Look, I've only been a Linux user for a couple of years, but if there's one thing I've learned, it's that we're not afraid to tinker. Most of us came from Windows or macOS at some point, ditching the mainstream for better control, privacy, or just to escape the corporate BS. We're the people who choose the harder path when we think it's worth it.
Which is why I find it so damn interesting that atomic distros haven't caught on more. The landscape is incredibly diverse now - from gaming-focused Bazzite to the purely functional philosophy of Guix System. These distros couldn't be more different in their approaches, but they all share this core atomic DNA.
These systems offer some seriously compelling stuff - updates that either work 100% or roll back automatically, no more "oops I bricked my system" moments, better security through immutability, and way fewer update headaches.
So what gives? Why aren't more of us jumping on board? From my conversations and personal experience, I think it boils down to a few things:
Our current setups already work fine. Let's be honest - when you've spent years perfecting your Arch or Debian setup, the thought of learning a whole new paradigm feels exhausting. Why fix what isn't broken, right?
The learning curve seems steep. Yes, you can do pretty much everything on atomic distros that you can on traditional ones, but the how is different. Instead of apt install whatever and editing config files directly, you're suddenly dealing with containers, layering, or declarative configs. It's not necessarily harder, just... different.
The docs can be sparse. Traditional distros have decades of guides, forum posts, and StackExchange answers. Atomic systems? Not nearly as much. When something breaks at 2am, knowing there's a million Google results for your error message is comforting.
I've been thinking about this because Linux has overcome similar hurdles before. Remember when gaming on Linux was basically impossible? Now we have the Steam Deck running an immutable SteamOS (of all things!) and my non-Linux friends are buying them without even realizing they're using Linux. It just works.
So I'm genuinely curious - what's keeping YOU from switching to an atomic distro? Is it specific software you need? Concerns about customization? Just can't be bothered to learn new tricks?
Your answers might actually help developers focus on the right pain points. The atomic approach makes so much sense on paper that I'm convinced it's the future - we just need to figure out what's stopping people from making the jump today.
So what would it actually take to get you to switch? I'm all ears.
Without trying to be exhaustive:
Exactly.
Noted.
Your queries on which specific games work and don't work should be answered between the databases of ProtonDB, WineHQ, Lutris and Are We Anti-Cheat Yet?. Note, however, that these are not necessarily exhaustive (even if put together); e.g. after visiting the aforementioned websites, you might think that Roblox can't be played on Linux. But it's simply one of the many games that exist in the compatibility blind spots between these databases; as the excellent Sober isn't accounted for.
There will definitely be a learning curve to be had. Though, AFAIK, there's nothing that outright prevents you beyond an initial (and potential) knowledge gap.
Wine is your best friend in these cases. Or, an alternative. Note that -again- compatibility blind spots in these databases continue to exist; like this significant one.
Again, Wine comes to the rescue.
This depends entirely on the so-called Linux distribution you end up installing. Some opt to do updates automatically (perhaps in the background even), while others simply prompt the user whenever updates are available. Yet others expect the user to do them manually. What are your preferences in this regard?
This is somewhat of a controversial topic thanks to articles like this one. Note that while the article continues to be shared and thus remains 'popular', the fact of the matter is that at least some parts of it have become outdated since. Refer to this (more recent) article as an addendum. The gist would be that Linux might be secure enough for your intents and purposes. But this depends entirely on what you intend to use it for. Downloading and executing random files from the dark web is probs a bit much and not something any OS would appreciate. But playing your games through Steam and surfing the internet should be fine unless you're somehow targeted by a resourceful adversary. If you didn't worry too much about this on Windows and thus went with the default settings -so no hardening whatsoever-, then popular distros like Fedora should be more than fine for your use case. However, if you require more than that, then you may find solace in the fact that projects like Kicksecure and secureblue do exist. (There's also Qubes OS, but I'll assume that's too hardcore.)
In most cases, yeah. Historically, Nvidia used to be a pita. And, frankly, continues to be for some peeps. But it has improved significantly over the last couple of years.
Any bad software (irrespective of platform) can potentially damage hardware. Linux is no different in this regard. Though you shouldn't have to worry about this unless you intend do some janky stuff.
As gaming seems high on your list, consider Bazzite.