Linux

Preface: I have been daily driving Fedora Atomic for the last couple of years and have also used a bit of Aeon and NixOS.

My opinion is that while atomic/immutable desktops are overall a good idea, they are marred by poor planning, a refusal to fix existing tools, and some cope.

There are way too many package managers and waste in this space. I think flatpak is a large cause of all this friction due to fact that it is always "sandboxed" and only focuses on GUI apps. The fact that it does not aim to support CLI apps (despite being able to handle them quite well!) means that we must have another tool, traditionally podman via toolbox/distrobox. The sandbox doesn't play well with certain subsets of apps, notably things like VSCode. At least Flatpak Next seems like it will address this part with its unsandboxed mode.

I also find it quite strange how some developers revel in wasted space and inefficiency. So many duplicated libraries between the host, flatpak, podman, and homebrew. With better planning, we could've had shared runtimes (such as Freedesktop) between the OS, flatpak, and whatever CLI package manager. Instead we have something like Fedora packages for the host OS and podman (not shared), flatpak using Freedesktop, and brew shipping their own stuff.

I also think that systemd sysexts are poorly designed, it's crazy they're being pushed. It's pretty much a package manager without dependency management. And for what upsides? It has no sandboxing, it's not portable between distros and distro versions, and must vendor dependencies to work around having no concept of dependencies. And we're already seeing fragmentation with Fedora and OpenSUSE working on their own frontends to manage sysexts.