thanks, that’s comprehensive

Thanks fam for the appreciation!

I recommend it at least :-)

I totally get it and I actually appreciate your efforts. Which shouldn’t be surprising as I favor anything ‘atomic’ over the traditional model. Heck, were it not for Fedora Atomic, I would probably have daily-driven openSUSE Aeon instead.

Uhmm…, my apologies for sidestepping to a topic I would rather not… But here goes nothing…

Perhaps you might have noticed the discussion that has been going on elsewhere in this thread😅. And thus…, you might have become aware that an LLM was used (by me) for wording/phrasing/punctuation the earlier ‘info-dump’. Note that the content is still mine. I just wasn’t able to commit to put out a decent writing myself. Instead, I speech-to-texted my input. Asked the LLM to make it legible. After which we had a bit of back-and-forth until we arrived at the final result.

Anyhow, now that you’re aware of the context, I would like to ask you the following: What would you have preferred?

• (Either) That I didn’t do any of that and thus not comment at all.
• (Or, rather) Our current situation in which I did whatever I did.

Would you want a piece of good faith, sincere advice?

Sure, fam. Hit me.

If not I can drop things.

Though, this confuses me… *confused* 🤔 Would you only drop them if I didn’t want it? For now, I’ll assume that’s just a typo (or something/whatsoever).

Strictly speaking, for my posts^[1] (i.e. my comments aren’t included into the conversation yet), I do heavily employ an LLM as a writing assistant. But the process those undergo is very different from the comment you see above; it takes a lot of time, effort and many revisions until I land on something I like.

As for my comments, it depends: if it’s longer, I employ it to help with shortening while retaining the content I meant to convey. Or, to help with wording/phrasing specific troublesome passages that either don’t flow well or if I’m unsure if idioms (and whatnot) have been used correctly.

While I don’t like to bring it up, some people -naturally- have the tendency to write up texts that are (somehow) reminiscent to what we’d expect from an AI. FWIW, I have many times been accused of this while the text was all just me…

Finally, to directly address the comment found above: No; I don’t think I can recall any other comment that was as carelessly composed as that one. And to directly answer your following question:

Do you always have ideas in the middle of the night and want to post them only to have an RSI flare up and no laptop nearby and decide to use ChatGPT to write your posts?

Nope. I can’t recall the last time -prior to the one above- in which I did something similar. And, again, content-wise, it is me. The LLM mostly just made it legible.

In this case, I woke up in the middle of the night. I couldn’t sleep. Saw this and wanted to answer somehow. Went to use speech to text for a first draft, you may find it below. As I’ve got pains related to RSI, however, I couldn’t be bothered to make it all slick and crisp myself on a phone. My laptop + split-keyboard setup was tucked in my bag. So, at that moment, I asked an LLM -unsure at the moment if it was trained by my own data to replicate my style of writing- to perform the ‘act’. After some back and forth, we got to the final result. Content-wise, I’d say, it’s all just me. The LLM only did wording/phrasing/formatting etc.

(The original draft from speech to text:)

Due to the order of how events have happened, i.e. the fact that Fedora Atomic matured earlier, simply by virtue of being earlier into development, and also because the idea to make a desktop out of it wasn’t just an idea that was tagged along later, but an important thing a lot earlier into its development These are definitely key reasons for why the adoption of Fedora Atomic has been a lot better than OpenSUSE micro OSes And I haven’t even mentioned the fact that a fan project like Universal Blue has had for the adoption of the ladder Heck, it’s easy to sum up in retrospect, simply because the data is there, that Universal Blue has single-handedly, maybe tripled or quadrupled the userbase of Fedora Atomic, hence all of the above has helped Fedora Atomic’s adoption a great lot Of course, Fedora is, for some reason, more popular than OpenSUSE, while they are mostly just different continental ideas, or distros, rather of the same idea, or close enough Regardless, as to your question regarding OpenSUSE micro OS, I think that with the way they’ve set it up It is relatively mild, at least at this point in time, to managed-ness

and abiding to the rules of congruent system management which means that if someone likes what Federal Atomic does in this regard as it is, at least in this point in time, by far the most popular of the Atomic branch of together with NixOS they often switch between these i.e. if NixOS is just too hardcore or its language is just a little bit obtuse for what they want out of the system then its easy for them to just simply adopt Federal Atomic instead or if they like Federal Atomic, what it is, but want to increase the level of managedness and going full declarative, then they can go for NixOS instead but having started from either of these, the unique selling point for OpenSUSE microOS Desktop is simply not there yet, or at least not as pronounced as it should be as for what I think, OpenSUSE microOS Desktop seems like a very logical step up from OpenSUSE Tomb Raid, which is probably how they envision the project at least if we would ask Richard Brown of course time will tell if the one will go over into the other or vice versa regardless, it is more interesting, in my opinion, as an evolution of the traditional model that adopts the most minimal of what atomicity and transaction updates has taught us

Rather than being a new paradigm in its entirety that tries to do or be as radically different as either Fedora Atomic or NixOS tries to be.

Totally get why you’d ask if you’re the only one on openSUSE MicroOS, especially with all the buzz around Fedora Atomic. Let’s explore what the latter has going for it that have helped their adoption race ahead:

1. Head Start & Delivering Desktop Variety: Fedora Atomic desktops’ efforts simply got rolling earlier. Importantly, they also managed to deliver a solid KDE Plasma option (Kinoite) alongside their GNOME flagship (Silverblue) in a reasonable timeframe. For instance, the ideas for Fedora Atomic started around April 2014, and Kinoite hit beta by November 2021. Now, consider openSUSE: their work in this immutable space (with some roots in Project Kubic around May 2017) is still, as of May 2025, working towards a beta release for Kalpa (the KDE version). This extended wait for a polished KDE experience – a desktop environment hugely popular within the openSUSE community and beyond – undoubtedly has implications for overall adoption and even the perceived momentum of MicroOS as a desktop project. When a major DE option, especially one with KDE’s broad appeal, is lagging, it can slow things down.

2. The uBlue Phenomenon: Can’t stress this enough – community projects like uBlue (and its offshoots) have been an enormous catalyst. They make Fedora Atomic super accessible with pre-configured images including NVIDIA drivers, codecs, and common tools. They’ve likely single-handedly tripled or quadrupled the user base for Fedora Atomic by just making them work out of the box for more people.

3. Fedora’s Broader Reach: Generally, Fedora just has a larger overall user base than openSUSE. While both are fantastic, top-tier distros, Fedora’s wider existing audience naturally gives its specialized spins, like Fedora Atomic, a larger initial pool of potential users to draw from.

So, what’s the deal with openSUSE MicroOS (or Aeon/Kalpa for desktop)?

Right now, its approach to being “managed” or declarative feels a bit milder. When people dive into immutable/declarative systems, they often see a spectrum:

• Fedora Atomic: A great middle-ground. Solid immutability, familiar tools, and not an overwhelming learning curve.
• NixOS: The deep end – full declarative power, but its language can be a beast.

People often move between these. If NixOS is too much, Fedora Atomic becomes a common landing spot. If they love what Fedora Atomic offers but crave even more control, they might look to NixOS. For someone already in this mindset, openSUSE MicroOS’s unique draw isn’t as sharply defined yet. And let’s be real, for many long-time openSUSE aficionados, the fact that YaST – arguably a killer feature and a huge USP for the traditional distro – isn’t really part of the Aeon/Kalpa experience (or MicroOS generally in the same way) definitely stings a bit. It feels like a missed opportunity when such a cornerstone tool doesn’t quite make the jump to the new paradigm.

Where I think openSUSE MicroOS Desktop is compelling is as a super logical next step for openSUSE Tumbleweed users. It’s less about being an entirely new, radical thing like NixOS (or even Fedora Atomic in some ways). It’s more like it takes the best bits from atomicity and transactional updates (think easy rollbacks with transactional-update and a read-only root) and blends them into the fantastic Tumbleweed foundation.

So, it’s an evolution of a trusted model, beefing it up, rather than a completely different animal. This is probably the openSUSE team’s vision. Time will tell how it fully distinguishes itself, but it’s a smart way to get modern robustness without throwing out all the familiar openSUSE goodness.

Hope that lands better! It’s definitely a space changing fast.

Perhaps it was just placebo, but my system always felt snappier (even if momentarily) right after a reset. As such, it would slowly but surely reach a proverbial boiling point where starting fresh was the only thing that truly salvaged it for me. So yeah, while not exactly easy, it felt so gratifying that I couldn’t do anything but.

I had never heard of the impermanence module, that seems really cool !

It’s pretty great, isn’t it? And honestly, hearing folks get excited about it definitely nudges me closer to finally diving in this summer. Wish me luck!

Thanks for clarifying.

The example sentence could also be something like “I would like to notify everyone that I’m aware of this issue and I intend to start tackling it from <insert date> onwards. Allow me to explain the status quo for … (etc. etc.).”. Or whatever sentence you like. The point is not what the exact message is, but an alternative to the absolute radio silence we’ve met.

As for them working on it or not. Clearly, they haven’t worked on it until now. But I don’t understand what was so crucial in the last 8 releases that they couldn’t address this issue instead. Especially, in the aftermath of the XZ utils backdoor. But that’s not the issue I was trying to address with my previous comment. The issue is radio silence. It doesn’t have to set off alarm bells for themselves in order to acknowledge (timely) the concern a chunk of its user base experiences.

If with “it” you refer to Ventoy, then I’d like to inform you that they’ve been doing a good job at maintaining it. They’ve even had multiple releases^[1] since the (original) issue was opened.

Aight, gotcha. That whole business with “out of tree kernel modules” and having to “use toolbox to force out of tree software to function” definitely sounds like a pain, especially for the kind of user OP was talking about. I can see why those would be headaches in that specific context.

It’s just, when I first read that original line about atomic distros making “…many things a person may eventually want to do with their machine a lot more complicated,” my brain kinda went, ‘Whoa, many things? Like, for anybody who might want to dig in a bit more eventually, beyond OP’s initial scenario?’

So, hearing about the driver stuff and the app install workarounds… yeah, those are definitely a couple of solid examples that start to flesh out what ‘many things’ could mean, even in that wider sense. Helping me connect some dots, for sure. Still kinda leaves you wondering what else is on the ‘many things’ menu, eh? :P

That being said, my other frustration was a lack of easily discoverable in-depth documentation.

That’s indeed a big concern. Thanks for mentioning that.

FWIW, uBlue’s images (which are just opinionated takes on Fedora Atomic) have better documentation, but those have only more recently been a thing.

Alright. So…, that’s one thing. Got more where those came from? I’m just asking because you said “… many things …” previously.

Edit: Just to be clear, I acknowledge that’s a big thing (at least for some). So I’m not trying to underplay it or anything*. And I agree that by itself, it may constitute sufficient of a reason for some to rightfully not consider these distros.

Sorry, I think there’s a misunderstanding.

First of all, thank you for clarifying what you meant. I’m not native, so I haven’t seen “rummage” being used within that context. And while a LLM did (at least an attempt to) provide its meaning, it didn’t make sense… by which we have arrived at the misunderstanding.

Since it is read-only

Yes, for Fedora Atomic, (most of) /usr is read-only. Perhaps this also applies to some other folders of /, however this doesn’t apply to /etc as it’s not read-only; therefore, you can actually change its content. At best, you’d have to go sudo (or fill the credentials through polkit’s window); but that’s all. This part isn’t different from how it’s over on (traditional) Fedora. Compared to its non-Atomic variant, however, we do find the following changes regarding /etc:

• The changes you apply to /etc are being kept track of. You can access these through ostree admin config-diff.
• And, related to the previous, a pristine copy of /etc is kept at /usr/etc. And, that one, is actually read-only.

So…, the following step, i.e.

you always have to copy a config file into your home/user/.config/… before you can edit it.

Isn’t required or anything. Heck, it’s the first time (after three years of Fedora Atomic) that I’ve seen something like that being mentioned within this context.

rummaging around in /etc felt really limiting.

Sorry, I didn’t get this. Could you elaborate?

their limitations make many things a person may eventually want to do with their machine a lot more complicated.

Like what?

Would anyone that installed their current system using ventoy be at risk?

In absolute sense; we don’t know for sure. It’s possible to interpret this^[1] in widely different ways:

• Just the unfortunate occurrence of a set of uneventful events from an innocent party that tries to make up.
• (OR) A facade (from a malignant/malicious party) in order to keep the communities’ trust so that people continue to get caught in the web.
• (AND) Anything in between*

Should I reinstall?

You should make up your own mind on that. The last time I installed an OS, I had become aware of this concern (i.e. the blobs). At that time, trusting it for what it was, would go against the threat model I’ve set for myself. And, consequently, if I had any (other) systems that were installed with it, then I would have proceeded to reinstall. But I’m not you, nor are you me… So, at the end of day, if you had something that resembled a threat model, then you would have used that to answer this question for yourself. As you don’t seem to have one, making one just for this seems overkill. However, you could (re)assess how safe your system is in its current state and act accordingly. (Just to name a couple of examples:)

• Do you just randomly run scripts that you’ve found on GitHub? Well, then this ventoy situation shouldn’t be very concerning.
• Do you deliberately refuse to install the unverified software on Flathub and only^[2] stick to its verified offering? Then, you should seriously consider reinstalling.

Assuming you’re finally done with your edits^[1] (the transition from 0 -> 1 likes is the only thing I’m going off of), I think your comment is overall just a work of art; attempting to add anything on/to it feels like tarnishing it. Though, a major correction is due: The “the return of Ventoy’s maintainer”-remark was meant to convey their return to the issue. I didn’t want to imply that they left the project and returned. Though I totally understand the confusion; my apologies*. Furthermore, my striped remark was actually somewhat meant as a joke - I hoped that blatantly stating “The conspiracy theorist inside of me would like to think” was enough of a hint for that - but I totally get where the misunderstanding is coming from.

Anyhow, if anything, I hope that we’ll be met with a solution that’s compliant with your suggested solution (or better if possible). Nonetheless, I would like to voice my appreciation for this lovely interaction! Thank you!

I was trying to stir a discussion/conversation: How much can we tolerate from our beloved (F(L))OSS developers? Can they get away with anything as long as they return with some promise?f

The fact remains though: why did they literally go radio silence on this issue for over a year? Like, a simple, “I would like to notify everyone that I’m working on this.” would have been sufficient. Was that too much to ask?

To me, what matters is what guarantees they offer and/or plan to offer,

Let’s indeed hope that they back it up with action. Better late than never. Though, I wonder what “guarantee” you’re referring to.

FWIW, slightly over a month ago, someone started working on a solution. The conspiracy theorist inside of me would like to think this is related to the return of Ventoy’s maintainer. But I digress…

I’ll try to keep it brief/concise/short. Apologies if this makes me come across as abrasive in the process.

If I’d attempt to distill the point(s) in your reply, I’d come to:

• You want to uphold the respect and good will (F(L))OSS developers absolutely deserve for doing the thankless work and effort they put. I’m with you on this. The only difference could be that I’m actively trying to uphold a standard^[1] for this and applying that (subjective) standard here. That’s also why I asked you questions^[2] to understand your standard in hopes of coming to a mutual understanding or at least a better understanding of each other.
• Insinuating that I might have some anti-Chinese bias (or something). Honestly, I didn’t want to go over this as I deliberately skipped a lot of other points (like implying that enterprise level code is somehow better, ignoring the fact that binary blobs go completely against the spirit of (F(L))OSS, ignoring that Ventoy -however small of a project you may view it- has a unique position for malicious use or somehow implying that big corpo software is more interesting to be targeted) that I didn’t deem worth discussing here. I hope you understand why I couldn’t ignore this (possible) ‘allegation’. I’ll keep it brief, though: No, it being supposedly by a person that knows Chinese doesn’t even remotely affect my judgement and/or evaluation. I find it distasteful/appalling that that’s even considered. But I thank you for laying your cards in this respect as this will help to move on to the actual meat of the conversation.