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.

  • ikidd@lemmy.worldEnglish
    12·
    11 hours ago

    I wonder if OP and about 3/4 of the people in here understand the difference between atomic and immutable.

      • ikidd@lemmy.worldEnglish
        7·
        6 hours ago

        Atomic distros update in a monolithic block and if it fails, it’s as if no part of it occurred.

        Immutable distros have a readonly filesystem and you can’t change any part of the system without explicitly remounting the files to write, then doing your updates. It’s not necessarily atomic when that update occurs, either.

        You don’t need to layer or containerize applications you install in an atomic system, you can install an application as normal with the system package manager, it just has to complete successfully to be installed, then it becomes part of the overall A/B update system.

        Immutable distros need to containerize the installations, or use layering to apply applications to the underlying RO filesystem, which makes installing software rather a pain in the ass at times.

        OP keeps using the word “atomic” but the questions and explanation are more about “immutable”. And my answer to them about why wouldn’t I use an immutable system is pretty much the last, installing/updating/troubleshooting non-system software is a pain in the ass. On a dev station, it’s a nightmare.