this post was submitted on 21 Apr 2025
112 points (95.9% liked)

Linux

53439 readers
694 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

Related Communities

Community icon by Alpár-Etele Méder, licensed under CC BY 3.0

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Look, I've only been a Linux user for a couple of years, but if there's one thing I've learned, it's that we're not afraid to tinker. Most of us came from Windows or macOS at some point, ditching the mainstream for better control, privacy, or just to escape the corporate BS. We're the people who choose the harder path when we think it's worth it.

Which is why I find it so damn interesting that atomic distros haven't caught on more. The landscape is incredibly diverse now - from gaming-focused Bazzite to the purely functional philosophy of Guix System. These distros couldn't be more different in their approaches, but they all share this core atomic DNA.

These systems offer some seriously compelling stuff - updates that either work 100% or roll back automatically, no more "oops I bricked my system" moments, better security through immutability, and way fewer update headaches.

So what gives? Why aren't more of us jumping on board? From my conversations and personal experience, I think it boils down to a few things:

Our current setups already work fine. Let's be honest - when you've spent years perfecting your Arch or Debian setup, the thought of learning a whole new paradigm feels exhausting. Why fix what isn't broken, right?

The learning curve seems steep. Yes, you can do pretty much everything on atomic distros that you can on traditional ones, but the how is different. Instead of apt install whatever and editing config files directly, you're suddenly dealing with containers, layering, or declarative configs. It's not necessarily harder, just... different.

The docs can be sparse. Traditional distros have decades of guides, forum posts, and StackExchange answers. Atomic systems? Not nearly as much. When something breaks at 2am, knowing there's a million Google results for your error message is comforting.

I've been thinking about this because Linux has overcome similar hurdles before. Remember when gaming on Linux was basically impossible? Now we have the Steam Deck running an immutable SteamOS (of all things!) and my non-Linux friends are buying them without even realizing they're using Linux. It just works.

So I'm genuinely curious - what's keeping YOU from switching to an atomic distro? Is it specific software you need? Concerns about customization? Just can't be bothered to learn new tricks?

Your answers might actually help developers focus on the right pain points. The atomic approach makes so much sense on paper that I'm convinced it's the future - we just need to figure out what's stopping people from making the jump today.

So what would it actually take to get you to switch? I'm all ears.

(page 3) 27 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] mlfh@lemmy.sdf.org 4 points 2 days ago (1 children)

I switched a workstation to Secureblue for the very specific security priorities targeted by that project, but I think for the majority of users, the main reason for not switching to atomic is one you mentioned: why fix what isn't broken? The main selling point promoted to potential new users seems to be that updates don't break anything, but I can't remember a single time since Debian Sarge that an update broke anything for me, and I actually find the rpm-ostree package layering and updating process to be far more of a headache than otherwise.

Unless it's prepackaged like a steam deck, moving from the traditional way of doing things to atomic is a major change. Like any major change, people need a good reason to make it, and I think right now the only compelling ones are either hyper-specific (switching to okd and needing to build it on coreos, wanting to move to a specific atomic project, etc.), or just general curiosity.

[–] Amaterasu@lemmy.world 2 points 2 days ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

I'm following your path leap on Secureblue, because I found the project philosophy appealing to my interest.

I don't feel the same about the others Atomic distros. I'm probably missing something but other Atomic projects don't seem to be adding much value if you know your thing for workstation home users.

Also, to the OP, reading the comments it seems clear to me that even with the best product you won't be able to please everyone. Although it definitely plants the interest on some that are coming across the topic for the first time, which I think is good. Learning something new should be on everyone's list.

[–] t_378@lemmy.one 4 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Traditional distros have decades of guides, forum posts, and StackExchange answers. Atomic systems? Not nearly as much. When something breaks at 2am, knowing there's a million Google results for your error message is comforting.

This is my reason. I've been using Arch exclusively for a few years, but have used it on and off since 2008. I still don't consider myself an expert by any means, and I frequently pull the docs and old forum threads to solve issues I run into.

Documentation is the most important deciding factor for me. I didn't use more fully featured distributions, even if they were "easier" becuase if I can't look up the answer, and I have to live with something because I don't know what button to press... I mean you may as well just give me a windows box again.

[–] LeFantome@programming.dev 2 points 2 days ago

Arch benefits not just from documentation but from its repo. Whatever you get told you need, it is always a relief to find it waiting there for you already tuned for your distro.

Because it took me a few years to create my perfect Fedora workstation installation.

If one days it becomes bricked, I’d probably switch to an immitable distribution, but I’m sticking with workstation as long as it works.

Also there is no real upside to switching for me.

[–] deadcatbounce@reddthat.com 2 points 2 days ago

An atomic distro is one which is in my understanding, has a basis in libostree, right? I'm familiar with the Fedora/RedHat versions but not any others.

Immutable distributions, for me to are wonderful when they are sparse. I don't want anything on my OS which I don't use at least once on a while.

If I install Fedora (RPM) Workstation to a large extent I can remove programs that I don't want. Whereas SilverBlue (libostree), I'm stuck with whatever the maintainers template (is there a blocking mechanism?).

However, with sparse Fedora-IoT, I can't break it - to a large extent - and it doesn't have anything I don't want.

I always install minimal versions of OSs, from Fedora (Everything iso), to Debian (debootstrap) to ArchLinux to Exherbo to Talos, just keep them cleaner longer. Then I fix them until they break!

I think they're ideal for those starting out in Linux because they are not ready to break; not saying that they're not for others too.

There's enough documentation, at least for Fedora atomic distros, to make your own custom spin.

I'm not switching for any desktop, unless the basic OS is minimal; but have switched for Raspberry Pi OS to Fedora IoT (atomic distro), at least temporarily.

[–] Euphoma@lemmy.ml 1 points 1 day ago

I did, then I came back to arch because I couldn't get vr working after more than a year of using nixos. I may come back though, my config still exists

[–] DeltaWingDragon@sh.itjust.works 3 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Most of the ones out there are weird, anti-configurable systems like mobile phone OS.

The only ones that really seem like "the future" in my eyes are Nix and Guix.

And I'm not going to use those because I already have a good setup with my conventional distro (Debian). Anything less than absolute perfection will not get me to switch.

Nix is imperfect because it uses systemd. Guix is imperfect because it has a smaller selection of packages, and a more difficult configuration system.

[–] paequ2 1 points 2 days ago

anti-configurable systems

Yep! This has been my experience too. Once you want to do something that the devs didn't build, then you have to fight the OS.

[–] MangoPenguin@lemmy.blahaj.zone 2 points 2 days ago (1 children)

For me it's too much time investment, I don't want to tinker with my OS. The fact that it's so common to screw up a system that atomic distros are becoming much more popular is a good example, I want an OS that doesn't get screwed up in the first place.

[–] slembcke@lemmy.ml 1 points 2 days ago

Sorta-mostly agree. I'm not afraid to tinker, but I don't really care to either. To some extent the pitch for immutable distros are that you won't ruin everything if you fiddle with them. The Linux I installed years ago didn't require fiddling, and hopefully doesn't need a lot of protection from me anyway. If I was setting up a new machine today I might try an immutable distro, but I'm not going to replace a perfectly cromulent install I already have unless there's a problem.

[–] Pirata@lemm.ee 2 points 2 days ago

I'm currently testing fedora (upgrading from mint) and since I'm fairly new I don't want to venture into the fairly unknown territory that is Immutable atm.

Plus, I using a VPN, its crucial for my work, and I already see there are some issues with it because it has to be layered and blá bla bla.

Basically I'm just giving Atomic distros one or 2 years more so that the technology matures, software developers start taking it seriously enough to work around them, and for guides to start coming out.

[–] Kirk@startrek.website 1 points 2 days ago

Immuteability is what enabled me to finally switch over full time. I don't think a lot of geeks yet realize how huge they are going to be for wider-spread adoption.

[–] visor841@lemmy.world 1 points 2 days ago

The biggest thing for me is that a lot of them don't officially support dual-booting on one disk, e.g. Kinoite. I like to have multiple distros installed so I have a fall-back. I love using Tumbleweed for gaming, but I'd love to use an atomic distro for my development work. But I don't want to use one in an unsupported way, as that defeats the point in my eyes.

[–] projectmoon@forum.agnos.is 1 points 2 days ago

Tried one of the universal blue images on a Chromebook. It was nice. But it didn't contain the scripts/configs to make the audio work. So that was that!

I like the concept, though.

[–] Ludrol@szmer.info 1 points 2 days ago

I have already switched after arch out of nowhere disabled ipv4. I tried using fedora atomic but the lack of non-free software just didn't work for me (blender + hybrid NVIDIA graphics). I am using bazzite for a week or two and so far so good.

[–] LeFantome@programming.dev 1 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago)

My current distro uses APK 3 as a package manager and that is already atomic. So I guess my current setup works fine, without any of the other hassles and limitations.

load more comments
view more: ‹ prev next ›