NixOS’ influence and importance at pushing Linux forward into the (previously) unexplored landscape of configuring your complete system through a single config file is undeniable. It’s been a wild ride, but it was well worth it.
And although it has only been relatively recently that it has lost its niche status, the recent influx of so-called ‘immutable’ distros springing up like mushrooms is undeniably linked to and inspired by NixOS.
However, unfortunately, while this should have been very exciting times for what’s yet to come, the recent drama surrounding the project has definitely tarnished how the project is perceived.
NixOS’ ideas will definitely live on regardless. But how do you envision NixOS’ own future? Any ETA’s for when this drama will end? Which lessons have we learned (so far) from this drama? Are there any winners as a result of this drama? Could something like this happen to any distro?
In case you’re out of the loop. Though, there’s a lot that has transpired since but which hasn’t been rigorously documented at a single place; like how 4 out of 5 NixOS board members have quit over the last 2 months or so.
It’s probably wise to simply ignore the drama. Open source seems to invite this at the “top” for whatever reason, but for the casual user there is usually little to no impact.
Unless you’re trying to be a top contributor to nix, I would just carry on with normal usage and all the current drama will blow over.
Worst case the community forks. This is the benefit of open source.
My take on it is that the creator of Nix was very good technically but was not a good BDFL, and that was the root of the problem. He didn’t do a good job of politicking, stepped down, and now Nix is going through a bit of interregnum. I don’t think it’s likely to fail overall though, nixpkgs is too valuable of a resource to just get abandoned. I expect the board seats will be filled by people that know how to politick, and things will continue on after that.
Lessons learned is being a BDFL is hard. IMO Eelco Dolstra failed because he had opinions about things like Anduril sponsorship and flakes, and didn’t just declare “This is the way things are going to be, take it or leave it”. People got really pissed off because there wasn’t a clear message or transparency, which resulted in lots of guessing.
Thank you for your input! I would love to read more on this. Do you happen to know a good source wherein Eelco Dolstra’s leadership is discussed (as fair as possible)?
Unfortunately there isn’t one easy source that I’ve found. This is based on reading the stuff you linked to, as well as discourse/matrix discussions linked to from those sources. I compare it mentally to Guido van Rossum as BDFL of Python (though not any longer). He did a much better job of communicating expectations, like here
It made some people unhappy that there was no Python 2.8, but everybody knew what was happening. The core Python team also wasn’t surprised by that announcement, unlike with stuff like Anduril or flakes for the nix devs.
There was also a failure to communicate with stuff like the PR that would switch to Meson. The PR author should have known if Eelco broadly agreed with it before opening it. If there was a process that the PR author just ignored, the PR should have been closed with “Follow this process and try again”. That process can be as simple as “See if Eelco likes it”, since he was BDFL, but the process needs to be very clear to everyone.
Thank you for your insights! I appreciate it!
IMO politics have no place in technical discussions. Full disclosure, the last time I said this, my comment was removed for “transphobia”… somehow.
Building an open source project is not just a technical challenge. It’s a social one as well, and politics are a big factor in that.
Thanks for posting. I was unaware of current events. That’s quite the rabbit hole!
Are Nixos configurations compatible with this one?
As far as I can tell, they are 100% different. Guix uses Guile Scheme, NixOS uses the custom Nix language.
As I used to say. The Nix community acts more like a cult of people willing to support flat earth.
There’s some decent forks currently so I wouldn’t worry about the technology, but yeah the organisation is probably going to implode and reorg soon
I don’t believe in immutable distros. They are not well developed now so it’s a bubble that should pop soon after people realize they are not ready yet and have a lot of disadvantages. Also they are unsuitable for old PCs and Nix seems relatively good for them so I don’t think Nix will die completely but we’ll have to see.
Interesting take.
I don’t believe in immutable distros.
This seems more philosophical than on technicalities. If this is correct, would you mind elaborating on the philosophical side?
They are not well developed now
Even if this were the case, shouldn’t the constant development and continuous improvement result in something that’s (eventually) well-developed? The only way I could see this holding some truth is if by design the ‘immutable’ model (whatever that is) happens to be broken or something like that. Like, how some file systems are simply better than Btrfs (or any CoW filesystem for that matter) for specific tasks; i.e. ensure to use the right tool for the right task. So, do you pose that ‘immutable distros’ are by design not well-suited? If so, why?
so it’s a bubble that should pop soon after people realize they are not ready yet
So you (actually) acknowledge and imply that it will become ready at some point. Or not? Furthermore, like how do you reconcile this with Fedora’s ambitions for Fedora Atomic? Or how NixOS is going strong (perhaps stronger than ever) while it’s been in the making since before Ubuntu?
and have a lot of disadvantages.
And advantages*. Or do you ignore those?
Also they are unsuitable for old PCs
This is false. What makes you think that?
and Nix seems relatively good for them
What’s “them” in this sentence? The “old PCs” you had just mentioned? Or something else? Furthermore, if it is the “old PCs”, doesn’t this directly contradict with “they are unsuitable for old PCs”?
You have entirely misunderstood or intentionally misconcepted my comment.
This seems more philosophical than on technicalities. If this is correct, would you mind elaborating on the philosophical side?
There is no philosophical side. I don’t believe in them getting very major on desktops and laptops. That’s it.
Even if this were the case, shouldn’t the constant development and continuous improvement result in something that’s (eventually) well-developed?
Yes but the hype should disappear a long time before it happens. And that’s what I meant by the bubble. It’s very hyped, misunderstood and misused thing now. It will go away and then immutable systems will find their niche or die out.
And advantages*. Or do you ignore those?
This looks like an attempt to start a fight or act like the aggressive part of the Nix community. I said immutable systems have advantages and disadvantages (in the next comment I think) but you either didn’t read or decided to just fight instead.
This is false. What makes you think that?
Dual system partitions and Flatpaks are both not great for machines that use HDDs.
What’s “them” in this sentence?
Old PCs.
Furthermore, if it is the “old PCs”, doesn’t this directly contradict with “they are unsuitable for old PCs”?
It doesn’t because Nix doesn’t have the just mentioned disadvantages of immutable systems. Idk why you misunderstood this but imo it seems suspicious of you.
Thank you for the quick reply!
There is no philosophical side. I don’t believe in them getting very major on desktops and laptops. That’s it.
Alright. Thanks for clarification. Does “getting very major” primarily apply to adoption rate amongst users? Or does it primarily take into account adoption rate amongst distros?
Yes but the hype should disappear a long time before it happens. And that’s what I meant by the bubble. It’s very hyped, misunderstood and misused thing now. It will go away and then immutable systems will find their niche or die out.
Clear. Thank you. In your view, how should they be understood and used?
I said immutable systems have advantages and disadvantages (in the next comment I think)
I saw the part about advantages right after. However, I also noticed how the first disadvantage was written without nuance. The set of disadvantages and advantages that followed right afterwards was accompanied with “for some” (or something like that IIRC[1]). Therefore, to me at least, it seemed as if you meant that there were disadvantages overall. But some of these disadvantages may be perceived as advantageous to some. Which, I thought was perhaps more in line with the general outlook of your comment. Or at least, my understanding of it*.
Dual system partitions and Flatpaks are both not great for machines that use HDDs.
HDDs in general are not great :P . But, “unsuitable” =/= “not great”. So, this does not justify the (previous) usage of “unsuitable”. So, do you still stand behind the earlier use of “unsuitable”?
Old PCs.
Thank you for another clarification!
It doesn’t because Nix doesn’t have the just mentioned disadvantages of immutable systems.
Interesting.
I just noticed that I read your “Nix” as “NixOS”. Which is blameworthy*. Uhmm…, so I have to ask for some (more) clarifications then 😜. Did you strictly mean Nix; i.e. the package manager and/or language? Or NixOS? According to you, does NixOS fall into Nix; i.e. simply the system that’s built on Nix?
This looks like an attempt to start a fight or act like the aggressive part of the Nix community.
but you either didn’t read or decided to just fight instead.
Idk why you misunderstood this but imo it seems suspicious of you.
Fam. Chill. Please. I don’t intend to antagonize or whatsoever 😅. Like, the (overwhelming) majority of my previous comment were queries for clarifications and questioned related to how I initially understood them. There’s no need to make it more than that 😉.
All in all, thank you for clarifying and answering almost anything I asked. However, the following (I believe) still requires some attention:
Furthermore, like how do you reconcile this with Fedora’s ambitions for Fedora Atomic?
To clarify, from my understanding, it seems you regard/view ‘immutable distros’ at best as some niche. Which, to be fair, is absolutely fine. And perhaps you’re right; the future will tell. However, we know what Fedora intends for 2028; i.e. users of Fedora Atomic (and related ‘immutable’ projects led by Fedora) would constitute the majority of its user base. Furthermore, they’ve spoken since 2021 (IIRC) that Fedora Atomic (so likely Fedora Silverblue) will eventually become what people will install for Fedora Workstation. So, their ambition is clear. And their ambition contradicts with how you view it. How do you reconcile this with the fact that other distros (more often than not) join Fedora into whatever direction they depart? Examples of this include systemd, PulseAudio, PipeWire and some might even mention Flatpak and Wayland here.
- You’ve since changed your original comment (which is fair), so I’m not able to directly quote*.
OMG that’s a lot of comment lol. My brain is gonna melt when typing a reply to THIS in English. But I guess I can try.
Does “getting very major” primarily apply to adoption rate amongst users? Or does it primarily take into account adoption rate amongst distros?
Amongst users. It’s possible that every big and medium distro will have an immutable spin soon but it won’t be too popular.
In your view, how should they be understood and used?
I’m sorry but expressing my opinion on it greatly increases the chance of running out of energy which will make my speech absolutely illogical and ridiculous.
I saw the part about advantages right after. However, I also noticed how the first disadvantage was written without nuance. The set of disadvantages and advantages that followed right afterwards was accompanied with “for some” (or something like that IIRC[1]). Therefore, to me at least, it seemed as if you meant that there were disadvantages overall. But some of these disadvantages may be perceived as advantageous to some. Which, I thought was perhaps more in line with the general outlook of your comment. Or at least, my understanding of it*.
My brain always returns an “out of memory” error of the if/else solving module if I try to feed it this part so sorry if my response isn’t complete. I indeed made it look like the features of immutable distros are disadvantages to more people than they are advantages to. This is my opinion which might be biased since immutability goes totally against my workflow and the workflows I make for other people.
But, “unsuitable” =/= “not great”. So, this does not justify the (previous) usage of “unsuitable”. So, do you still stand behind the earlier use of “unsuitable”?
Worse for = not meant for; not meant for = unsuitable imo because there are just better options; this leads to worse = unsuitable. Maybe not completely unsuitable but at least definitely not good for.
Thank you for another clarification!
You are welcome and thank you for not being toxic like at least approximately 2/3 of people on Lemmy (according to my not-so-accurate research).
I just noticed that I read your “Nix” as “NixOS”. Which is blameworthy*. Uhmm…, so I have to ask for some (more) clarifications then 😜. Did you strictly mean Nix; i.e. the package manager and/or language? Or NixOS? According to you, does NixOS fall into Nix; i.e. simply the system that’s built on Nix?
Ok listen idk much about Nix ecosystem/infrastructure. I meant NixOS here. Sorry for the confusion. The habit of not including the “OS” ending comes from the Android community.
Fam. Chill. Please. I don’t intend to antagonize or whatsoever 😅. Like, the (overwhelming) majority of my previous comment were queries for clarifications and questioned related to how I initially understood them. There’s no need to make it more than that 😉.
I’m sorry, mister/miss. My attitude to the society, people in general and Lemmy users is negative and suspicious by default. I have my reasons and, no matter how controversial it is, I’m not going to change it. Most of the people by far are bad and toxic so it’s ok to make this assumption the default. Again I’m sorry that this my assumption caused inconvenience for you.
To clarify, from my understanding, it seems you regard/view ‘immutable distros’ at best as some niche. Which, to be fair, is absolutely fine.
It may not be a small niche but everything has a niche (even X11, Wayland, GNOME and Windows 10) so immutable distros can have a big one or a small one. As you said, future will tell. I don’t see them getting a large (more than 10-20% desktop Linux users) niche any time soon.
How do you reconcile this with the fact that other distros (more often than not) join Fedora into whatever direction they depart?
I don’t think it’s the case or at least I don’t have any information on it. Fedora just tries making new and very perspective stuff the first and the stuff always succeeded in the past. In the case of immutable distros, I feel like it’s gonna be some nice to watch chaos because new users will have to understand how to disable immutability to install drivers and fixes which means much more research (because most answers will just say “disable immutability for the directories that the fix needs” and the user will have no idea of any of that) and terminal commands. At the same time, immutable systems may be less suitable for advanced users who like tinkering. This makes a huge part of the Linux user base. Then I can say “told you” with pride. Though immutable distros are great for cases when the system must be limited to a certain task(s). On the desktop it’s the enterprise usage but idk how many % they are. I think it’s in the single digits.
Also we’re searching for the Lemmy’s comment length limit with these ones!!!
Excellent reply! I appreciate it.
OMG that’s a lot of comment lol. My brain is gonna melt when typing a reply to THIS in English. But I guess I can try.
Yeah lol. I’m sure we’ll (somehow) manage.
Amongst users. It’s possible that every big and medium distro will have an immutable spin soon but it won’t be too popular.
Aight. Thanks for (yet) another clarification. I obviously think that ‘immutable’ distros will heavily influence the future of Linux. Heck, I wouldn’t be surprised if all big distros will default to becoming ‘immutable’. However, that version of an ‘immutable’ distro may not exist yet. FWIW, it’s also (somewhat) in-line with Lennart Poettering’s vision.
I’m sorry but expressing my opinion on it greatly increases the chance of running out of energy which will make my speech absolutely illogical and ridiculous.
If anything, I’d love to read this. So please, whenever you feel like it, consider returning back on this.
I indeed made it look like the features of immutable distros are disadvantages to more people than they are advantages to. This is my opinion which might be biased since immutability goes totally against my workflow and the workflows I make for other people.
Fair. If it isn’t too much of a trouble, could you elaborate on your workflow? Like, are you constantly installing new stuff?
Worse for = not meant for; not meant for = unsuitable imo because there are just better options; this leads to worse = unsuitable. Maybe not completely unsuitable but at least definitely not good for.
I implore you to use other words going forward 😜. Perhaps I’m wrong, but to me, this seems like an example in which your ‘bias’ seeps through.
Ok listen idk much about Nix ecosystem/infrastructure. I meant NixOS here. Sorry for the confusion. The habit of not including the “OS” ending comes from the Android community.
Don’t worry about the confusion 😉. But thanks for your consideration! However, if I understood you correctly, this implies that you don’t consider NixOS an ‘immutable’ distro. Or at least not representative of ‘immutable’ distros. If this assumption is correct, could you elaborate on why you think that’s the case?
I’m sorry, mister/miss. My attitude to the society, people in general and Lemmy users is negative and suspicious by default. I have my reasons and, no matter how controversial it is, I’m not going to change it. Most of the people by far are bad and toxic so it’s ok to make this assumption the default. Again I’m sorry that this my assumption caused inconvenience for you.
No worries, fam. Again, I appreciate your consideration!
It may not be a small niche but everything has a niche (even X11, Wayland, GNOME and Windows 10) so immutable distros can have a big one or a small one. As you said, future will tell. I don’t see them getting a large (more than 10-20% desktop Linux users) niche any time soon.
Interesting notion on niche. Which I don’t think is necessary unjustified*. Though I am having a hard time coming up with a definition to how I understood your understanding. I initially thought of “everything that’s not (necessarily) mainstream”. But if you mention Windows 10 as an example, then that can’t be it. Perhaps “use” or “preference”? Could you (perhaps) define what you mean with “niche”?
I don’t think it’s the case or at least I don’t have any information on it.
Thanks for being transparent! Consider looking into the earlier given examples. Perhaps it’s even noteworthy to name some of the competitors that have perished against the alternative: Wayland vs Mir, systemd vs Upstart, Flatpak vs Snap etc.
Fedora just tries making new and very perspective stuff the first and the stuff always succeeded in the past.
Interesting. So, do you pose (as an alternative) that merely the successful is adopted? So they didn’t necessarily follow whatever Fedora did, but Fedora just happened to be on the winning team. Hence, the winner takes all.
Btw, what do you mean with “very perspective stuff”?
In the case of immutable distros, I feel like it’s gonna be some nice to watch chaos because new users will have to understand how to disable immutability to install drivers and fixes
On what ‘immutable distros’ is ‘immutability’ disabled for installing drivers? I don’t recall the last time “disabling immutability” was mentioned within the discourse for a legitimate reason or fix. At best, some people that don’t know how specific changes are meant to be applied on the specific distro they use, succumb to the infamous XY problem and try to do stuff the wrong way. But this is not a problem found exclusively on ‘immutable’ distros.
which means much more research (because most answers will just say “disable immutability for the directories that the fix needs” and the user will have no idea of any of that) and terminal commands.
Honestly, I have never encountered this. I don’t know where you get this idea from. I feel like you might have fundamentally misunderstood how (most) ‘immutable’ distros work. If possible, could you provide a link or anything in which that proposed solution is indeed mentioned most when tackling a specific problem found on an ‘immutable distro’?
Btw, I’m open to the notion that I completely misunderstood what you’re saying here. Therefore, if possible, could you mention your notion of what “disable immutability” entails. Like, how does that even work on something like e.g. Fedora Atomic?
At the same time, immutable systems may be less suitable for advanced users who like tinkering.
It depends. Some advanced users actually love the reproducible aspect that comes with (most) ‘immutable’ distros, because this enables them to tinker to their heart’s content without being afraid of losing a working system.
This makes a huge part of the Linux user base.
While I wouldn’t be surprised if this has been the case for the longest time, I do think that as Linux successfully attracts an ever bigger crowd, that eventually a huge part of the Linux user base will consist of normies. And, as it stands, I can only see them go for stable (by release cycle) distros or ‘immutable’ distros unless some other drastic changes happen in the mean time that enables your Average Joe to run a (semi-)rolling release distro without troubles.
My previous comment was perhaps too enthusiastic 😜 . I’d like to slim it down as follows:
- First of all, thank you! It has been a lovely interaction so far. Your clarifications have been very helpful!
- I’m still very much interested in how you think ‘immutable’ distros should be understood and used.
- If I understood you correctly, you don’t regard NixOS as an ‘immutable’ distro (or at least not representative), would you be so kind to elaborate on this?
- Some of your notions regarding ‘immutable’ distros don’t align with my own experiences; i.e. a user with over two years of experience with Fedora Atomic and who has played around with Nix. Especially the following parts:
In the case of immutable distros, I feel like it’s gonna be some nice to watch chaos because new users will have to understand how to disable immutability to install drivers and fixes which means much more research (because most answers will just say “disable immutability for the directories that the fix needs” and the user will have no idea of any of that) and terminal commands.
To be absolutely clear, these notions are (almost) alien to me. I’ve only come across these with new users that had fallen for the (infamous) XY problem. But that’s not even remotely representative. Hence, would I be correct to assume that your understanding of ‘immutable’ distros is relatively shallow? Which, to be absolutely fair, is totally fine.
Though, the possibility exists that your understanding of “disable immutability” is correct, but this particular phrase happens to be misleading instead. Hence, could you perhaps elaborate on what you mean with “disable immutability”? Like, how does that look like on any ‘immutable’ distro you’re familiar with?
Thank you in advance 😊!
I am sorry, mister/miss. Something weird happened to my Lemmy account and it was inaccessible for 2 days.
I’m still very much interested in how you think ‘immutable’ distros should be understood and used.
Immutable distros are good for cases when the machine is meant to be used for very specific tasks and applications while maintaining extreme stability and ease of updating. This includes OSes for ATMs, machinery control panels, enterprise office computers with very strict policies, educational computer class devices. I am not sure whether they are good for critical infrastructure such as aerospace industry and on-board computers so I can’t comment on that and it’s too early to do so anyways. Immutable systems can also be used for regular modern workspaces if stability (and possibly security) are preferred over absolutely everything else.
If I understood you correctly, you don’t regard NixOS as an ‘immutable’ distro (or at least not representative), would you be so kind to elaborate on this?
For me an “immutable distro” is defined more by its read-only (or R/W with write being disabled by default) root file system than by reproducibility or any other stuff. Afaik NixOS does not use any form of read-only FS so that’s why it is not an immutable distro to me.
To be absolutely clear, these notions are (almost) alien to me. I’ve only come across these with new users that had fallen for the (infamous) XY problem. But that’s not even remotely representative. Hence, would I be correct to assume that your understanding of ‘immutable’ distros is relatively shallow? Which, to be absolutely fair, is totally fine.
No matter how good your distro is, there always will be new users that need fixes or customizations that require extra steps and research on immutable (as in my definition) distros. This increases the chance of them giving up on Linux or creating angry/toxic posts on Linux related websites and communities.
Hence, could you perhaps elaborate on what you mean with “disable immutability”.
“Disable immutability” means “allow persistent changes for files and directories located in specific directories that are not in the /home directory/partition (“read-only” directories)”.
Thank you. Thank you.
I am sorry, mister/miss. Something weird happened to my Lemmy account and it was inaccessible for 2 days.
No worries, fam 😉.
Immutable distros are good for cases when the machine is meant to be used for very specific tasks and applications while maintaining extreme stability and ease of updating. This includes OSes for ATMs, machinery control panels, enterprise office computers with very strict policies, educational computer class devices. I am not sure whether they are good for critical infrastructure such as aerospace industry and on-board computers so I can’t comment on that and it’s too early to do so anyways.
I think we very much agree on this. I am actually surprised 😜. Perhaps we (possibly) only ‘disagree’ on the following:
Immutable systems can also be used for regular modern workspaces if stability (and possibly security) are preferred over absolutely everything else.
I actually even agree with this. But, and here it comes, you limit the use of ‘immutable systems’ when it comes to regular workspaces to just a subset that complies with “if stability (and possibly security) are preferred over absolutely everything else”. However, I’d argue it will soon become the preferred model for most people; simply because I’d argue the net positives dramatically outweigh the (diminishing) net negatives. And this ‘clash’ in perspectives is literally a philosophical/ideological one. Which, I actually tried to allude to in my very first comment. Btw, neither of us is right or wrong; as mentioned earlier, only time will tell.
For me an “immutable distro” is defined more by its read-only (or R/W with write being disabled by default) root file system than by reproducibility or any other stuff.
Alright. So, you prefer to refer to ‘immutable’ distro in the literal sense.
Regarding the status of the read-only (or disabled R/W) root file system, does this have to apply to the complete root file system; i.e. absolute? Or does it suffice if only a select subset of the system is read-only (or disabled R/W)?I wanted to ask this, but later on you made clear that a system does not have to be completely and absolutely immutable for it to be considered immutable; a couple of read-only directories suffices.Furthermore, is it required that an immutable system should remain immutable at all times for it to be considered an immutable system; i.e. changes are not allowed besides ‘hacks’? Or is it perhaps possible for a system to be deemed immutable if it only possesses immutability during runtime?
Thanks in advance for yet another set of clarifications 😜!
Afaik NixOS does not use any form of read-only FS so that’s why it is not an immutable distro to me.
Teaser; the Nix Store, i.e.
/nix/store, is immutable.“Disable immutability” means “allow persistent changes for files and directories located in specific directories that are not in the /home directory/partition (“read-only” directories)”.
Very interesting. So, on Fedora Atomic,
rpm-ostree install <package>would be considered “disable immutability”. Right? But, this does not apply toflatpak install <package>. Right?No matter how good your distro is, there always will be new users that need fixes or customizations that require extra steps and research on immutable (as in my definition) distros. This increases the chance of them giving up on Linux or creating angry/toxic posts on Linux related websites and communities.
To be clear, new users will most likely experience some issues on Linux for the time being. I don’t think that ‘immutable’ distros are immune to that. Nor do I think they’re particularly more troublesome. If anything, they allow for more stable experiences overall; which you seem to allude to as well.
Immutablity is like Wayland or Flatpak, ready for prime time for a subset of users and still in development which means they can only improve.
Wayland is meant to fully replace X11 and become the standard. Immutability as the idea itself has significant features that are advantages for some users but disadvantages or even deal breakers for others.
