I look after a small number of neighbours machines, either 22.04 or 24.04 and am intrigued by the immutable/Core concept - would this be of benefit to me/neighbours? All of these machines are very basic in that all the users use email (Thunderbird) and a browser for internet. As Ubuntu Core Desktop is some way off I’ve been looking at Fedora 43 Silverblue. Going from a release like Fedora 42 to 43 there appears to be similar discussions as going from ubuntu 22.04 to 24.04 - clean install or in place upgrade. I’ve configured my neighbours machines such that when they shutdown the machine backups their personal data and updates the system (sudo update and sudo upgrade). In reality I hardly ever touch my neighbours machines (apart from the occasional check). So it has me wondering about this whole immutable thing. Originally I though immutable would take the need away of having to manually upgrade from something like 22.04 to 24.04 - but this appears not to be the actual case (i.e. automatic with absolutely no user interaction). Yes, in Fedora land the ability to roll back to a previous release/image in case of a breakage is a good thing. And there are a few other advantages with an immutable Desktop. But in my ubuntu experience, with what are basic machines in terms of how the users use them, is going immutable really worth it?
In your specific use case, I’d say immutable desktops are interesting, but not strictly necessary.
For machines that are used almost exclusively for a browser and email, and that you already keep updated regularly with unattended or scripted updates, the traditional Ubuntu LTS model is already very close to “low-maintenance”. The fact that you rarely need to touch those systems is actually evidence that your current setup works well.
Immutable systems (like Silverblue-style systems) mainly shine in a few scenarios:
- When users tend to break their systems by installing random software.
- When rollback after a bad update is a real, frequent concern.
- When you want a very strong separation between the base OS and applications.
However, they do not remove the need for major version transitions. You still have to consciously move from one image/release to another, even if the process is safer and more reversible. So your original expectation—that immutable would make release upgrades fully automatic with zero thought—unfortunately isn’t how it works today.
In contrast, Ubuntu LTS → LTS upgrades every two years are:
- Well tested
- Predictable
- Already very reliable for “basic usage” machines like the ones you describe
Given that:
- Your users are not power users
- You already automate updates and backups
- You value stability over experimentation
I don’t think going immutable gives you a huge practical benefit right now. It’s more of a philosophical and architectural shift than a clear win for simple desktop usage.
That said, experimenting with an immutable desktop on one machine is still a good learning exercise. It helps you understand where the ecosystem is heading. But for neighbours who just want their computer to “work”, a standard Ubuntu LTS remains a perfectly valid—and arguably simpler—choice.
In short: immutable desktops are promising, but for your scenario they’re more interesting than necessary.
To add to the previous comment, immutable certainly doesn’t hurt provided that the aforementioned caveats are taken care of.
As you and your neighbours are accustomed to Ubuntu, I wouldn’t change to Fedora, as that would mean learning a new interface (to some degree, at any rate), plus potential hiccups due to your own need to learn a new system. Fedora isn’t Ubuntu.
Ubuntu Core is currently only for IoT devices. Ubuntu Core Desktop is in development. The beta version was originally due by the end of this year, and unfortunately it’s significantly delayed. I have no idea when it will come out.
When Ubuntu Core Desktop finally comes out and is stable, I’ll definitely experiment with it. I suspect that it would be a great idea for the “average” user (not so much for the power user), but because it is 100% snap (even the Linux kernel), it might need a modern machine to cope. (Packaged apps such as snap and flatpak are a bit slower than native, not noticeably so on a new machine, but on an old machine they can be laggy.)
In other words, stick to what you already have for now.
Last summer I tried a couple of immutable distros and didn’t really feel comfortable with them. I should probably give Aeon a try. However, I am currently very satisfied with Ubuntu + Snap.
Thank you - it’s always encouraging when your thoughts are supported by more experienced/knowledgable users. I find that this is the power of forums like this one; as well as ploughing through supporting/conflicting advice/views on the web/AI, comments/advice on this site re ubuntu/linux is about as real/true as you can get.
I can see one benefit for having an immutable operating system. That of a more secure form of online banking and shopping. At least I hope it will be more secure.
Back in October 2014 I experimented with something called Ubuntu Desktop Next. I know it had Unity 8. Which was a hybrid desktop/phone user interface. I also think it was an immutable operating system. If I remember correctly it used a similar structure that that used by Fedora Silver Blue. Development did not progress beyond 14.10 code.
Since then Canonical has developed Ubuntu Core as an immutable operating system. Ubuntu Core Desktop is built on Ubuntu Core. I had an installation of it when it was built on Ubuntu Core 22 code. Development has since moved on to Ubuntu Core 24 code and Ubuntu Core 26 code. I have yet to get a working install of Ubuntu Core Desktop on Core 24 or Core 26 code. And there have not been any daily builds since 26 January 2026.
I can tell you this: The operating system is made up of components that are snap packages. After installation the system reboots and then the system is set up with all those snap packages being mounted. At some point user information is added. After another reboot we should arrive at a login screen.
I doubt very much if anything such as scripts can be added to the operating system. The only partition that will be writeable by the user will the ubuntu-data partition.
The last time I installed Ubuntu Core Desktop it took up the whole disk. At the moment it does not install into partitions. I do not think that we will ever be able to dual boot with Ubuntu Core Desktop.
Regards
In general, immutable distros do not provide major benefits to security. It makes it harder to modify the base operating systems, but there’s plenty of attack vectors that do not require root or modifying OS files.
A basic example is a script in your home can read and write anything you as a user have access to. That could mean deleting your files, exfiltrating your files, etc.
Snap helps a bit in this regard, but plenty of snaps still have access to your home folder (Documents, Pictures, Downloads, etc). However, it does prevent attacks like editing your .bashrc to inject malicious commands.
Theoretically snap could block user access to your ~/snap folder and make it so only the snap is allowed to read its own subdirectory there, but I do not believe that’s the case in CoreOS. This would help protect against running malicious scripts since they would be unable to access some user data, like Firefox data.