I recently took up Bazzite from mint and I love it! After using it for a few days I found out it was an immutable distro, after looking into what that is I thought it was a great idea. I love the idea of getting a fresh image for every update, I think for businesses/ less tech savvy people it adds another layer of protection from self harm because you can’t mess with the root without extra steps.

For anyone who isn’t familiar with immutable distros I attached a picture of mutable vs immutable, I don’t want to describe it because I am still learning.

My question is: what does the community think of it?

Do the downsides outweigh the benefits or vice versa?

Could this help Linux reach more mainstream audiences?

Any other input would be appreciated!

  • priapus@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    1 day ago

    Flatpak is completely open source software and any proprietary software in it has a large warning about how it’s proprietary. I don’t know why you think proprietary software vendors are pushing these. Ublue, NixOS, and Fedora Silverblue are all community run, not being pushed by some malicious group pushing proprietary software.

    Why companies even have anything to gain from their proprietary software being in a container? All that would do is make data collection more difficult.

    • ubergeek
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      24 hours ago

      Why do you think all phone makers push it?

        • ubergeek
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          22 hours ago

          So, you cannot or will not answer. Got it.

      • priapus@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        22 hours ago

        Because it improves security and privacy, something they can advertise as a feature. There’s no negative for them to implement, it’s their phone, they can already collect all the data they want. It still prevents other apps from accessing data they shouldn’t.

        Why do you think phone makers push it? What possible malicious reason do you think proprietary software makers have to push containerization and sandboxing? What do they gain?

        • ubergeek
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          21 hours ago

          Correct about security. Unable to inspect the code running, unable to control your own device fully, and really secure at keeping the user out of their hardware.

          And for apps shipped in containers? No need to be a part of the FLOSS community, because you can easily ship software to your users that provides no freedoms.

          • priapus@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            20 hours ago

            Those things have nothing to do with containerization. They can do those things without it. Containerization exists to improve privacy and security. It can do the same thing on Linux.

            Even if you trust an app, it can have vulnerabilities you are unaware of. Containerization helps limit the effects damage from a vulnerability could have. They also simplify the distribution of software, which is the primary goal of Flatpak. There are benefits for using containers for open source software, you’re just refusing to acknowledge them. Nobody is forcing you to use containerization, and I don’t care to convince you to. I just think acting like Flatpak and other container based package formats is some corporate conspiracy is silly. Flatpak is FOSS and mainly distributes FOSS.