this post was submitted on 06 Jul 2024
50 points (82.1% liked)
Linux
46775 readers
1588 users here now
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Linux is a family of open source Unix-like operating systems based on the Linux kernel, an operating system kernel first released on September 17, 1991 by Linus Torvalds. Linux is typically packaged in a Linux distribution (or distro for short).
Distributions include the Linux kernel and supporting system software and libraries, many of which are provided by the GNU Project. Many Linux distributions use the word "Linux" in their name, but the Free Software Foundation uses the name GNU/Linux to emphasize the importance of GNU software, causing some controversy.
Rules
- Posts must be relevant to operating systems running the Linux kernel. GNU/Linux or otherwise.
- No misinformation
- No NSFW content
- No hate speech, bigotry, etc
Related Communities
Community icon by Alpár-Etele Méder, licensed under CC BY 3.0
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I don't see atomic systems on desktop computers. They make sense on more embedded and stable systems that still need eventual updates like ATMs and industrial machinery control panels but not desktops. Atomic systems kill customization that is one of the core advantages of Linux. Probably it also has something to do with my not-so-enthusiastic opinion on Flatpak idk.
No Atomic systems make all sense.
They are literally the reason why an unstable distro like Fedora is robust.
Customization is all done on the mutable areas, home partition etc. A new user profile equals a new vanilla desktop.
Yes, you cannot mess with the core architecture of the OS. Things need to be centralized.
But you realize, similar to GNOME removing theming, that if you have one way that everyone can test, you have way less bugs.
As a KDE user I would be really fine having way less customizability and more stability. I am very fine with the default in most cases.
A well designed system does not require customization, and to be an OS used by the world, Linux needs good defaults.
I agree that this is a very valid reason but I don't think most of the people see their OS that way
Which is still irrelevant for OPs thread. It is actually the opposite. The more you diverge from upstream, the more you need to vendor your changes.
That means if your mums PC breaks, you are responsible ;)
This is not relevant to the topic about issues with the stability of atomic desktops
I'm always surprised by the toxicity of Lemmy. Anyways I think it was relevant to the topic because the OP asked for opinions on atomic systems. Are you arguing because you have a drastically different one?
No, I understand your points. I may think you need to specify what you mean by "customizable". A lot of stuff users normally do, like theming, installing random stuff etc, works. You can layer, build your own image etc.
But this is not the point as OP was frustrated about having an OS that even though promising to be reliable still breaks.
And whining about "oh I cant tweak it" is just not at the correct place there.
But of course my answers were kinda harsh, sorry for that. But these issues are really nonissues if your priority is having a working system.