I don't get it. What's the spirit of ubuntu? Is the underlying OS based on ubuntu instead of fedora?
What's the actual difference to fedora silverblue?
Half the answer to "why did you make your own linux?" is that it's awesome being able to revert back to the original fedora OS.
Because it follows a cloud-native approach, the end user has the flexibility to rebase back to the stock Fedora or any Universal Blue image. It's more like having someone install, configure, and maintain a polished Fedora setup for you.
And the other half doesn't provide any info either
Bluefin utilizes Fedora's OCI features to compose and build an OS image. This process is overseen by a well-structured community that is committed to automation and sustainability. The end result is akin to a configuration management tool like Ansible or Salt, but without the typical challenges associated with maintaining a custom distribution.
I checked the github page you link and can find no differences listed, just three bullet points that appear to have be written by a PR team. You say an Ubuntu Desktop experience melded with Fedora Silverblue. Don't you mean GNOME? Ubuntu isn't a desktop environment, it's a Linux distro. GNOME is the desktop environment. That seems like an embarassing blunder in your copy when you claim to be building a distro for "serious" developers.
If it weren't open source, I'd think this was a scam. Weird choice.
I think it boils down to: "because we can". "We can automatically build our own setup on github and that's what we do"
Installing tailscale, zsh, fish, vscode, extension manager, codecs, etc. out of the box isn't enough for a new distro. Especially because you break the signing of fedora by doing so.
This is the umpteenth time Iâve come across this project but I just donât get what theyâre going for here.
These are just custom images, are they not?
If I wanted Ubuntu Iâd use Ubuntu. If I wanted Fedora Iâd use Fedora. Maybe Iâm not getting it but I wonder how big of a population thatâs out there that wants some Ubuntu mixed in with a touch of Fedora and some buzzword salad thrown into the mix.
The base OS is a known unchanging set of bits. Squirt this datastream onto a storage volume and boot to it and you have a known-working system. Then you can futz around with all the self-contained packaged apps you want, and no worries about weird interactions fucking over your whole system.
Immutable, adjective: Unchanging over time or unable to be changed.
From the article: "We want a reliable desktop experience that runs everything, but weâre too lazy to maintain anything. So we automated the entire delivery pipeline in GitHub."
So, in other words... "Please don't ever update your system or everything will break"
It means the core OS is isolated from all the functionality in a way that allows you to modularly add all the functionality on top of it in a reproducible, robust way.
In theory. I haven't actually dug into any of them personally.
The system (the os files to be precise) is only mutable by package manager for specific tasks like updating. It can break certain workflows if the user wants to change system files, because they can't.
Bonuses from that are security and reproducibility. You can be sure that whatever package you have will look and behave exactly the same as on another device with the same OS. Malware won't be able to mess around with your OS so trivially as it does on mutable distros.