Linux

Apologies if I made you feel that way! And thank you for vocalizing your concerns!

It has never been my intent to troll you. Nor have I got any other evil motives.

I noticed how you've been one of the more vocal community members to oppose 'immutable distros'. And I, as a major supporter of 'immutable' distros, am very interested to know why that is. That's basically the whole idea of this conversation. At least on my part*. And, to be honest, I think we're almost done. There was only one paragraph from your earlier comment that I didn't get. And all the questions I posed are from that paragraph.

So, to make it simpler, I first want to clarify the following statement of my own:

Similarly, ‘immutable’ distros are not to blame if a new user breaks their not newbie-friendly ‘immutable’ distro.

With this, I don't mean that 'immutable' distros are (by definition) not newbie-friendly. That would be the complete opposite of what I've been saying this whole time :P . Instead, I posed that 'immutable' distros can be categorized in:

• those that are newbie-friendly
• and those that are not newbie-friendly

And, thus, my statement should be understood as: "The mishaps/inconveniences etc of not newbie-friendly distros, does not invalidate the existence of other 'immutable' distros that actually happen to be newbie-friendly. Hence, we shouldn't throw out all 'immutable' distros with the babywater; this idiom is referenced."

Finally, if you didn't misunderstand my statement in the first place, then I would like you to explain/elaborate what you had written here:

But we’re talking about situation when user-friendly distros become immutable. If the user willingly chooses an advanced distro, it’s not the distro’s fault but, for example, you said that Fedora expects their immutable options to become mainstream. I know that Fedora and other immutable distros are often recommended for new users now. This means that the ones that recommend them consider them user-friendly. Imo this, as well as rumors about Canonical want to make Ubuntu Core the default desktop offering, destroys your point in the context of this discussion.

That's all. Thank you in advance!

My apologies for being persistent; I'm just very much saddened that the IMO great conversation abruptly ended when it was so close to resolution. Regardless, this will be my last attempt at engaging in hopes of continuing the earlier conversation. However, full disclosure, if you don't respond, then I will leave you with a final message in which I will lay out what I got from this conversation and my overall view in regards to how it went etc.

So, without further a due.

I would like to cut the chase and be very direct:

• Finally, we've come to a common ground on what an 'immutable' distro even is. However, it's still unclear why the perceived inconveniences/difficulties are not merely related to implementation. Like, for all we know, in some future implementation of an 'immutable' distro, you could run whatever command you run to place your themes in /usr/share/themes, (soft-)reboot and find the theme in the designated folder. To me, it seems, as if you dismiss this possibility. If this is correct, why do you think that's the case? Isn't there more reason to be hopeful considering the mere fact that we're currently able to apply tons of customization that were previously inconceivable?
• You accuse the complete industry for misunderstanding and misusing 'immutable' distros. While, simultaneously, relying only on very basic second-hand information for your views on 'immutable' distros. Is this sensible to you?
• It seems as if you're not open to consider many other possible benefits that come with 'immutable' distros. The most recent addition/example of this would be openSUSE going in the direction of an OOTB measured boot with their openSUSE Aeon. Like, how did you even perceive this and did it make you rethink the possible benefits? Do you think it's conceivable that other people might have legit reasons for preferring 'immutable' distros that go beyond what you had previously described?

Unfortunately, you've yet to respond. Therefore, I was unable to verify everything mentioned below. Regardless, for the sake of completeness, I would like to give a brief overview of our interaction and how I have perceived it.

My intent regarding this conversation:

• Reach a common ground on our understanding of the topic at hand. Like, what even is an 'immutable' distro.
• Highlight how the basic notion of an 'immutable' distro' encompasses a wide variety of distributions that differ from each other more than traditional distros do.
• Understand why, despite acknowledging the importance of implementation, you still believe it's inconceivable for future implementations to overcome current shortcomings.

However, we weren't able to get that far. This is IMO primarily due to the following:

• Abrupt end of the conversation by you. This is basically the reason.
• Your misrepresentation of yourself. I accurately point towards the pain point. However, you -for some reason- deny it or accuse me of intentionally misunderstanding. However, eventually; like a few comments down the line, you accept my earlier found pain point. This just makes conversation take way longer than it has to. Like when I rephrased your understanding of 'immutable' system to one in which some directories are immutable. You first accused me of misunderstanding, but later used partial immutability yourself.
• Your use of words, phrases, and sentences without recognizing the need for definitions. When later prompted to give definitions, you've failed spectacularly at giving complete and/or sufficiently clarified ones. This prompts me to ask for clarifications, and the cycle continues... I believe this stems from your lack of familiarity with the subject matter. Like how I had to explain to you what runtime is. A word which is used in the actual definition of 'immutable' distros.

The points you actually raised to discredit 'immutable' distros:

• Unfit for old PCs and/or HDDs. Answer: This is related to implementation. You even agreed to this when you noted yourself that this is not an issue on NixOS. So, busted.
• Different workflow compared to traditional distros. Answer: I don't quite recognize why this is a problem. The workflow on the very first Debian is different from how it's today. Does that make Debian's current iteration bad? No, obviously not. Similarly, it being different is not inherently a wrong/bad thing. So, again, busted. The important part is documentation/guides/tutorials that facilitate the needs of people that intend to switch and/or try it out. Which brings us to...
• Lack of resources. Answer: This doesn't make it inherently bad. It just makes it harder for users to learn how to interact with the system. And, again, this continues to improve as the user base becomes bigger. When I made the switch (over two years ago), resources were abysmal. However, today, projects like uBlue have produced good documentation for its users. And it will only ever improve. Yet, again, busted.
• Tampers tinkering. Answer: In the absolute sense; no. There's only very little you can't do on current 'immutable' distros. And there's active effort to work those things out. So, it's related to implementation and/or maturity. It's also not clear what prevents a future implementation of an 'immutable' distro to be interacted with exactly like how we interact with traditional distros. Consider looking into stuff like systemd-sysext if you want to see a glimpse of what's yet to come. Thus, this point is also refuted.

There is perhaps a lot more I could go over, but I'll suffice with this for the sake of brevity.