2026-04-28 11:11 UTC
Replies (2)
-
@q66@gts.q66.moe 2026-04-28 11:20
@pauldoo@mastodon.scot @drakulix@social.dreampi.es the idea with atomic systems may be alright but the way it's typically implemented on the legacy base is no good at all the way i want it is making sure the underlying system seamlessly gives you the option without needing a bunch of crusty stuff on top start with a package manager and packaging that acts atomically and doesn't run random scripts in the middle of a transaction, limiting them to the end and making them idempotent make any dynamic configuration data (/etc /var) stateless make the system fully workable with a read-only root little and not-so-little things that make fundamental building blocks
-
@pac85@social.treehouse.systems 2026-04-28 12:58
@pauldoo@mastodon.scot my personal take is that people on both sides of the argument are wrong here. Like, immutable systems have advantages but they aren't universally better. The power user's experience does matter and if mutating a live system reduces friction then that's a totally valid advantage that might make some people prefer mutable systems. Also I feel like there's something that isn't quite appreciated about mutable systems. The fact that Linux holds separate refcounts for hardlinks and FDs means that it is possible to replace files on the FS but the old version that was open remains open until a reboot. Effectively this makes mutable disgrros partially atomic, it breaks down when two programs talk to each other and only one gets restarted after the update.