bsergay

Something super basic for example is OpenRazer in order to control the settings of my mouse and keyboard - the backend of OpenRazer exists as a DKMS module, and kernel modules seem to be a bit more difficult to install on an atomic distro than a “mutable” distro.

IIRC, the DKMS modules are included in uBlue images. Have you tried any of their images?

But I’ve been looking at immutable distros as a more stable alternative.

If "stable" is used in the context of "intended use entails no changes/updates to packages found in the repositories in between 'long supported' point releases"^[1]^, then it's important to note that an 'immutable' distro as such does not exist; or at least is far from mainstream*.

If, however, "stable", instead, is used in the context of "less inclined to cause breakage upon (perhaps more frequent) updates", then indeed; 'immutable' distros can definitely be beneficial. Heck, I would even argue that they are successful at providing more stable experiences. This is actually implied merely by design. And, thankfully, the 'immutable' distros have been able to deliver on this promise.

But, it sounds to me like it’s more adapted for smaller devices and IoT, like the Steam Deck or similar handheld devices.

They, indeed, make a lot of sense for these use cases. However, the use of 'immutable' distros on desktop is also pretty well established. Even if it's currently (relatively) niche.

Have you installed an immutable distro on your PC?

Yup. Over two years ago, I switched cold turkey from Windows to Fedora Silverblue without any prior Linux experience. I've been very happy with it ever since. However, since over a year, I've been on uBlue. These are recommended over Fedora's own images for a multitude of reasons; one of which being better on-boarding.

What distro did you use?

As previously mentioned; Fedora Silverblue. Back then, and even today, Fedora Atomic has been one of the most mature iterations. Other mature 'immutable' distros (i.e. Guix System and NixOS) require a lot more know-how by comparison.

What was your experience like?

I simply don't see myself use traditional distros beyond special use cases. Literally all of my experiences with (semi-)rolling traditional distros^[2]^ (that I have engaged with through dual booting) ended with an unbootable system. By contrast, besides my first week, I can't recall the need to resort to Fedora Atomic's built-in rollback functionality to combat a non-booting system. It's just been such a pleasant experience.

1. Besides those related to security.
2. Which include the likes of Arch, EndeavourOS and Nobara.

Zsh

FWIW, the excellent ZSH Quickstart kit has been splendid for my transition.

Does the problem persist after a reboot?

Thanks for the update! Glad to hear it's fixed; also thank you (on behalf of the community) for sharing the fix. If I may, I think this would be a classic example of the XY problem. Anyhow, wish ya a great day!

Thanks for clarifying!

That’s pretty strong language

I agree. But in this case it was 100% justified as OP just (hopefully reversibly) destroyed their installation.

and what I was responding to.

Thanks for properly nuancing my stance. Though, perhaps consider to do so right away next time 😜.

Perhaps you were being hyperbolic.

It was deliberate. But I wouldn't refer to it as hyperbolic. Perhaps more in the style of an elder sibling scolding their younger sibling to be better next time 😉. Apologies if I missed the mark, though.

😂. Thanks for the clarification!

Thank you for giving me the opportunity for a refresh 😛. And thank you for the very civilized conversation. I wish you a great day!

Yes. Not everything I have is installed through the Google store.

I understand from this, that it is implied, that the majority of what you have installed, has been done through the Google store though. By extension, I assume that -by default- you entrust installing software to the Google store. Hence, if all of the above is correct, then you actually don't commit to 'the Windows-way' by default; but only by exception. Which is exactly my point.

But you're acting like one needs to have some expert skills to install things outside of the package manager.

I feel you're reading too much into it. In my first comment, I didn't even mention package managers. In the second comment, I only wrote -and I quote- "Those should first and foremost be consulted. And for 99% of the cases; this is the intended, supposed and supported way of installing said software.". I don't see where expert skills are implied if one chooses to go outside of it. Please feel free to help me understand where I did.

It's generally preferred for a number of reasons but it's not bad "per se" to install something outside of it.

I never implied otherwise.

On your phone, do you search the software you want to install through your browser? After which, do you download the install script and try to run it?

No, of course not. Instead, you pay a visit to the accompanied software center. Searching, installing and upgrading all occur through that.

Similarly, on Linux, your chosen distro comes with a (or perhaps multiple) package manager(s) and a software center. Those should first and foremost be consulted. And for 99% of the cases; this is the intended, supposed and supported way of installing said software.

This should suffice for the sake of brevity. If you've still got questions, please feel free to ask them.

Sure, but even in those “few cases” Testing will get them soon.

Didn't I allude to that with:

"it doesn’t receive the security backports like Stable does nor does it receive them as soon as Unstable/Sid does.

Though I do notice that the above sentence contains an error that is perhaps misleading. By definition, Unstable/Sid doesn't receive security backports. Instead, the updates related to security are (usually) first received in Unstable/Sid. So, the above sentence tried to portray the following picture related to security:

Unstable/Sid ~ Stable >> Testing

I did read at some point that Testing may receive security updates later than stable, might be in those cases in which backports come straight from unstable.

That's basically the point I've been making 😉.

I think the only remaining point of contention is the degree by which Stable does receive security backports right after Unstable/Sid does while Testing only receives it later.

Honestly, I don't know the specifics. But Debian Testing's wiki entry notes security concerns multiple times. And it's all related to the fact that they don't receive the security backports as soon as Stable receives them. The explanation related to security updates concerning the three distinct branches is covered in even more detail over here.

Basically, after I've read all of that, it's clear as day that security is not a priority on Testing. And while band-aid solutions do exist, it's simply not designed to be secure.

Found on the same page you cited from (even same paragraph):

"Backports are packages taken from the next Debian release (called "testing"), adjusted and recompiled for usage on Debian stable. Because the package is also present in the next Debian release, you can easily upgrade your stable+backports system once the next Debian release comes out. (In a few cases, usually for security updates, backports are also created from the Debian unstable distribution.)"