Seriously? Number 1-4 are just outright stupid claims, or misguided explanations at best. I especially laughed at the "system being in read-only mode" stupidity. WTF do you think EVERY SINGLE Unix-like system has configured, world writable everything?
Just what a stupid thing to claim:
- some sort of recognizable difference for an immutable distro (it's not).
- just completely wrong with the facts
- shows the author has no concept of the core differences between why immutable is different.
The atomic updates but is also pretty stupid, since that's literally just a process difference, and unless you're running a stock base image (which almost nobody generally is), then you're not getting full atomic updates globally on your system, and certainly claiming they have no problems is dumb as hell. They then try and point out that NOT being able to update a single application is some sort of benefit, which, hey...maybe that's subjective, but it's outright just a dumb claim.
Lastly, there's a claim in there seems to sound something like it's normally a battlefield amongst running applications on a non-immutable system, and that somehow there is problematic interaction between programs which is, again, false and ignorant. I don't even need to deep dive on how misinformed this is, but THEN they take it a step deeper and do one of these idiotic things these uninformed "tech writers" like to do and give this old chestnut: "THANKS TO CONTAINERIZATION"...
HOLEEE SHIT. I DID NOT KNOW THAT CONTAINERZ WERE OTHERWISE NOT CAPABLE OF RUNNING ON OTHER SYSTEMS ZOMAGEE. It's almost an equally stupid claim as the security bit, and has absolutely nothing to do with immutable distros. Writing "because you're forced to use containers" doesn't ring like a feature, so of course they're going to phrase it the other way. The point is that it's not some feature of immutable distro, just a thing that exists everywhere. Has absolutely nothing to do with the feature set of what they're trying to write about.
Just dumb.