Upstream images vs bazzite: https://github.com/ublue-os/countme/blob/main/growth_upstream_with_bazzite.svg
My prediction: bazzite may have more installs than Fedora KDE by the end of the year.
Upstream images vs bazzite: https://github.com/ublue-os/countme/blob/main/growth_upstream_with_bazzite.svg
My prediction: bazzite may have more installs than Fedora KDE by the end of the year.
Root vs non-root is, in a nutshell, a tangled mess with millions of opportunities for “oops, didn’t think of that” situations: https://www.cve.org/downloads
Immutable keeps the legacy system confituration basically unchanged, but also restores it “from ROM” every time you power on. (not real ROM, but effectively.) In an immutable system, the attack surface is dramatically reduced, and much more diverse among systems than with a mutable OS.
I reckon this must be true. However I do not see this as a reason for wide adoption of immutable systems. I guess that is a fairly valid use case.
I’d like to understand why some users are enthusiastic about bazzite. As of now I understood two of the reasons:
However I do not understand why these two things make their users so enthusiastic. It’s two things you rarely worry about when using a computer. They are indeed important, but in my opinion not much of a problem in modern distributions.
In the other hand you have to install everything through flatpak, which is something which would really get to my nerves.
I understand there are some good advantages, I just fail to understand which ones those are.
It requires literally zero work from me to maintain, that’s why I’m enthusiastic and want the project to do well. Saying mutable Linux is zero work is dead wrong. And if you do put work into your system, it actually sticks and doesn’t decide to explode one day over it.