Why are you still using mutable OS at all?

Why are you still using mutable OS at all?
When was the last time you had a real reason to change any of the system files, except updates?
Why dont you want security?
Why are you trust in ACLs and why are you outsourcing the zookeeper task to the kernel?
Why are you allow the kernel to change itself?
Are you still think it is a realistic use case that the kernel overwrites itself?
Are you even thinking human?

Attached: 45A1AEF9-E234-4766-9A40-42C70DA7EE73.jpg (1920x1080, 73K)

Other urls found in this thread:

nixos.org
twitter.com/AnonBabble

Why are you even allow the system to change itself? In the time of side-attacks it seems to terribly stupid idea.
Explain, why do you take the risk.

Let’s hear what is your reason to have non-immutable system, we want to laugh on your stupidity.

Based schizo

Sorry, but I have no schizophrenia.

i googled 'list of immutable operating system' which lands me a 2014 blog post, one hacker news post, and one medium post

what OS are you using, silverblue?

>When was the last time you had a real reason to change any of the system files,
Last time I updated.
>except updates?
Give me one good reason that "except updates" should be in that sentence.

Why are you don't know English?

I use an immutable Os ofc, but the question was: why are you guys still use a mutable OS and it considered mean in some cultures to ask before you gives an answer.

Windows enhanced write filter

why are you assuming we use a mutable os

It's important to use a mutable OS so that you can update it.

It have no reason, even update shouldn’t change the current state, but I don’t wanted to get reactions like “lol no update!” from Linux shillers.

I use a mutated OS.

That’s wrong in many different levels.
Even your FS can be immutable.

>but I don’t wanted to get reactions like “lol no update!” from Linux shillers.
What are you implying exactly?
I'll have you know that Linux gets lots of updates.

>even update shouldn’t change the current state,
If by "current state" you mean the current state in primary memory then sure. But an update should absolutely change the persistent state in secondary memory. That's the whole point of an update.

The persistent state in secondary memory is also what you're claiming should be immutable. I absolutely refuse to believe it isn't, because if you're saying the "current state" in primary memory should be immutable, that's the most asinine thing I've ever heard.

Do you even realize how an OS would behave if its temporary image in primary memory were truly immutable? It would immediately stall out on boot.

Wrong, your FS can't be immutable and also subject to updates. If you can update it, it's not immutable.

I know. But Linux shillers thinks changing the installed system is the only way to update the system files, while we have technologies like zfs.

>But an update should absolutely change the persistent state in secondary memory. That's the whole point of an update.
No if you use an extra abstraction level.

How do you update without changing any files?
Actual, legitimate question here. Enlighten me senpai.

Ah, so you meant the "current state" of the filesystem.

Then you're still wrong. You can make a snapshot, make another snapshot containing the updated system without changing the current state of the filesystem, and then switch to the updated snapshot. However, the fact that you can assemble such a snapshot in the first place means your system is not immutable. You are changing data on the disk.

You should've kept going, OP contradicts itself with
>Why dont you want security?

If the system is immutable, even if it is actually perfect upon release, what could you do about new hardware and discovered vulnerabilities? If it's immutable, you'll need to provide a new full release. If it's mutable only during installation, the user would still be forced to reinstall the whole system, instead of just the updates.

Not defending the old "pay for it all again to get upgrades" nor the newer "pay a little every month and we'll keep it up-to-date" business plans, but it's either way inconvenient or inherently flawed in reality.

I do:
You don’t change the actual file, you let the filesystem handle the versions, so you can always boot a known working state.

Why do you want to merge states or anything at all? Your software updater downloads the new packages and if every dependencies are fulfilled then the old ones will be detached and the new will be attached, in worst case after the reboot.

Ah, so like git versioning.
And how does this solve the core issue?
In fact, what even is the core issue?

This sounds like an unironically good idea, Android uses a similar thing too with A/B partitions.

I just would update.
But it seems you still don’t get the idea.

Where did I say anything about merging states?

What I'm saying is, it doesn't matter if you merge states or remain in the previous state, the fact of the matter is, if you are storing newly created data on your disk pertaining to a new state existing at all, then your system is not immutable. You have mutated it. You have changed the data on your disk by storing an extra state on it.

Your system files are mutable. Imagine immutable virtual filesystem, no system files get changed, but a new package overtakes their place.
You don’t change anything, just the current state-file, and your boot loader allows to boot to a known working state.

Your disk must be mutable, we don’t talk about live system running from cd/dvd/br.

But isn't there the issue of increasing disk usage as new versions are added?

You can delete old states.

Fair enough.
Actually sounds like a good idea.

So why don’t you guys using anything like that?
Do you know any OS what using this strategy?

>Why are you still using mutable OS at all?
Because software i need only work on windows.
You keep asking similar questions for over a decade.

So tell me because I can’t find any real use case reason: “Why are you trust in ACLs and why are you outsourcing the zookeeper task to the kernel?
Why are you allow the kernel to change itself?”
Are you paid by intelligence or do you just want to see the world burning?
Any reason? Anything?

Why are you even trust in your kernel at all?
Let us hear your reason.

> doesn't even link it
nixos.org
Install it and ascend to reproducibility, mutablelets

Oh, a Linux significado here. Explain why should we use nix then.

Did you even read the link

looks great, tell us about your experiences. How realible it is, and how much one have to change his ways to use it efficiently?

Still waiting to some input....

GNU+Freedom?