While Fedora Atomic can be made (relatively) declarative (i.e. the exact opposite of imperative) for over a year now.

I will leave you with two videos in which the recent conference talks by the very same people that work on Fedora Atomic can be found. Consider watching these if you're interested to know what they're actually currently working on. If you pay attention, you will even notice how they mention common misconceptions that have also been brought up here...

First watch this one. Then, watch this.

The only fair criticism that I've found is the required investment and effort to adjust due to the associated paradigm shift and learning curve. However, this is peanuts compared to Guix System or NixOS.

Even if that's the case, it's telling of Linux' maturity.

is lead by a single person

Ultimately, (some) decisions are made by a single person. However, the list of maintainers suggests that contributions are welcome.

~~> even though there is no evidence that Chromium is not even less secure)~~

~~The double negation makes it hard to understand; but if I would give it a try, then I would get the following:~~

~~"even though there is evidence that Chromium is even less secure)"~~

~~If the above represents your views, could you provide said evidence?~~

even though there is no evidence that Chromium is not even less secure

What's your take on Madaidan's (i.e. security researcher on projects like Kicksecure and Whonix) article on the matter? I'm aware that it's a bit outdated. However, would you be able to confidently claim that nothing found within is relevant today?

I can’t fully agree with you about the smooth user experience on this particular distro because it’s immutable

Could you elaborate on why you think this is the case? FYI, I've been using Fedora Atomic for over two years. So, please don't feel the need to explain me how it works*.

TLE did a performance test on this distro and it was pretty much the same in terms of FPS as other distros.

Without measuring any 1% lows or 0.1% lows.

I enjoy TLE's content, but that video is far from exhaustive on this.

Unless a better comparison comes out, we should reserve ourselves from making any judgements on this particular subject.

Why does nobody here ever recommend Fedora to noobs?

It does happen. It's simply not the popular choice for the following reasons:

• Fedora and its predecessors were until relatively recently simply more cumbersome in use compared to Debian and Ubuntu;
  • There was a time (like at least over 10 years ago) in which package managers didn't necessarily know how to resolve dependencies. However, Debian's package manager at the time did it earlier than the package manager found on Fedora's predecessor. Hence, this was a clear reason to prefer Debian or Ubuntu over Fedora('s predecessor).
  • Freezing packages and offering stable releases with two years of support (like Debian does), has been and continues to be a very pleasant way to run your Linux OS. That's why, even in the past, Fedora's slower cousin (i.e. CentOS) was very popular (though being RHEL clone didn't hurt either). Fedora, on the other hand, offers a semi-rolling release cycle of 6 months with only 13 months of support since release. With semi-rolling release, I refer to the fact that some packages are frozen and some are not frozen. Hence, you should expect daily updates. Access to the latest and greatest software is great. However, every update is a possible cause/reason for something to bork/break on your system. It's therefore unsurprising that some prefer the predictability found on other distros. Though, for the sake of completeness, one has to mention that Fedora Atomic does a great job at tackling this problem; especially the uBlue projects.
  • A couple of years back, Fedora switched in quick succession to systemd, Wayland and GTK4. Thankfully, I didn't experience this for myself. But, from what I could gather, it was a mess. Users, perhaps rightfully so, questioned Fedora's decision-making. While Fedora wasn't particular loved, this didn't help to retain new users, nor did it help to cultivate a trusted environment.
• Due to the previous reason, Fedora has not particularly been a very popular distro. Hence, troubleshooting your issues through Google is less straightforward compared to Linux Mint or Ubuntu. Additionally, as Fedora's user base has primarily been more experienced users compared to the ones found on Linux Mint or Ubuntu, it's unsurprising to find less discussion on elementary stuff. Simply by virtue of Fedora's user base already being past that.
• Fedora, like Debian and openSUSE, offers a relatively bare bones experiences. It does make a lot of sane decisions for you. However, it doesn't focus on being particularly GUI-friendly or newbie-friendly. By contrast, distros like Bazzite, Linux Mint, ~~Manjaro,~~ MX Linux, Nobara, Pop!_OS and Zorin OS (amongst others), do put thought and effort into streamlining the experience as much as they can; especially for newer users.
• While Fedora is ~~primarily~~ community-driven, Red Hat's influence is undeniable. As such, people that hate corporate interest and/or Red Hat and/or IBM will favor the use of Arch and Debian.

Having said all of that, I've been using Fedora Atomic for over two years now. Heck, Silverblue was my first distro. And it has been excellent so far. Furthermore, with Bazzite (based on Fedora Atomic) and Nobara (based on Fedora) often mentioned in conversations regarding beginner friendly distros, even if Fedora itself isn't explicitly mentioned, the ecosystem is clearly healthy and will continue to flourish.

By default, Fedora Atomic envisions the following in regards to installing packages/software:

• First, try the Flatpak.
• If that doesn't work, use Toolbx(/Distrobox).
• If all else fails, resort to rpm-ostree.

This works pretty fine, but isn't perfect:

• Flatpak has become pretty good for software with a GUI. However, while it can do CLI, it's underutilized.
• Toolbx/Distrobox has its merits, but not everyone enjoys consuming CLI through containers.
• Besides the fact that installing all your CLI tools through rpm-ostree will negatively impact how fast you can update your system, it also requires you to (soft-)reboot before you can access the newly installed package (unless you enjoy living on the edge with --apply-live). This can be pretty cumbersome, especially if you're in flow.

Thus, the situation around CLI on Fedora Atomic became a sore to the eyes. Within the community, there were multiple attempts to tackle this problem:

• Nix; For some time, this was the perfect solution. Unfortunately, in its current iteration, installing Nix on Fedora Atomic requires SELinux' enforcing mode to be turned off. As turning enforcing mode off is unacceptable for uBlue's maintainers, this was eventually dismissed.
• Better tooling around Toolbx/Distrobox; There have been made some efforts in this regard, perhaps most notably Ptyxis. But, we're not there yet. Though, some are hopeful of what podmansh will bring to the table.
• Homebrew; It behaves as any other package manager used for installing packages from the repository on any Linux distro out there. Except, in this case, it's exclusively utilized for CLI. Currently, it's simply the most straightforward in use. You just have to teach people to replace their apt/dnf/ pacman with flatpak (for GUI) and brew (for CLI). Furthermore, it comes with a big and healthy repository. Finally, it utilizes technologies related to the ones found on Fedora Atomic.
• systemd-sysext; This has only very recently been added to systemd. I wouldn't be surprised if this will play a prominent role going forward. Though, I'm unsure if CLI will benefit most of it.