this post was submitted on 29 Jul 2025
33 points (100.0% liked)

Linux

56931 readers
419 users here now

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Linux is a family of open source Unix-like operating systems based on the Linux kernel, an operating system kernel first released on September 17, 1991 by Linus Torvalds. Linux is typically packaged in a Linux distribution (or distro for short).

Distributions include the Linux kernel and supporting system software and libraries, many of which are provided by the GNU Project. Many Linux distributions use the word "Linux" in their name, but the Free Software Foundation uses the name GNU/Linux to emphasize the importance of GNU software, causing some controversy.

Rules

Related Communities

Community icon by Alpár-Etele Méder, licensed under CC BY 3.0

founded 6 years ago
MODERATORS
nooter692@lemmy.ml
AgreeableLandscape@lemmy.ml
MarcellusDrum@lemmy.ml
cypherpunks@lemmy.ml
cyclohexane@lemmy.ml
d3Xt3r@lemmy.nz
33
Why do atomic distros not contain good backup tooling by default? (lemmy.ml)
submitted 5 days ago by OhVenus_Baby@lemmy.ml to c/linux@lemmy.ml
17 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

I have tested a lot of atomic and traditional distributions lately. Tons of desktop environments strictly for fun and branching out. Having a 1 2 3 backup strategy and not just having it in place, but being able to restore your backup in a timely manner to keep continuity is paramount. You can list infinite reasons why.

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

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

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] pyssla@quokk.au -1 points 5 days ago (3 children)

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?

[–] lukecooperatus@lemmy.ml 9 points 4 days ago (2 children)

Based on their post history, I strongly suspect the OP has English as a non-primary language. They are doing fine, their posts are perfectly understandable. There's no value in harassing them about that.

[–] pyssla@quokk.au 1 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago) (1 children)

Based on their post history, I strongly suspect the OP has English as a non-primary language.

While I believe your intent and attempt is noble, in OP's comment history we find their admittance to being American.

Furthermore, I'd argue their history actually suggests that they're very much capable of writing perfectly sound English. In fact, this isn't my first interaction with OP. So I know they can do better. But, for whatever reason, they haven't demonstrably shown the same diligence when writing up this particular post.

They are doing fine, their posts are perfectly understandable.

The bold part is probably directly targeting the "proofreading your writings before posting them"-part of my original comment. And I'll admit that I should have done a better job at conveying that this doesn't intend to allude to a structural problem. So, to be clear, it was meant as general advice after being bothered by (only) this post.

Uno Reverse
Outwardly suspecting ESL for native speakers ain't nice either, but I digress...

[–] lukecooperatus@lemmy.ml 1 points 3 days ago

There are plenty of Americans who don't speak English as a primary language, but you might be correct that they are simply not being diligent with their proofreading.

Either way, they're perfectly understandable IMO, but it's also valid to be frustrated with someone writing differently. I still don't think it's constructive to chastise them for it.