Canonical planning an immutable desktop version of Ubuntu

Canoniclowns.

For desktops, I'm not sure about the use case.

Even without immutability, most big distros are already "it just works" - and in addition also offer more possibility to customize.

What it would offer is more security to not accidentally mess up your system, I'd wager.
But even then, that's what rollbacks are for, so... yeah, I'm really not sure about the use case on normal desktop.

Sounds similar to Fedora Silverblue.

Kinoite is the Plasma version of Silverblue that nobody ever mentions even though Plasma is just as popular.

I'm not too much of a fan of Snap, which is why the Fedora immutable desktops are a bit more interesting to me. But that has an asterisk as well: I don't like RPM.

I've said it before and I'll say it again: I think the immutable desktops are best for the professional environment where you have a team creating and maintaining custom builds. I don't think it's going to take a hold on the home user. I say that, but my confidence is not rock solid. I'm curious enough to play with it in a VM and see how it develops. I can confidently say that I'm not interested in using it personally with my experience thus far.

EDIT: Just to add a little positive spin, I'll add that I'd be happy for immutable desktops to be successful, especially if they drove Linux adoption.


Last edited by 14 on 5 June 2023 at 1:21 pm UTC

The idea of immutable distros is good (though I wonder if the end-user is really concerned), but Snap is a major no-no.

I know this is a strongly divisive topic, and people love to hate Snap... but for a good reason : I've been hating it ever since some handy Firefox extensions stopped working (VideoDownloadHelper), or it somehow couldn't open HTML files located in /usr/local (quite a bummer to install Chromium just for reading offline documentations I mean... why ?!)

So long live apt, Deb packages, and PPAs ;D (Oh, and AppImages).

I am intrigued by the immutable OS concept. I like what I've tried of Vanilla OS; I'm just waiting for a KDE version before taking the dive on my desktop.

I do think it's neat that Canonical is going to make an immutable version of Ubuntu...but I'm not interested, because I don't like Snap. I prefer Flatpak.

For desktops, I'm not sure about the use case.

Even without immutability, most big distros are already "it just works" - and in addition also offer more possibility to customize.

What it would offer is more security to not accidentally mess up your system, I'd wager.
But even then, that's what rollbacks are for, so... yeah, I'm really not sure about the use case on normal desktop.

The normal use case for immutability on the desktop, is the same reason immutability is the default on smartphones. I truly believe that the average human sees technology (in all forms) akin to that of an appliance or automobile. You push a button, engage with the controls, and it generates the expected response near every time. After providing voluntarily community IT support for many years, this impression is almost carved in stone within me.

At the core of it, the people I work with want to know very little about their PC (for a variety of reasons). Majority never even change the desktop wallpaper. They push the power button, then expect everything to work and be up to date. The younger ones do some customization, but defaults are king. Their systems take care of themselves and manual interaction is only performed when forced by system prompts. Linux can not enter this space without providing that which the current offerings have, which is an appliance-like nature by default. Automatic stable atomic updates, simple program installation, access to the majority of modern applications, and quick recoverability from technological hiccups are all needed to be baked in the operating system. Due to the functional structure of Linux and its FOSS subsystems, I truly respect the struggle that Fedora Silverblue/Kinoite, SteamOS, MicroOS Aeon, and now Ubuntu development teams are engaged in to make this experience come to light.

Those reading here on GamingOnLinux are near guaranteed to not be the category of people I have described above. Hopefully, the Linux community at large can grow to be more understanding of the need for immutable desktop operating system. Without a doubt, there is a commercial interest from the these Linux companies, but should we not be supportive all the same for getting FOSS into the hands of people who are currently being exploited by non-open systems? Give this time, let's not let snaps vs ostree vs native be the focus, these things sort themselves out. While Fedora Kinoite may be my current go-to recommendation for new Linux users, I am very curiosity to see how things play out on the snap front.


TL:DR Immutable OSes need to come for the masses to engage with Linux and FOSS at a system level. Average people have quite a different perspective on computers than tech-understanding users like the GamingOnLinux readership. On both the commercial and humanitarian fronts, Immutable OSes provide benefits and the established Linux community should do it best to support these efforts (or at the very least not publicly disparage the good that comes form it).

Edit: To clarify, my last sentence was not implying that your specific comment was disparaging. Rather it was direct to the generic Linux user/commentator that might be inflamed by immutables.


Last edited by Numeric on 5 June 2023 at 2:43 pm UTC

I don't understand the point of "immutable distro" wether it is immutable, wether it is a distro but from my point of view it can't be both.

We are going to have immutable OS partition with every program being in a kind of container, be it snap, appimage, flatpak and so forth., installed via some app store à la android. But there will still be distro with package manager and maintainers. Both have their use case. I know that I really loved package manager when I started using Linux and that's one of my favorite things of the Linux environment but I also respect other views not everyone wants to care about dependencies.

Sounds similar to Fedora Silverblue.

The concept is similar, but the implementation is different. Silverblue depends on ostree to implement atomic updates while still depending on RPM. Ubuntu Core does it differently: it breaks down the system into smaller components and packages each of these components as a snap, so there are no DEB packages any more. This has some advantages over the Silverblue approach because you can control these components individually. For example, you can opt to switch your kernel to the "edge" channel and you'll get the latest kernel without having to build it yourself and without losing automatic updates to that kernel. Same can be done with Gnome Shell or Mesa or any other component in the system. You can also easily install multiple desktop envs without messing the system since each of these DEs will be a separate snap, which likely means there won't be different flavours of this, just one flavour with all DEs.
This also means Ubuntu can, hopefully, provide a better install and update experience since it'll have one package system instead of two, so the devs can focus their efforts on getting this right instead of having to maintain two separate package formats.
All of this, however, is theoretical potential. It remains to be seen whether Canonical manages to get it right, but if they do I bet it'll make Ubuntu an attractive distro to a lot more people.
Personally, I hope this will encourage someone to fork snap and make it properly open.

For desktops, I'm not sure about the use case.

Even without immutability, most big distros are already "it just works" - and in addition also offer more possibility to customize.

What it would offer is more security to not accidentally mess up your system, I'd wager.
But even then, that's what rollbacks are for, so... yeah, I'm really not sure about the use case on normal desktop.

The normal use case for immutability on the desktop, is the same reason immutability is the default on smartphones. I truly believe that the average human sees technology (in all forms) akin to that of an appliance or automobile. You push a button, engage with the controls, and it generates the expected response near every time. After providing voluntarily community IT support for many years, this impression is almost carved in stone within me.

At the core of it, the people I work with want to know very little about their PC (for a variety of reasons). Majority never even change the desktop wallpaper. They push the power button, then expect everything to work and be up to date. The younger ones do some customization, but defaults are king. Their systems take care of themselves and manual interaction is only performed when forced by system prompts. Linux can not enter this space without providing that which the current offerings have, which is an appliance-like nature by default. Automatic stable atomic updates, simple program installation, access to the majority of modern applications, and quick recoverability from technological hiccups are all needed to be baked in the operating system. Due to the functional structure of Linux and its FOSS subsystems, I truly respect the struggle that Fedora Silverblue/Kinoite, SteamOS, MicroOS Aeon, and now Ubuntu development teams are engaged in to make this experience come to light.

Those reading here on GamingOnLinux are near guaranteed to not be the category of people I have described above. Hopefully, the Linux community at large can grow to be more understanding of the need for immutable desktop operating system. Without a doubt, there is a commercial interest from the these Linux companies, but should we not be supportive all the same for getting FOSS into the hands of people who are currently being exploited by non-open systems? Give this time, let's not let snaps vs ostree vs native be the focus, these things sort themselves out. While Fedora Kinoite may be my current go-to recommendation for new Linux users, I am very curiosity to see how things play out on the snap front.


TL:DR Immutable OSes need to come for the masses to engage with Linux and FOSS at a system level. Average people have quite a different perspective on computers than tech-understanding users like the GamingOnLinux readership. On both the commercial and humanitarian fronts, Immutable OSes provide benefits and the established Linux community should do it best to support these efforts (or at the very least not publicly disparage the good that comes form it).

Edit: To clarify, my last sentence was not implying that your specific comment was disparaging. Rather it was direct to the generic Linux user/commentator that might be inflamed by immutables.

So, an entry level Linux drug, then?

I can get on board with that

Great news, will install it immediately on my laptop!

The true trouble currently with linux is all the packaging types.

I raged yesterday by using a fresh install of a debian/ubuntu on my scientific computing unit to discover that they blocked pip for python out of virtual env...
I only use this computer to do massive parallel computing, copying pasting from usb key script and running them directly

Snap is a plague, I have to install flat with apt ... it's getting mad, and this created the necessity and advertising for an immutable GNU/unix OS

For me the idea of immutable distros is quite simple, and quite sensible: just like we have things that any unprivileged user can change, and system settings that need root (with sudo as a convenient mid-way compromise, which means I almost never needed to actually log in as root), it separates things users can change and system settings. You can still install programs for yourself, or change the appearance, or other changes... but that is just overlaid on top of the base system: you can install an additional version of a library, but you can't erase the original - so your system is guaranteed to not be borked, as it retains a "recovery image" without your changes. Right now there is still some attrition to doing things that way because of all the programs that were made based on different assumptions, but with time I expect less things will need workarounds and the workarounds will get better and easier.

And Linux can easily prevent the biggest issue with Android and Windows and such, which is "unremovable bloatware" - when your OEM or carrier puts a bunch of garbage on your device that they want you to have but you don't want to. With Linux, there is little point in pushing garbage to users as anyone can just make a distro without the garbage. For example, when Canonical pushes snaps which are complete garbage, I can just download Fedora that does not have snaps. It is unfortunate that it happens but at least I have some choice.

Canoniclowns.

Hmm would You say that to their face in person? Meeting Canonical devs and for example Shuttleworth? It is Ubuntu to thank for fair bit for so much in the world of Linux

Canoniclowns.

Hmm would You say that to their face in person? Meeting Canonical devs and for example Shuttleworth? It is Ubuntu to thank for fair bit for so much in the world of Linux

100%. What greatness Canonical and *buntu used to represent is no longer true, and I do not care one spit for the current iteration. My opinion of course. Feel free to have a different one.

I don't like Ubuntu and I don't like their Snap at all.
So I couldn't care less...

Friendly reminder that Snap is not free software due vendor lock-in (its sole package repository is proprietary).

So whatever Canonical decides to do with their base Snap OS is pretty irrelevant for the general linux ecosystem.

Friendly reminder that Snap is not free software due vendor lock-in (its sole package repository is proprietary).

So whatever Canonical decides to do with their base Snap OS is pretty irrelevant for the general linux ecosystem.

Total BS! If that was the truth, you would not be able to download and install Snaps outside of Snap Store, and Rudra (a teenage boy) would not be able to create an alternative store.

I guess I don't understand how an immutable distro is significantly different in terms of security and stability from the current way of doing it with a locked root account. Aren't they basically different paths to the same end?

I guess I don't understand how an immutable distro is significantly different in terms of security and stability from the current way of doing it with a locked root account. Aren't they basically different paths to the same end?

Others can comment on security, but I don't think it offers many security benefits.

Stability-wise, the base packages are offered as an "image", which are core components like GNOME, Linux, GNU utilities, GRUB, GDM, and a horde of libraries. Everything else is offered in a container format like Flatpak or Snap. Whenever you update the base system, you replace the image, and you don't get the new packages until you reboot. If you reboot and something is funky, you can just rollback to the previous image and get on with your day. This makes a lot of sense for both workstations and servers because it removes the fear of upgrading because rollbacks are so easy.

Security-wise, Flatpak and Snap packages offer you the latest versions of user software, which is definitely an improvement to running years-old poorly-backported software on Debian and most other stable distributions. "Stable distributions" today are a fundamentally flawed concept because holding back security updates and porting back only some of the fixes is a pretty bad idea. With immutable distributions, you can have a stable base but up-to-date userland, and you can probably get base updates more often without fear.

I don't run a stable distribution currently, but if I did (for work), I would run an immutable distribution.