ostree VS Flatcar

Ansible makes mutable changes to the OS, task by task.

Nix is immutable. A new change is made entirely new, and only after the build is successful, all packages are "symlinked" to the current system.

Fedora Silverblue is based on ostree [1]. It works similarly like git, but on your root tree. But it requires you to reboot the whole system for the changes to take effect. Since Nix is just symlinked packages, you don't need to reboot the system.

More detailed explanation here [2].

[1]: https://github.com/ostreedev/ostree

[2]: https://dataswamp.org/~solene/2023-07-12-intro-to-immutable-...

This one is for the ostree bug currently ongoing: https://github.com/ostreedev/ostree/issues/2900

This sounds related to the ostree bug.

I definitely agree that immutability offers considerable value in regards to improving security. But arguably it's insufficient to pull the win over mutable Fedora due to the losses caused by the inability to install the kernel-hardened package and the lack of UKI (Unified Kernel Image) support.

Other hardening guides mention a Unified Kernel Image as another measure to further improve security. Unfortunately, once more, this is (currently) not supported on Fedora Silverblue. I haven't seen it being done on openSUSE Aeon either. Though, once again, I'd love to be corrected!

The fedora crew is working on it through ostree though, so both fedora Silverblue and flatpak will be getting it (as well as true immutability) in the future: https://github.com/ostreedev/ostree/issues/2867

Aside from what has already been mentioned, Unified Kernel Image isn't supported (yet).

Sounds like you're looking for the CoreOS Linux successor FlatCar https://www.flatcar.org/

It's actually based on some ChromeOS update tools under the hood but is a regular Linux distro, just super minimal and designed to run containers.

I guess if you found my comment to be "comically hyperbolic" then replying to mine with a "comically reductionist" is fair game

So, anyway, I actually did dig up a concrete example of my experience with it, and I cannot link to the "Additional information" section but that is both why I think the thing was a mess and also why the Miroservices YT joke resonated: https://github.com/flatcar/Flatcar/issues/220

I think the CoreOS boot strategy was decomposed into a bunch of different executables, each responsible for doing their own little slice of the world. Maybe it drew inspiration from systemd in that way. But, just like my real life experience with microservices, it requires keeping a bunch of different projects and their upgrade paths in ones head, knowing their disparate config formats, and when one of them inevitably has a bug, understanding how to troubleshoot what went wrong with the system as a whole

And, again in trying to be reasonable in this discussion[1] I do also understand why one would opt for the data URI, given how much of the rest of Ignition loads content from URLs. I don't believe cloud-init has that remote content paradigm baked into in nearly the same way, so I hear you about that.

And yes, my belief is that JSON is a data-exchange format from _computer to computer_ and making people write them is a poor DX choice, IN MY OPINION. And, to reiterate, I know that CoreOS's perspective is that it is a computer-to-computer transmission from the transpiler-project-o-the-day to the Ignition binary, but that is predicated on one having access to that transpiler binary in all cases, which is quite different from the problem that cloud-init is trying to solve

fn-1: I'm sorry you got hurt by my "tire fire" outburst, and that evidently derailed this whole interaction, but it was my experience