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.
I switched from Windows to Kinoite last year because it seemed to be the one distro that actually cared about stability. The first distro I used was Ubuntu 7.04 and until Kinoite I always viewed the Linux desktop as a bit of a joke because it always broke every other update. Debian, Ubuntu, Fedora, it didn’t matter which distro I tried, after a few months something broke. I don’t tolerate this on my primary computer so I always switched back to Windows. This is the first time I have ever used a Linux distribution where I can run an major update without worrying if I still have a GUI after the next reboot. So I consider immutable distros a huge success. I don’t think I would still be using Linux without them.
My current motto is, I use whatever I want and install atomic on relatives’ PCs and set auto-update. Atomic is great for non tech-savvy and I like to meddle around in the file system.
I love my Gentoo, I’m a bit obsessed with optimizing everything I can. And I can’t really do any of that with immutable distos. I’m contemplating very hard on using NixOS for my server, though.
Honestly the thing I kinda care more about would be a fully developed sandboxed permission controlled system like Android, just with the storage permissions like GrapheneOS. I know there are some support for this, flatpak & flatseal etc. but it is not prominent enough. I want it to cover everything, like android.
I like Mint. It looks like Windows, runs the software I want (including a lot of what I use on Windows). To me, the best thing an OS can ever do is stay out of my way. If it has any learning curve between me and doing the things I need and want to do, it’s a bad OS for my needs,
I just haven’t bothered reading up on what atomic systems are yet. I get the gist of it, just not enought to really understand how it affects my current workflow if I were to switch.
So what would it actually take to get you to switch? I’m all ears.
a compelling reason would get me to switch. you haven’t presented any.
Wrong, some were mentioned:
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.
This is already a mitigated issue with btrfs and zfs though.
Just do Snapshots? In OpenSuse Tumbleweed this happens out of the box every time you update packages. And you can just select the last one from the boot menu then.
It’s hardly an advantage of atomic Distros
You don’t need a Microsoft account, or any other remotely managed account, just to login to your machine.
You wouldn’t be supporting AI-driven decision making in which Palestinian child needs to die next.
You won’t have AI shoved into places it doesn’t belong like a simple text editor.
I already have all that with my Debian and Arch machines.
but if there’s one thing I’ve learned, it’s that we’re not afraid to tinker.
^ that’s the reason right there. You really can’t tinker with atomic distributions. And if you try, its just another level of abstraction that’s in your way.
I use atomic for systems that I want to work, full stop, no matter what.
I use traditional for systems and VMs that I want to tinker with. These may be rendered into an atomic distro at some point, if desired or necessary. But I honestly haven’t felt the need to do that yet.
It’s just about picking the appropriate baseline os type for what you want to do on the machine in question. Much like one would pick debian or fedora or rhel or suse-based distros for various technical and esoteric reasons.
They just seem kinda hacky and overcomplicated rn.
I was on NixOS for a while, which is sort of in this camp since the system build is deterministic an immutable, and I’ve had to switch away bc it’s just annoying. Apps aren’t made for immutability in mind, and sometimes when you (read: your OS) try to force them to, the burden falls on you to maintain it, not just the package maintainer. VS Code is a prime example. Some extensions just don’t work right. It’s not Nix’s fault ofc, but that doesn’t make it less impractical to use, so after 2 years away from Arch now, I’ve had to return.
Other immutable distros face similar issues.
On top of that, specific distros have reasons I wouldn’t want to use them. I wouldn’t use Bazzite, for instance, bc it is based on Fedora, and I won’t use Fedora again. I liked Fedora when I used it, and it has things about it I like, but it has a glaring issue: anywhere it can be non-standard it is non-standard. For apps to run on Fedora there always has to have some weird location for a config file or a different way to install a program or some bug that only occurs on Fedora. Fedora be fedorain. That rules out Bazzite, Silverblue, etc. I call it the “RedHat Tax.”
I wouldn’t say I’m against an immutable distro tho; I just haven’t found one for me yet. For now, BTRFS and backups + Arch are enough
I had the same experience. Long time kubuntu user and various other distros. Got on the nixos bandwagon used it on a couple computers. The breaking part for me was all well supported applications was great, but where it broke down hard were the fringe or unsupported applications I was spending a lot of time building the nix configs. After a while I just couldn’t spend that much time making my computer work. Back to kubuntu lts, its so low maintenance.
The primary barrier for me: I’m not convinced that it’s a good idea.
My limited experience with Bazzite left a sour taste in my mouth. Couldn’t install themes because the dir where themes installed for KDE was locked down.
Noe I’m sure this is fixable. But that goes back to lack of documentation. And admittedly, lack of me researching further. I stuck with my Arch install because it’s comfortable and familiar.
When asked if I read the Docs.
“…lack of documentation. And admittedly, lack of me researching further.”
Clicking on the sidebar /scrolling to the bottom of main page for Docs is hard.
Also linkage in the terminal message. 🤔
This was a long time ago, this isn’t something that was there when I had tried with KDE on an Atomic distro.
And I wasn’t asking for anyone to solve it for me. Appreciate the screenshots.
What is the benefit of fedora and its atomic version, if you use flatpak and distrobox on both installs? Add btrfs snapshots and you can’t brick your system either, which is your point, I guess
What’d it take for me to switch? Short of the distro I use switching the infrastructure over to it, probably nothing. And even then if an atomic distro would be annoying I’d probably jump ship to a different distro
The reason is that… well basically the points you mentioned: I have my setup how I like it, and I don’t see anything particularly compelling feature wise that’d make me interested in switching
deleted by creator
Do you know of any guides for semi tech savvy people? I’d like to try. I’d probably go with the fedora gnome immutable.
Alternative to Silverblue is Bluefin, which is Silverblue repackaged with QoL improvements. I’ve been using it for a while now and like it in a set it and forget it kind of way.
On Fedoras website there is a dedicated sections regarding Atomic Desktops. So, https://fedoraproject.org/atomic-desktops/silverblue/ is your answer.
