Linux

Has anyone had good success with setting up a development environment in an immutable distro? I love the entire concept because it fits with a lot of my other software preferences, but the tools for containerized dev environments felt frustrating.

Like, what do you do for your editor? vscode + devcontainers feel like the best option, but it's rough when I need other IDEs (like I use some of the Jetbrains products). Stuff like toolbox works well too, but to get an editor in that, you have to install it in each one, or make a container that has it built in.

Otherwise, I'll stick with plain Fedora — I use flatpaks for all of my apps anyways (except my editor)

I wonder if you can download Apparmor and Apparmor-d on mutable distros, But I faced issues of bwrap and I couldn't find a SELinux equivalent for Apparmor-d i tried allowing Bwrap but it didnt work so i uninstalled Apparmor.

I need to run immutable distros more, and I need to figure out how to roll my own images.

Desktop side, I need certain things in the base image rather than adding more layers or using a container. Things like rsync, nvim, git, curl, lynx, etc.

Would immutable distros help reach more desktop audiences? Perhaps. It’s more about applications though. The biggest help has been electron apps and the migration to web apps. The Steam Deck is successful because it has applications people want.

Server side, they look really promising for bare metal servers. Provided, there is an easy way to compile custom images. Being able to easily rollback to a known good image is very enticing, as you point out.

TL;DR: My desktop PC uses EndeavourOS and the only immutable experience I have is SteamOS 3. I can't say one approach is better than the other, but I like having the newest software and packages in my system. And that's best provided with a rolling release. I also think that sandbox systems like Flatpak and the several alternative installation methods besides the system package manager is an added complexity for a new user in Linux.

I don't mind using an immutable system (BTW another term that describes this kind of system is Atomic, which comes from Fedora), as long as it is designed around it and works well. The only immutable system I use is on my Steam Deck with the pre-installed SteamOS 3. My generic desktop personal computer is using an Archlinux derivative EndeavourOS with a rolling-release, where I have much greater control over the system.

Both systems have their strengths. I don't think that my mutable and always up to date system is breaking more often than the other system. The best part of it is, its always up to date and I get the newest applications. I try to not use much Flatpaks or AppImages (but do for certain apps, where I have no other choice for ease of use). And an immutable system naturally basically asks me to use Flatpaks and other user space package formats that is not handled by the distribution itself.

Even though I have some thoughts on it, I am not excluding one approach. Many say that immutable distributions are good for new users to Linux. I think this adds some complexity and problems, because they need to use sandbox systems like Flatpak. And that's if they know that they are using Flatpak, because sometimes the app distribution gives options like AppImage and custom installer scripts as well. This is all confusing for someone who just starts with Linux. On top of it, the sandbox of Flatpak requires some additional setup and configuration for some apps, to access certain hardware or filesystems in example.

All in all, I tend to like the traditional "mutable" distribution system as a rolling release model the most. But I'm an not excluding any other and would use a good "immutable" one; I just didn't try any other than the one in my Steam Deck.

I don't mind flatpaks, but overall I don't enjoy how software installs on immutable distros if it's not flatpacked. It's quite a kludge.

So, you're saying that immutable is terrible for system uptime.