MagdaFrom my poor understanding of anything in life, this “immutable” bs is the exact opposite of how MS-DOS and most software written for it required full hardware access at all times. I don’t like both but the former sounds much worse than the latter and only because the MS-DOS era was defined by what. 16-bit graphics via Windows 3.1 and later landline-based internet provided by America Online at best.
phantasm@magda what does this immutable refer to?
@spook Immutale Linux distributions that won’t let you mess with any of your system files and only allow distro-independent package formats such as flatpak and AppImage for user programs. https://www.zdnet.com/article/what-is-immutable-linux-heres-why-youd-run-an-immutable-linux-distro/
Some arguments in favor of immutale systems are funny, especially the one claiming that a read-only base will never break (as if the non-immutable but still hardly-tweakable Windows 11 with its automatic updates doesn’t constantly ship core-breaking updates like its predecessor).
@magda Thanks! Sorry for the late response. I see your point. On the surface, immutable distros seem like a reasonable idea for servers to have reproducibility without the overhead of docker or the like. However, the article makes it sound like it’s just more or a different approach to more containerization, and it’s for desktop users. Problem looking for a solution. Plus, there’s already NixOS. Bleh. (Although nowadays, I much rather stick with the slowly moving glacier of Debian stable.)