Settings live in user space. Software exist in containers like AppImage, Flatpak or Distrobox. If something need deep system integration, they can be layered on top of the system in the user layer. Immutable does NOT mean less control. Just exerting control over the system in a different, usually more systematic, automatic and deterministic way.
The main difference to your examples is that an “immutable OS” is in fact mutable, while none of your examples describe themselves with an adjective that is contradicting with their function/inner workings.
Flatpak is a pretty good name, because it makes software flat in the sense that it avoids having a (tall) dependency tree.
Also bottles has no IT related meaning, while immutable does.
“Immutable OS” is not a product name.
The immutable OS becomes mutable whenever a user wants to change anything on it.
Now imagine I keep describing my car as undrivable, because it only becomes drivable when somebody gets in and drives it. - You’d think that this is a completely deranged statement.
How could you install anything or change any setting if it “doesn’t change” ?
Settings live in user space. Software exist in containers like AppImage, Flatpak or Distrobox. If something need deep system integration, they can be layered on top of the system in the user layer. Immutable does NOT mean less control. Just exerting control over the system in a different, usually more systematic, automatic and deterministic way.
Ah yes, the immutable OS, except for all of the various mutable parts.
We should totally not call it anything less confusing.
It’s not confusing at all… How is this any more confusing than:
Flatpak - they’re not literally flat…
Snap - I’ve never seen or heard any evidence of something snapping by any definition of the word I’m aware of.
Dolphin - what the fuck is this, no sea life whatsoever!
Kate - this is a text editor, not a person.
Distrobox - not in an actual box.
etc.
The main difference to your examples is that an “immutable OS” is in fact mutable, while none of your examples describe themselves with an adjective that is contradicting with their function/inner workings.
Flatpak is a pretty good name, because it makes software flat in the sense that it avoids having a (tall) dependency tree.
I installed Bottles, but was disappointed when it didn’t actually have anything to do with bottles.
If you think every name of every product, etc., is going to be literal… you’re gonna have a tough time in life.
Bottles is a noun and not an adjective.
Also bottles has no IT related meaning, while immutable does.
“Immutable OS” is not a product name.
The immutable OS becomes mutable whenever a user wants to change anything on it.
Now imagine I keep describing my car as undrivable, because it only becomes drivable when somebody gets in and drives it. - You’d think that this is a completely deranged statement.