(no title)
javitury | 1 year ago
- Learning. Figuring out how to migrate a setup even to the most mainstream-like immutable distro (fedora silverblue) can take a while, and to niche distros like talos even longer. However, a k8s-friendly setup with low customization requirements would help to speed up the migration (but it requires more powerful machines).
- Long term support. Regular distros like Debian and AlmaLinux offer free 5 and 10 year support cycles which means maintenance can be done every 1 or 2 years. On the other hand, immutable distros would require much more frequent maintenance, once every 6 months. A weekend every 6 months is a sizeable part of my time budget for hobbies.
One aspect in which immutables distros have improved a lot is in resource usage. They used to require significantly more disk space and have slightly higher minimum requirements than regular distros, but that doesn't seem to be the case anymore.
mikae1|1 year ago
What's maintenance in the context if immutable distros? Running "ujust upgrade"? That's done automatically in the background for my Aurora installation.
Also, they're working on CentOS based LTS versions of Bluefin: https://universal-blue.discourse.group/t/call-for-testing-bl...
javitury|1 year ago
There are also smaller maintenance tasks that are tipically ad-hoc solutions to unsolved problems or responses to monitoring alerts. One of this ad-hoc routines was checking that logs do not grow too large, which used to be a problem in my first systemd centos, although not anymore.
PD: thanks for the bluefin read, it made me discover devpod/devcontainer as an interesting alternative to compose files
flomo|1 year ago
Intuitively, this seems opposite, because you could obviously 'mutate' (or mutilate) your Debian system until the updates break. Isolating user changes should make updates easier, not harder. Also MacOS uses a 'sealed' system volume and updates are like butter there.
talldayo|1 year ago
Smooth as in "no data loss", sure. Smooth as in "supports the software I buy and use for long periods of time" is most certainly not true, even despite half the software for Mac being statically linked. Windows and Linux arguably do better at keeping system functionality across updates even with their fundamental disadvantages.
plagiarist|1 year ago
eraser215|1 year ago
gavindean90|1 year ago
tayo42|1 year ago
Maybe it would help in a datacenter
immibis|1 year ago
zuntaruk|1 year ago
javitury|1 year ago
heresie-dabord|1 year ago
The high availability of ChromeOS is a good example of these advantages in a business of educational context.
toprerules|1 year ago
If you update using an immutable distro, you rebase back on to your previous deployment or adjust a pin and you’re done. Immutable distros save you tons of time handling system upgrades, and the best part is you can experimentally change to a beta or even alpha version of your distro without any fear at all.
bmicraft|1 year ago
But that basically doesn't happen between release upgrades, not unless you're doing something with third party repos at least.
> If you update using an immutable distro, you rebase back on to your previous deployment or adjust a pin and you’re done
I genuinely don't know, but can you do security updates without rebasing? Just keeping some working version pinned sounds like bad idea to me, and doesn't even save you time because you'll need it resolve that problem eventually anyways.