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.
I switched to nixos years ago. Its better now than it ever has been as far as available packages and etc. But it does present issues if you get off the beaten path - the “now you have two problems” issue. For instance:
- if software is not packaged for nixos already, you won’t be able to follow the ‘build from source’ directions on its github page or etc. You have to make a nix package or at least development environment first. That can be tricky and you won’t have help from the software dev.
- If software downloads exes that require libraries to be in a certain standard location, well, they won’t work. Android studio for instance, downloads compilers and so forth. There are workarounds, mostly, but it can take a while to discover and get working and I’m sure many people give up. Again, the android studio software and documentation will be no help at all.
That said, more and more projects are supporting nix, and nixpkgs has gotten really big. I think they support more packages than any other distro now.
I actually used bazzite as my first mainstream linux distro and I hated it because every second command I pasted in didn’t work and I didn’t understand why. I eventually figured out it was due to the immutable nature of bazzite and began telling everyone to never use bazzite because it doesn’t work very well.
Now I actually understand what the actual upsides are and why it’s different I will change to mainstream distros to actually get a hold of what it’s usually like before considering changing back over.
In my case, I tinker quite a bit when I’m bored, and immutable distros, as well as atomic distros, raise barriers that I’d rather not have to jump over to have my fill of tinkering.
I really like Debian stable, and have for a very long time. I’m not too fearful of fucking up the system because Debian stable is more stable than most anvils, and I have timeshift installed with regular backups configured which get stored locally and to a RAID 5 array on my NAS system (which is also running Debian). Anything super duper important I also put onto a cloud host I have in Switzerland.
If I want to do something insane to the system, which is rare, then I test it extensively in virtualization first until I am comfortable enough to do it on my actual system, take backups, and then do it.
I am working to make my backup/disaster recovery solution even better, but as it stands I could blow my PC up with a stick of dynamite and have a working system running a day later with access to all of my stuff as it was this morning so long as a store that sells system hardware is open locally. If it were a disk failure, or something in software, It would take less than a day to recover.
So what keeps me from switching is that I really do not see a need to, and I like my OS.
Similar for me. Debian works.
And I’m just too busy with other things to bother trying different distros. I want my computer to work with a minimum of fuss.
That said Bazzite does sound interesting and might go on my gaming system. Debian stable isn’t the best choice for that. Lol
Yea I like to play around with some different distros in virtualization occasionally to see what’s up, but I have found Debian just always meets my needs 98% of the way in addition to basically never breaking.
I know Bazzite is built specifically for gaming, but I can play pretty much everything I want on Debian using my Nvidia card and Proton. The Nvidia drivers were a lot easier to install than I think a lot of people make them out to be, but I might just be lucky with my hardware or something. Armored Core VI runs great for example, and I’m even using Gnome, not KDE.
In my experience I’m kind of hard pressed to see the benefit of Bazzite over Debian when it comes to gaming actually, but I don’t know a tonne about Bazzite so I’ll digress.
I struggled getting Zwift (online cycling game) running on Debian, and the issue turned out to be that WINE on Debian is a major version behind.
I did get it working, and everything else works (retro game emulators), but it’s like, huh maybe that wasn’t the best choice.
Same. Been using debian stable for over two decades. It does everything I need,
At work we use EL distros in vms. All of them are backed up by image every 3 hours, so a non-booting system is generally best dealt with by simply restoring the whole vm from before the change.
I’m not opposed to atomics, but I don’t have the need and haven’t yet invested much time into learning their differences.
I use atomic distros on my server and a media centre, but don’t see any reason to do it on my main systems. Stability is fine, and atomic distros make said tinkering more difficult.
I did, then I came back to arch because I couldn’t get vr working after more than a year of using nixos. I may come back though, my config still exists
Long, LONG, time linux user here, but to answer your question, most general users don’t tinker. They want it to ‘just work,’ which is why Apple, and to a lesser extent Windows, has dumbed everything down and made it proprietary (beyond just the locked in money thing) so users don’t have to think. Plus, support is a big money maker, for the corporations anyway.
I have to admit, when it comes to new developments in the Linux world, I tend to live under a rock … never switched to Wayland, not because I have any ideological reservations, but because my favorite WM (a minimalist WM developed by a friend of mine) is available only for Xorg.
I had heard about NixOS before, but until I stumbled upon this thread, I didn’t have a good understanding about what an atomic distro is. Now that I have a bit of an understanding, I guess I can only repeat what others said before, it seems to be solving a problem that I don’t have. I’ve been using rolling release distros for a very long time (at first Gentoo, like, 15 or more years ago, but Arch (btw) for over a decade now, with occasional, typically short stints in Debian-based distros), and the amount of problems caused by updates has been negligible for the last decade (Gentoo overlays 15 years ago could be a pain, for sure).
It does sometimes bother me that my OS config seems to so … static these days, but then again I have so many things going on in life on that I don’t feel a huge need to prioritize changing an OS that feels blazingly fast to use, stable, minimalist, and basically checks all the boxes. It just became my high-productivity comfort zone.
For me it’s too much time investment, I don’t want to tinker with my OS. The fact that it’s so common to screw up a system that atomic distros are becoming much more popular is a good example, I want an OS that doesn’t get screwed up in the first place.
Sorta-mostly agree. I’m not afraid to tinker, but I don’t really care to either. To some extent the pitch for immutable distros are that you won’t ruin everything if you fiddle with them. The Linux I installed years ago didn’t require fiddling, and hopefully doesn’t need a lot of protection from me anyway. If I was setting up a new machine today I might try an immutable distro, but I’m not going to replace a perfectly cromulent install I already have unless there’s a problem.
I’m on Debian stable on my desktop but I tinkered with SteamOS on the SteamDeck, so Arch.
no more “oops I bricked my system” moments
I don’t actually know what that means. If the system because unbootable it’s because I explicitly messed it up, for example by editing
fstabor tinkering with GRUB. I honestly can not remember anapt updatethat broke the system, and I don’t just mean my desktop (which I use daily, to work and play) but even my remote servers running for years.So… I think that part mostly comes down to trusting the maintainer of the pinned distribution. They are doing their best to avoid dependency hell in a complex setup but typically, if you do select stable, it will actually be stable.
I do have discussions like this every few months on Lemmy and I think most people are confused about what is an OS vs. what is an application. IMHO an application CAN be unstable, e.g. Firefox or the slicer for your 3D printer because you do want the very latest feature for some reason. The underlying building blocks though, e.g. kernel, package manager, arguably drivers, basically the lower down the stack you go, the more far reaching the consequences. So if you genuinely want an unstable system somehow, go for it, but then it is by choice, explicitly, and then I find it hard to understand how one could then not accept the risk of “oops I bricked my system” moment.
nothing. I am a bazzite and bluefin convert. it feels like a dream after 20+ years of futzing about with Linux.
I’d have to relearn a bunch of shit.
Don’t feel up to it. I’m so used to my setup.
Even using SteamOS (“Arch but we modded it to be sorta kinda like an immutable distro but not really”) miffs me more than it should.
Immuteability is what enabled me to finally switch over full time. I don’t think a lot of geeks yet realize how huge they are going to be for wider-spread adoption.
Doesn’t solve any problem I have. Why switch?
Also, interesting concept the immutable one, but just… Why?
Tried one of the universal blue images on a Chromebook. It was nice. But it didn’t contain the scripts/configs to make the audio work. So that was that!
I like the concept, though.
