I have a very very positive picture for future of Linux in my mind.

For the entire history of Linux, it was basically an OS reserved for IT-guys.

But nowadays, I see some change coming.

I, for example, don't come from the IT space at all and use Linux casually, because I find it easier to use and more original than Windows (while not as locked down as MacOS), love the community, and much more.

But, there is always the hen-egg-dilemma.
Almost no casual users use it because it sometimes is a bit too techy (e.g. troubleshoot something with the terminal), and at the same time, nobody designs the OS in a way it appeals to normies, since only techies use it.

But, I, like many others, try to change that. I often suggest new features for better accessibility, and sometimes talk about it in RL to clear up some of the misconceptions. With success! :)

The cool thing is: you literally can't do anything wrong!

If you do a mistake, which honestly is hard to do, you just rollback and try again. You only loose 2 minutes.

The images are already pre-made. You just either

• Use the net-installer from uBlue, where you can select the image, or
• Go from the original SB (I had to do that, since the installer didn't work at the time due to my internet connection) and rebase.

The How-To is also very easy to follow, and that's coming from a dumb-ass like myself.

Try it, and if you have problems, ask me. I'm here :)

are files in home affected by an immutable distro?

No, there's a clear distinction between "your stuff" and "the OS' stuff", which is one reason I find immutables easier to work with, especially for beginners.
Pretty much everything you interact with (files, program data, configs, etc.) are in your personal folder.

On traditional ones, there's a weird mish mash and everything is cluttered.

Would you still recommend silverblue for nvidia?

Yes, but especially the uBlue Nvidia spin, where the driver is integrated and more guaranteed to work.
On "normal" SB you have to install that driver yourself.

To rebase to the uBlue Nvidia image(s), you just have to follow the easy guide for the net-installer or rebase to one of their images, which is also very easy.

I can't think of an arch base that does not require fiddling of some sort.

He didn't say that he wants something Arch-based.

You are kind of like the car person of computing

15 years ago, yes. But nowadays, Linux is super user friendly compared to those old days. IMO, even more than Windows! My mum for example uses Mint and does agree with that.

Especially the new coming immutable distros like VanillaOS or Silverblue are really easy to use for casual users imo.

My recommendation is Fedora Silverblue, or to be specific, uBlue. SB is already great, but uBlue ships with some better QOL-defaults. It's not a fork of SB tho, it's just a project for custom images.
You can rebase anytime you want to a SteamOS-clone, KDE spin, and so on, with one command and without any traces.

Why? Here are my reasons for you:

stay out of my way (just work), ex: i dont get any notifications i dont want from the system itself and all i need to do is type 3 letters to initiate an update

uBlue is even less.
It updates automatically in the background and creates the new (updated) image for you.
BUT, not similar to Windows, where the OS just decides to shut off your PC randomly.

You can still keep using your PC and don't notice the staged updates at all.
And when you switch on your device the next time, like once a week or so, you automatically use the new image.

requires little ram to actually use (not really needed due to hardware but simply to reduce the pcs noise as much as possible, bonus points if programs generally do the same thing on it)

That's the same on every distro, doesn't matter. SB is very lean though imo, though not as much as Debian or Arch of course, but therefore very comfortable.
Also:

1. Unused RAM is wasted RAM. As long as it doesn't bottleneck you, why care?
2. This is why
3. If you want to keep your PC silent, change the energy profile or install some fan control software/ more silent fans (Noctua f.e.)

Doesnt require too much fiddling (endevouros never needs this generally, when installing something it usually installs everything you need for things to work, i prefer GUIs usually but if its deadsimple commands like yay its fine as well)

Silverblue "just works" OOTB. It is very user friendly imo and I basically never open the terminal, only, when I have to install something through Distrobox, which isn't often. But 99% is available as Flatpak in the Software Center.

I game and stream so both would need to be doable as easy as possible (i use obs, when it comes to games i usually do emulation and try to avoid proton)

Again, doesn't matter which distro. Almost everything is available as Flatpak.

Why Silverblue?

• As streamer, you want something to always work reliably. An immutable distro ensures that by atomic updates and perfect reproducibility (less bugs and more secure)
• Easy to use (if you forget how traditional distros work)
• Huge software access: you work with containers all the time, and with Distrobox (pre-installed) you can access the AUR, Debian, and much much morenon the same distro! ^(works on other distros aswell...)
• Almost impossible to break
• Flexible: you can always rebase to another spin or variant with one command and without any trace
• And much more.

I would advice against Arch based distros like Garuda, Endeavor, and so on.

I don't see much reasons to use them and due to their nature, they might be not as reliable. It would suck if your install breaks before or while streaming... With SB, you can roll back to your old image in just seconds and everything works again, even if you fucked up.

Most stuff you mentioned works on every distro, you don't need Arch for that. If you like it's UI, then go for Kinoite (the SB KDE spin), or, better, uBlue KDE.

If you use the workflow of an immutable system on a traditional one, you have almost all the disadvantages of the first and pretty much no advantages of the second.

The "immutability" (you can still change stuff) is the wrong thing to look at.
I prefer the term "image based", that fits better. Everytime you update your image system for example, it gets "pulled" or compared to the original image.

On a traditional one, you have your original image you once downloaded, and that's it.
Over time, it will still change due to updates and stuff. An immutable is basically a "fresh install" every time.

Most immutables use layering, so you still pull the original image, but after that some stuff gets changed.
It is generally strongly discuraged to install stuff (like GIMP and so on) directly. It should only be the last option, like for drivers.

But even when you directly install, you don't use all the benefits. The OS is still rebuilt every time and package drift barely happens.

And, back to the beginning, the pros and cons.
It's like with PDFs. Yeah, it sucks that you can't edit them. But that's what they're built for. They can't be tampered with, but therefore they look the same on every device and you don't have to worry about fonts, formatting or symbols.

And on immutables it's the same: some stuff is a bit more different/ complicated for some, but at the same time, they're less buggy, more secure, offer instant rollbacks, can be customized and rolled out super quickly, and much more. Read my other comment for more information, including customization by building custom images :)

You can still tinker!

NixOS is pretty complicated, but in my eyes the next-gen Arch.

And Silverblue is still be able to be tinkered with.

See, on immutable systems, you don't change the system itself, but the next image.
Similar to PDFs: you shouldn't change the PDF, but the original document and then export the PDF again. PDFs aren't bad, but they aren't designed to be edited, and that's their pro.

And with Project uBlue you can create custom images how you want.
You like Hyprland? There's an image exactly with that! You see what I mean :)

You're correct. But, and here's the big but, the whole immutability-thing isn't something the user should be worried about at all.

On Android for example, the system is read-only too, and pretty much nobody cares too, because it was always designed this way and it doesn't inhibit functionality.

It is mainly a big pro for developers in how I see it. See, every installation creates some package drift. One dependency here, one extra program there, no problem.

But in sum, there will accumulate hundreds of "bloat"-packages over the years, which add many unknown vulnerabilities and bugs that are completely individual to your setup.
And then it will begin: a program crashes here, there's your black screen, and every dev on the issue report says " closed, can't replicate". And after an OS-reinstall, it works again.

And if you want to install KDE on Pop!OS for example, it is highly individual and there are still some packages you didn't see, and it will be very buggy. Some buttons that are misalligned, misconfigured drivers, and so on.
I tried changing the DE on my normal Fedora one time and even though I thought I did everything correct, I had to reinstall due to screen tearing/ flickering, many misconfigurations, and so on.

On Silverblue, it's a process of 5 minutes max, and then my setup will be the same as the one from thousand other people.

Yep, same. While I'm not a total noob, I also don't have that much experience. Just that much to confidentially break my system every time and not knowing why or how to fix it.

SB just makes rolling back way easier, or even prevents breaking my system at all.

And as a notorious DE-hopper, it is also very convenient.

I barely notice any drawbacks for me tbh

If you want to try Nix, go for it!
Feel free to update us all :).

When I said Silverblue, I actually meant "atomic Fedora variants", which include uBlue and Kinoite. You can always switch between those with one command and 2 minutes of download time :)

I wrote a comment above.
That one may interest you and explains why :)

I don't know what you mean with your comment?

The progress bar on Gnome-based distros like Fedora and Ubuntu was their offline install.
This increases the likelihood of a successful update without borking your system.
You can always deactivate that or update via terminal.

It has nothing to do with immutable OSs. Actually, most of them even update without you noticing, which is quite convenient imo!

Not true in my opinion.
You can still tweak the image to your liking, you just have to approach it differently.

One of the many things image based OSs offer is peace of mind.
It's just great to know my PC will work just as fine tomorrow as it did today, and I don't have to fix anything.

I see many people here wondering, why they should consider an immutable system.
As someone, who thought the same a few months ago, and now chose Silverblue, here are reasons why:

• Atomic updates: never worry about half applied installations anymore. Either your OS updates successfully, or it will just work like before.
• Less bugs and better security: every install is the same, so devs can fix one bug or exploit, recreatable on every system.
• Automatic updates (configurable): they get downloaded by the way, without you noticing. And if you reboot anyway, you boot into your updated OS. No waiting times. The system manages itself.
• Way harder to break
• Changes are easily undoable: if an update breaks anything, you can just select another image and reboot, without recovering anything.
• No junk accumulation over time, the OS is kept clean
• Clear distinction between "your" stuff and the OS
• You can "swap out" the base OS cleanly and keep your stuff. Want KDE? No need to reinstall, just paste one command and delete everything Gnome-related, and you are now on Kinoite.
• Flexibility: choose between dozens of different images, like one that replicates SteamOS or Ubuntu, has the MS Surface kernel build in, offers Hyprland, and so on...
• And much more!

My #1 reason is, that everything is worry free.

Those advantages above don't apply to "normal" OSs, even, if I keep everything in Distrobox and Flatpaks.

Immutable OSs aren't called "The future of Linux" without reason. They usually shouldn't impair anyone, and make the whole Linux ecosystem better in any aspect.

Tumbleweed isn't immutable

That's absolutely not true.
Immutable systems aren't just "normal systems you can't change", no, they're more.

They're image based. So, every OS is the same, giving you better reproducibility, resulting in less bugs, better security and a "fresh" OS after every update.
Your OS accumulates stuff over every update and by just using it over time, and having an image based OS is just better.

Immutability has so much more advantages than just keeping the host clean. It has some disadvantages, yes, but for most people out there, way more advantages!

I can't recommend Silverblue enough.

Thing is: on the "surface" it's not that much different than the "normal" Fedora and it's spins.

So, if you want something hugely different on the base, I'd recommend NixOS instead. Nix feels like "the new Arch" for me and is the tinkerer's dream. It appears to be very complicated too, so it should keep you "not bored" as you said.
I personally wouldn't use NixOS though, as I am just a "casual" user and don't want to over-complicate everything.

I personally am very happy with Silverblue, especially due to one reason: the ability to rebase to many many images.
As other commenters have stated, there's a project called uBlue.
It allows you to swap out the base OS (everything except "your stuff") with one command, so you can rebase to many different community spins and different desktops cleanly.

The uBlue base OS is just Vanilla SB with some QOL stuff added, like codecs and other stuff. It is really a "just works" distro, that manages itself and functions in the background without you noticing.

The other spins give you different DEs, preconfigured drivers, opinionated approaches to different DEs, a SteamOS clone, and so on...

Absolutely great, 10/10

I just use the default fish without any modifications.

To be fair, I don't use the terminal that often.

Even for my homeserver, I access most stuff (containers, updates, etc.) graphically with CasaOS (a web interface), and as a more "casual" PC user, I work with the tools given by my DE. I don't do much fancy stuff.

And when I really need the CLI, fish is alright for me. It's simple, has sane defaults, and feels (thanks to the automatically activated spell check and completion) very efficient for me.

Bash isn't bad, but feels a bit lackluster. Zsh may be better, but requires too much configuration for what it's worth for me.

I think saying "I'm a newcomer, recommend me a distro" will pretty much always result in everyone saying "Linux Mint",
and saying "I have quite a bit of experience, what's your recommendation?" will result in everyone recommending their own distro of choice.

But, to be honest, distro choice doesn't matter that much anymore. You can get every software package in form of Flatpaks, Nix and in Distrobox anyway.

For example, you can get the newest Gnome or Hyprland with the Arch Distrobox on your stale Debian base, or access the AUR on Tumbleweed. Doesn't matter.

So, what's my recommendation?

Fedora Silverblue (or the "normal" variant). Why?

The normal variants (Workstation and Spins)

• Very sanely configured, works out of the box
• Extremely wide spread, huge community
• Pretty much one of the default choices
• Reliable
• Good balance between stable and new

Silverblue

• The new cool kid on the block
• Immutable distro
• "Your" stuff is decoupled from the "OS stuff"
• Extremely reliable, you can't break it
• And if you break it, you can roll back with one single reboot in a few seconds
• Very flexible, especially with the uBlue project
• Auto updates without intervention (no prompt to reboot), changes get applied when you reboot into the newly created image
• Less buggy, since every OS install is the same
• Ideal for "just using" your PC and not worrying about anything

But yeah, as I said, there are many other good recommendations here in the comment section. I personally wouldn't use something arch based if you want something simple and low-maintainence, but even that is your choice.

There are pretty much no bad choices.

Actually, I switched to SB just a few months ago, and I'm really really happy with it!

The main advantage for me for SB is that I can always rebase to any other official immutable spin (KDE, Sway, Budgie) or inofficial (from uBlue) variant.

In this way, I can quickly swap out everything except my "own" stuff (personal files, installed apps) super easily without reinstalling.

Theoretically, that should be possible on mutable distros too, but is really "dirty" and risky. On SB, it is done in a few minutes with one command and without any residues.

VanillaOS offers all those other benefits (unbreakability, easy updates, etc.) too, but I wanted to keep the option to change the OS later on (rebase), which VOS doesn't offer atm. Even though I love Gnome dearly, offering only that is too restrictive for me.

SB gives me all those features from VOS too, with Distrobox. I can even use apx if I want.

Also, I wanted to wait until VOS becomes more mature and wait until version 2.0. (Base changed to Debian, other release cycle, etc.).

VOS doesn't seem like a competitor to SB. More like a "future version" of what Mint could be, with the same philosophy, just executed differently with today's new technologies.