well alright, maybe just a little bit moreso. But it’s not really a new phenomenon. Microsoft have long-demonstrated they could reach out the computer monitor and slap every user around a bit with a large trout, and still keep 95% of their user base.
I’m told my cute’n’calm Hexbear instance means there’s a lot of drama here I can’t see. So apologies if my tone comes off badly in the ol’ .ml context.
Rest assured I was just out for fun conversation to learn about atomic stuff :) Hope the rest of this thread ain’t too stressful.
Oof, fair enough, I certainly don’t see a lot of said ruckus. Cheers for the context.
Because I was being told the pros outweight the cons, and if I can get a better OS, then I want it? I feel like it was a reasonable question and we had a good conversation out of it.
I also put ‘normal’ in quotes myself, I obviously meant a non-atomic Fedora.
I feel like you’re coming across unnecessarily dismissively here, when I was just out for a nice conversation on the benefit of atomic setups (and got two! :) ).
This is very cool, and I can suddenly see atomic being useful for certain circumstances. Won’t be using it for my personal computer main driver, but hopping/resetting this is easily attracts me so. Thank you!
Thank you for the informative response! :)
saying don’t mention stability is proving the point
My point is that stability is already 100% fine for me now. So saying you’ll make my already rock-solid experience somehow more stable is meaningless. As a power user for over a decade, I’ve personally experienced zero issues where I wished Fedora was somehow more stable. It’s like telling me that Silverblue connects to the internet - Like yes, I already have that.
From what I’m reading, it sounds like the singular ‘pro’ is being forced to do cleaner, more self-contained practices. I can totally see how that would be helpful for some people. But personally, I would genuinely despise that kind of restriction.
I’m admittedly the kind of person who hates being forced to do the ‘best practice’ thing. I’m genuinely happy that my Linux distro will me rm -rf the root partition (with an ‘are you sure’ prompt these days :) ). I’m happy that if I really want to purge the kernel package with dnf, then I can. I want (and kind of need) my freedom to make a mess, if I tell Linux to jump, it will goddamn jump, even if it’s a bad practice technically terrible decision. I have zero interest in going all around the houses just to do it the technically correct (and sometimes less-effort-in-the-long-run) way. If I ever want a clean plate, I can still spin up a container just like you’re saying.
So I get the feeling that atomic is very much not for me, which is what I suspected :) Very glad that people like yourself find it an improvement, that’s what flavours are for!
Thanks for the response, though up to this sentence I’m hearing extra busywork and slow/annoying containerising, in exchange for vague security platitude and a tool which I can already use.
It’s also nice to be able to rebase your distro whenever you want to try out different spins and features, makes inter-fedora atomic distro hopping easy without destroying your configs.
I’m interested by this. Is there a uniqueness to Atomic setups such that you can (more easily) keep your user partition, GNOME configs, etc. and swap out the Fedora distro underneath?
once it clicks, the pros far outweigh the cons
I would love to hear a pro about atomic distros that isn’t some vague platitude about security or stability. I have zero security/stability problems on my ‘normal’ Fedora.
As someone who has steadfastly avoided atomic distros because it sounds like an arseache and the last thing I want is more busywork. Convince me to switch!
Very fun, I’ve been rocking Fedora workstation for years. If Fedora could take off as the gaming distro that’d be great, I’ll get even more up-to-date top-notch graphics drivers without having to change distros
These are very subjective arguments, and even the objective points are completely subjective depending on your distro.
I mean one of his arguments is that C++ is just inherently insecure. He just takes Microsoft’s claims at face-value that all their pointless shit is the magical security wall that it claims to be. He buys into the same lie that ACE on a Windows, Mac or Android is somehow much much safer than on Linux. Most of his claims that other OSes are more secure are rooted in “well yeah they do exactly the same but at least they knooow they do”.
I’m not even acknowledging ChromeOS - it is Linux, except it only runs a browser.
99% of this stuff also applies to Windows/MacOS/Android/iOS, except moreso and far more universally. And 90% of this stuff is only relevant if you’re being targeted by some state-funded intelligence like the CIA (cold reading your RAM?? minimum 16-character password?? Keystroke fingerprinting???)
So whatever, I think the hardening guide looks fairly accurate, but unless you’re being spied on by world powers, I wouldn’t consider it worth peoples’ time to read, never mind implement. 90% of people are still going to be more secure by cluelessly using Linux instead of cluelessly using the others.