pyssla

Hmm…, would you so kind to explain what the end goal is? I feel like we’re dealing with the classic XY problem. But hopefully I’m wrong.

Some looking around suggests that the distro is just over 6 months old or so.

Even if it does literally everything right, longevity is only tested with the passing of time. To exemplify this, let’s go back in time… Relatively short after I made the switch to Linux, there was a lot of buzz around risiOS. Unfortunately, it didn’t take long until this exciting new project stopped receiving any further development. And, as far as I can tell, its creator has literally moved on to their next project.

The above example ain’t unique, though. Heck, I’d argue that the coming and passing of projects is the expected pattern. The projects that remain relevant and continue to receive development are the actual anomalies.

All of which is just to say that it’s (almost) ill-advised to prefer a new project over a well-established one. Only after a (relatively) new project receives mass adoption, like what we currently see with Bazzite and CachyOS, does it become somewhat of a safe bet. Even if only for the foreseeable future*. Until then, you’re at the mercy of the whims and continued interest of a single developer (or a very small team).

Going back to Lingmo OS itself, I suppose its main appeal lies within its unique aesthetics. I’m especially fond of their macOS-like global menu found within its top bar. The now-defunct CutefishOS also had something similar going on… Which brings us back to our earlier point on longevity. Aight, verdict: honestly, I don’t think it’s necessarily more aesthetically pleasing than say GNOME or KDE Plasma. At least to me*. As such, I understand that I’m not the target audience. Nor do I think that you or anyone else should be swayed by this (or similar projects) on aesthetics alone.

Fam, I loathe saying this, but -please- if you desire engagement, then at least put some honest effort into proofreading your writings before posting them. I’m just assuming stuff at this point because I can barely grasp your intent/writing. *sigh*

Why do atomic distros which are supposed to me more stable, superior to some degree immutable environments lack good backup options? You can hack things together and there are somewhat installable tools. Like timeshift or etc etc.

Which distros even come by default -so installed OOTB- with “good backup options”? Which atomic distros is this statement even based on?

But it seems they place a lot more emphasis on rolling back poor updates in the event than total system backups.

Because their atomicity barely goes beyond updates. The ‘atomic’ in “atomic distros” mostly describes how its updates are atomic; i.e. the system either updates successfully or doesn’t update at all. Thus, by design, we have two possible states after an update: a ‘successfully’ updated system or a ‘failed’ update resulting in the same state as the previous. Atomic distros aren’t smart enough to catch all ‘breakage’ occurred by ‘successful’ updates. As such, most of these breakages will only show them after trying to boot into updated system. Deleting/erasing the previous known good state without verifying that the new/upcoming state works well is foolish. Especially on a distro that’s got robust updates otherwise. Hence, the functionality of rollbacks on updates is almost trivially done/applied to atomic distros, as it (almost) follows by design.

So, what I’m interested in is the following:

• Are you familiar with the notion of stateless systems? Is this (perhaps) what you’re (actually) seeking?

By default it you should have true backups then layer in rollbacks. Not the other way around. Am I missing something?

I think my previous paragraph should be enlightening in this regard. If you disagree (or something/otherwise), then please feel free to elaborate why you think so. Btw, what do you even mean with "true backups?

What distro did this happen on?

How long ago did you install it?

I use secureblue, because it offers the (AFAIK unique) intersection between:

• a security-first^[1] approach while being fit for general computing
• a first-class citizen of the ‘immutable’ reprovisionable, anti-hysteresis paradigm
• a well-maintained project with many active contributors that exhibit a proactive stance when it comes to implementing (security) improvements

A bit of tinkering. Thoughts?

Obligatory “There is not a single distro that’s the absolute best for each and every one.” disclaimer aside, my personal favorite is definitely secureblue for being a hardened-by-default distro that adheres to the ‘immutable’ reprovisionable, anti-hysteresis paradigm while enjoying a healthy stream of improvements pushed out by an active group of contributors.