pyssla

That can be a double-edged sword, especially if the distro has been around a long time. What the user finds can be out of date and now just plain wrong. Ubuntu definitely suffers with this.

Excellent point! Thank you for mentioning this! I feel this is often overlooked for reasons I don't understand. Thankfully, we can teach (new) users how they can navigate around this: e.g. by mentioning the version of the distro within the search query OR by simply being wary of old(er) info.

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.

OP is still a very new Linux user (if at all) that hammers on stability in every one of their posts. My comment was written with that in mind. But, even in its current version, it isn't absolute and leaves room for nuance/exceptions by using terms like "(almost)" etc.

Veteran users with awareness of the Linux landscape are somewhat able to discern the upcoming serious projects with a future from the to-be abandonware. FWIW, I've championed distros like Bazzite (and its uBlue siblings), CachyOS, Nobara, PikaOS and secureblue far before they had any serious recognition (if at all). So I'm definitely with you that promising projects deserve adoption, support and more.

And let's be honest, if a distro is a one man or small team project, mass adoption is no guarantee of longevity.

Agreed. I believe the "somewhat" I used alludes to that. One might argue that the concept of absolute guarantee doesn't exist. Even with Arch and Debian*; though I'd argue they come closest IMO. Nevertheless, there are definitely gradations between Arch/Debian and a student-owned hobby project that was created just today.

Mass adoption is a relatively easy metric to gauge. And (often) comes with tons of support/discussion across the internet that will prove to be useful for the new user.

Please feel free to provide other metrics that OP or others might appeal to.

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.

during the process I discovered that their kernel parameters were being reset with every kernel update

That's pretty horrid. They ought to have fixed that since. Right?

Suse

Tumbleweed? Slowroll? Leap? Aeon? Kalpa? Which one?

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.

Makes sense. Thanks for enlightening your stance. FWIW, it has definitely been better since. But of course; however good it may have become right now, it does not take away your experience. Thankfully, you found your refuge in Arch 😜.

Alright, but you seem to be a (relatively) early adapter then. Do you still use it? Or have you pivoted since?

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?

Thanks for clarifying!

One of the breakages was caused by an expired signature or something from Universal Blue, which hit all users. I'm surprised that one doesn't get talked about more.

Yeah, this was a big one. Though, I have to give them credit for how they handled the situation. I believe a lot of other projects got a lot to learn from them in that aspect.

One of them was caused by Bazzite changing how Steam itself is handled and not transitioning my system over properly.

Was this the transition from the (so-called) bazzite-arch distrobox to layering Steam into the image?

Was this caused by layering?