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.

  • Mike@lemm.ee
    1·
    28 days ago

    I’m currently testing fedora (upgrading from mint) and since I’m fairly new I don’t want to venture into the fairly unknown territory that is Immutable atm.

    Plus, I using a VPN, its crucial for my work, and I already see there are some issues with it because it has to be layered and blá bla bla.

    Basically I’m just giving Atomic distros one or 2 years more so that the technology matures, software developers start taking it seriously enough to work around them, and for guides to start coming out.

  • superkret@feddit.org
    1·
    27 days ago

    I tried Silverblue.
    And I wanted to run it without layering, cause everyone tells you to avoid it, since it kinda defeats the purpose of an atomic distro in the first place.

    First of all, it was buggy. As an example, automatic updates didn’t work, I had to click the update button and reboot twice for it to actually apply, even though it was activated in the settings.
    None of the docs helped (actually, there wasn’t any in-depth documentation at all). And no one had a solution besides “It should actually just work”.
    That’s the main advantage (the devs test with the exact same system you run) gone right from the start.

    Then Firefox is part of the base image, but it’s Fedora’s version, which doesn’t come with all codecs.
    If you install Firefox from Flathub, you now have 2 Firefox’s installed, with identical icons in the GUI. So you need to hide one by deleting its desktop file. Except you can’t. So you have to copy it into your home directory and edit it with a text editor to hide the icon.
    Then I went through all the installed programs to replace the Fedora version with the Flathub version, cause what’s the point of Flatpak if I’m using derivative versions? I want what the app’s dev made.

    Then it was missing command line tools I’m used to. Installing them in a container didn’t work well cause they need access to the entire system.

    Finally, I realized even Gnome Tweaks wasn’t part of the installation, and it isn’t available as Flatpak.
    That’s the point where I tipped my hat and went back to Debian. Which isn’t atomic, but never gave me any issues in the first place.

    Maybe it’s better now, I was on the previous version. Or maybe the Ublue flavours are better. But I don’t see any reason to start distro-hopping again after that first experience.

    • Jiří Král@discuss.tchncs.de
      1·
      27 days ago

      Honestly what you are describing here would bother me too. For example on my notebook I rely on configuring grub to use kernel argument amdgpu.abmlevel=0 which fixes the screen colors getting washed out when in battery saving mode, but I doubt I would be able to configure grub on an atomic distro.

  • atzanteol@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
    0·
    28 days ago

    Near as I can tell they’re primarily aimed at desktop users who want to treat their computer like a smartphone.

    I do software development and need a ton of tools installed that aren’t just “flatpaks”. IntelliJ, Pycharm, sdkman, pyenv, Oracle libraries and binaries, databases, etc. The last time I tried this I ran into a bunch of issues. And for what gain? Basically zero.

    • priapus@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
      1·
      27 days ago

      I don’t think that’s a very accurate assessment at all. NixOS, VanillaOS, and Bluefin are three of the first atomic distro’s I think of and they’re all heavily aimed at developers. All of them offer features to help separate development environments, which improve reproducibility of packages and environments. I prefer the Nix approach to containers, but each one definitely offers benefits for software development.

      I do software development and need a ton of tools installed that aren’t just “flatpaks”.

      Every atomic distro supports distrobox and other containerization tools, and many support Nix and brew.

      These distros are good for people who want to treat their desktop like a phone, but flatpak kinda lets you do that on any distro. Atomic distros are great for those who want to use tools to separate development environments for purity and tinker with the ability to easily rollback.

  • John@lemmy.mlEnglish
    0·
    28 days ago

    oops I bricked my system

    I honestly can’t think of a single time I’ve done this in the 20 years I’ve been using linux.

    what’s keeping YOU from switching to an atomic distro

    I dunno, it just seems like the latest fad. Debian/Arch work just fine.

    • themoken@startrek.website
      1·
      28 days ago

      I agree. I have become more amenable to things like Flatpak or Podman/Docker to keep the base system from being cluttered up with weird dependencies, but for the most part it doesn’t seem like there’s a huge upside to going full atomic if you’re already comfortable.

  • ikidd@lemmy.worldEnglish
    0·
    28 days ago

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

      • ikidd@lemmy.worldEnglish
        0·
        27 days 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.

        • FooBarrington@lemmy.world
          1·
          27 days ago

          You are technically correct about “atomic” and “immutable”, but you’re missing that e.g. the Fedora images use the wording “atomic” to refer to their update procedure, and they implement this using an immutable system. Nobody here is misusing these terms, because they are both applicable in this context.

          On a dev station, it’s a nightmare.

          I’ve been very happy with it on my dev stations, definitely hasn’t been a nightmare!