3 ms·

The main takeaway is that you can build your OS image like any OCI image, and you can boot these OCI images. I've been using immutable OS for over 2 years now

The main takeaway is that you can build your OS image like any OCI image, and you can boot these OCI images. I've been using immutable OS for over 2 years now and the main advantage to me is the ease of rollback. I even started using it professionally in my work with the main selling point being easier lifecycle management. Bootc is just an advancement of this, it's a next generation rpm-ostree. I could already boot my own OCI images before.

Joker_vD 2y ago
But, like, I can already boot from a read-only ISO-image, you know.
- INTPenis 2y ago
  If you prefer building ISO images over OCI images be my guest. Nobody is forcing you to use this new technology.
  - Joker_vD 2y ago
    Okay, now I am concerned because almost every time somebody tells me "nobody is forcing you to use this new technology", in 5 or so years (if this technology survives) I am starting to get forced to use this new technology because it's "mature enough, and is basically the new industry standard, what you are currently using is going to be deprecated in a couple of years". Apparently, it's because if someone wants to make their new way the only way, they have to tell people "of course we're not forcing anyone to do it this way" for the first several years, while keeping working on rooting the existing ways out. Anyway, I digress; what I actually would like to know is the benefits/downsides compared to e.g. immutable boot partitions, or whatever. After all, I don't generally build my own OS images, neither in .iso or in OCI-image format, I take and use off-the-shelf ones; but it generally involves dd-ing them onto the /dev/sdX at the very least. Using prepared .vdi's is another option.
    - INTPenis 2y ago
      I generally don't build my own OS images either, because it's such a hassle and adds such overhead to lifecycle management. But I believe that building OCI images makes the overhead much less. Mainly because the OS I want to use already have a base image I can use, so my build is only a few lines of customization. Your first paragraph is kinda funny to me because 10 years ago I felt like an outsider supporting systemd, and now it's everywhere.

Joker_vD 2y ago

But, like, I can already boot from a read-only ISO-image, you know.

INTPenis 2y ago
If you prefer building ISO images over OCI images be my guest. Nobody is forcing you to use this new technology.
- Joker_vD 2y ago
  Okay, now I am concerned because almost every time somebody tells me "nobody is forcing you to use this new technology", in 5 or so years (if this technology survives) I am starting to get forced to use this new technology because it's "mature enough, and is basically the new industry standard, what you are currently using is going to be deprecated in a couple of years". Apparently, it's because if someone wants to make their new way the only way, they have to tell people "of course we're not forcing anyone to do it this way" for the first several years, while keeping working on rooting the existing ways out. Anyway, I digress; what I actually would like to know is the benefits/downsides compared to e.g. immutable boot partitions, or whatever. After all, I don't generally build my own OS images, neither in .iso or in OCI-image format, I take and use off-the-shelf ones; but it generally involves dd-ing them onto the /dev/sdX at the very least. Using prepared .vdi's is another option.
  - INTPenis 2y ago
    I generally don't build my own OS images either, because it's such a hassle and adds such overhead to lifecycle management. But I believe that building OCI images makes the overhead much less. Mainly because the OS I want to use already have a base image I can use, so my build is only a few lines of customization. Your first paragraph is kinda funny to me because 10 years ago I felt like an outsider supporting systemd, and now it's everywhere.