Reminds me of olden days (some 20 yrs ago), when I used to work as PC instructor, shortly. The machines (Windows) always came up in the same state after rebooting… i.e. all user-actions were again overwritten / deleted on every new boot. For that scenario it was quite useful. 
I think guest users functionality in any linux already makes all of it.
At my university each time you boot a PC it’s loading a default OS image over ethernet without any user-specific changes.
My philosophy is: if I can’t break it, it’s not really mine, so it’s not worth using.
1 Like
I mean, if you get into, technically it is still possible. It’s just substantially more difficult for the average person. For the folks who are looking to use it currently see that as a feature, not a short fall. Perception is everything. Right or wrong whether or not immutability becomes the norm or if it continues to be niche will be determined by demand. Maybe it is a great big flop. And maybe it becomes defacto and you’re stuck with boutique distros. Only time will tell, and I’m guessing we will know sooner than later.
I actually think Debian’s dedication to long term support snapshots were the original “immutable” idea. Trying to freeze a base line with very few updates to minimize chances for breakage. I don’t think we were quite advanced enough, or had the coding or idea for immutability at the time and it was the closest thing we could come up with was just very slow overly tested updates.
3 Likes
I agree with that, immutable system would certainly benefit in some environments like big corporations or i don’t know…banks, where people using system can be potentially a complete brainlets, so it would be nearly impossible for them to seriously mess something up.
1 Like
My father loved Debian (but he never tried anything else). I always made fun of him for that. So boring! 
He would often send me some C++ code for review and I would “correct” it and he was unable to compile it because his GCC was so outdated. “I don’t know how to write code for such an ancient compiler” 
I tried to convince him to try Arch but he died before he had a chance.
2 Likes
With the next irritation having gnome 40+. . . I’m tempted to try it out again.
I prefer to leave the gnomes in the garden, where they belong. Not in my computer
On silverblue you can still install packages from the repos and coprs but you can’t install them normally. You need to layer them in. Adding too many layers causes a mess when you need to upgrate. Really it works best when you just use flatpaks on top of the base system.
I only have one for my Xbox elite controller, my travel laptop has none. Most everything is in the repos I use other than a few flatpaks.
Not for me. I tried to include my printer drivers in “Vanilla OS” using the .deb version provided by Brother. Too much hassle (did not work in an evening trying, even with a general how to on how to include debs in Vanilla OS).
As a home-user, I have no dire need for a immutable system. As for Canonical, I despise of snaps. Which brought me via PopOS and Manjaro to EndeavourOS.
I use NixOS, a declarative distro also known for being “immutable”.
NixOS is the best approach to immutability because it’s declarative, so you define the configuration of your system, its daemon configurations and its packages, and through the configuration it creates your setup without taking away any power, freedom or control from you. You have full control of your NixOS system. This also gives the OS the ability to give you special features and capabilities.
NixOS is an extremely powerful system and it’s “immutability” done right, but it’s not meant for people who just want a “desktop that does everything itself” immutable kind. While NixOS simplifies a lot of hassles due to a different package management approach, it’s a very manual and technical distro to use.
These immutable systems like the one Ubuntu and other maintainers want to make, they are not declarative, so in order for them to be immutable they need to take away your freedom to manipulate the system as you wish, else they wouldn’t really work.
These systems have a big priority on the immutable image-based aspect, while NixOS has a focus on declarativity, and immutability is only a side effect of it. NixOS is meant to give you more power and a different approach to package management, while non-declarative immutable systems to me seem to be meant for the user to not worry about what goes on in the underlying system or how it’s set up.
There’s a place for everything and everyone, but I’m afraid that these immutable systems made by Fedora, Ubuntu, etc will change the reputation of NixOS and prevent it to grow in userbase.
3 Likes