Yes, you're absolutely correct. The trailer is pretty generic and doesn't tell you any of the (great) features and uniqueness of the distro.

BUT: the distro is catered towards newcomers. To normal users, who aren't very techy.
To people who just want to play a game like Assassin's Creed after coming home from work. Or want to watch YouTube. Or who want to edit a picture casually.

Who just use their PC like 99% of the general population.

Nobody, who isn't a huge Linux nerd like us in our bubble, cares if a distro uses X11 or Wayland by default, or PipeWire, or dnf vs apt. Or even Snaps. Or whatever.

They just want something that is easy to use, is reliable and looks cool. And this distro gives them exactly that.

Mint is often considered as just a "less annoying Windows replacement" for many. And as a very young person, I find Mint's looks pretty old fashioned and boring.
VanillaOS looks way "younger" and "hipper", I like it!

I see the trailer less as a "Look what our distro can and what it's USPs are" and more like a "Look how awesome Linux is and what you can still do, you don't need Windows for your software!" and I find that a good approach!

Not true at all.

VanillaOS is an immutable distro made by the devs from Bottles.

It aims to be as user friendly and stable as possible, while giving advanced users the option to use their own package manager apx to install every software ever available for Linux.

Oh, okay, nice! Thank you very much for the correction!

Containerization!

Use either Nix (the package manager) or Distrobox.

With Distrobox, you can create a few containers, install the favoured DE in each one separated, and use the "distrobox-export -a your-DE" function.

But I don't know how seamless it will work, you might have to read into it.

Yes and no

Yes

Because it was my first distro when I started using Linux 3 years ago.

It still looks very modern and beautiful out of the box, which was something barely any distro provided at that time.

It will give you a fine introduction to the new OS and act as a starting point in your journey.

For example, it clearly shows you the software center and other essential steps for a smooth everyday use.

No

It hasn't really changed in the last years. Not in that sense other "stable" distros, like Debian, do, but more in the sense "We have no ressources to keep up with all new versions and changes".

There were many many significant improvements in the past, including performance and usability, which Zorin just never got. For me, it looks like a distro on life-support.

The Wine-implementation (Windows-compatibility layer) is executed badly. It recommends new users to just install everything with it, instead of looking for native alternatives. Wine should only act as last resort and not as great way to run all your software like you used to.

(Edit: there's a prompt now to search for alternatives)

Also, it uses the uncontainered version of it. If you execute Windows-malware, it can attack your host OS. Nowadays, we use "Bottles", which creates a fake-drive and is isolated from the host, making it safer.

Some people also dislike their Pro-version-approach, where they sell you customization features (templates) that you can get for free, but have to pay on Zorin.

I personally just see that as donation system and don't have a problem with it. It doesn't affect the usability at all. I personally would prefer it to be activatable by "hacking" too, since you have to reinstall the whole OS if you decided to purchase the pro version.

(Edit: it can be activated by enabling repos manually)

What to do?

I would recommend Linux Mint instead. It is also more on the conservative side, but extremely well maintained and super super user friendly with a huge community.
Not without reason it is the number one recommended distro out there, especially for newcomers.

That doesn't mean Zorin is bad, not at all. It's just not as great as others. If you want to use Zorin, do that! And if you like the UI or UX of it, you can always just replicate it on any other ("better") distro like Fedora.

Remember, there's infinite choice and pretty much no "bad" one.

Just pick something simple for the start and see, how your journey will continue! 😊

It comes down on what is important to you.

Debian is great when you're a bit more conservative and want to not change as much, and Fedora is more leading edge for new technologies. They implemented, for example, Wayland, Pipewire, and much more, as one of the first.

So, where I hope Silverblue will be a clear improvement

Don't fixate to much on SB. There's also VanillaOS out there, which is/ will be based on Debian and aims to be as user friendly as possible. Many of the pros are universal to most immutables.

• Containers for work stuff (At the moment I use whole VMs, which was one of the reasons to automate everything with Ansible)

You can already use Distrobox or Toolbx on Debian. But they don't replace VMs and are more similar to Flatpak, giving you mostly runtimes and dependencies, but the host OS is still perfectly accessible.

Fedoras polish for Gnome users

Fedora doesn't polish Gnome. They only provide vanilla desktops, KDE for example is also pretty much unchanged.

Difference is, that most other distros modify their DEs, which isn't what the creators intended.

This is why, in my personal opinion, Gnome on Ubuntu sucks for example

my daily driver for some years now is Debian, and I have a decent setup via Ansible - everything just works for me.

Then don't change anything.
Only because there's new shiny stuff every two weeks out there in the FOSS world, doesn't mean "old" stuff isn't relevant anymore.
If Debian suits you, keep it.

My question is mostly to long term Linux users, which use Linux in a professional context

I sadly can't speak for that exactly.
I don't use Linux professionally and would rather consider myself as "noob", but maybe my input has still some value for you.

What is your experience? How did your workflows change on your immutable Linux distribution? Did you try immutable and went back to a more traditional distribution - why? How long are you running the immutable distribution and what issues and perks did you run into?

I used Silverblue now for a few months.

I broke every distro out there and SB is rock solid. If I break something (which basically never happened), I can just reboot and select the image from before. It's a huge gain of peace of mind for me to know I never have to worry about the state of my system again!

My workflow changed to using containers for everything. As I said, I'm pretty much a "casual" user, so Flatpaks cover 99% of my needs. If I need some CLI program or something not available on Flathub, I use Distrobox, which gives me access to every distro and integrates perfectly.

Issues: nothing major yet. If a containered program shouldn't work, I can always install it natively per rpm-OSTree. Reboots aren't an issue too. I shut down my PC anyway, so I don't care. Updates get installed and staged in the background, and I boot into a new image everyday.
I never get forced to reboot, even less than on normal Fedora.

Usually, on a mutable system, you should offline-install and reboot your PC anyway for safety and better stability on the runtime.

The only thing that didn't work for me are VPN clients, but the integrated Gnome solution works fine for me too. Oh, and many install-scripts don't work/ aren't available for SB aswell.
Most might work, but nobody took time to write one, since they need some other approach than Debian or Fedora.

I really recommend you to check out uBlue, it's a great project and really "the future". It uses the rebase-feature, which enables users to make their own custom images, similar to Nix.
I for example use uBlue-Silverblue, which comes with some QOL-stuff pre-enabled. You can also install a SteamOS clone, images with integrated Nvidia-drivers, "unsupported" DE- and WM-spins, and so on there. With one command. And you can swap out the base anytime you want on an existing system.

Would I recommend you SB or any other immutable distro? Theoretically, 100% yes! Practically, in your case, no.

Stick with Debian if it fits you. Look into Distrobox if you want. See, if most stuff is in your home-directory, or if you prefer uncontainered stuff.
If the pros outweigh the cons for you, then install it the next time when you have to anyway (new hard drive, etc.).
But you can also wait a few years until immutable OSs get more widespread and mature.

Edit: I just looked up what Ansible is. In that case, NixOS would be fabulous! uBlue is relatively new and probably not as mature. If you like to install a system reproducible, just share the nix-config and apply it on another PC. But you have to get into it first, which might be complicted and time consuming. It still should be worth it.

I'm no expert, so I can't help you much.

The container downloaded in less than a minute in my case, and I have really really bad internet.
The containers are really minimalist (basically only a set of dependencies) and shouldn't take much disk space.

Heck, and even if they do, space is really cheap anyway.
They function sort of like how Flatpaks do. With Flatpaks, you also don't download a whole OS, only dependencies.

Maintainence wise, you're right.
Normally, you would have to type the "distrobox-upgrade" command to update all containers.
In my case, since I use uBlue, this gets done automatically afaik.

Yes and no.
As the other commenter said, you can apply live if it has to be (but you absolutely shouldn't).

But, I never have to reboot anyway. When I install apps, I do that in containers (Toolbox, Distrobox, Flatpak) and they give me all functionality I need.
You basically only install drivers and absolutely essential stuff per OSTree and you only do that once.

Updates get applied and installed in the background for me. There's no prompt to reboot, they only get staged.
I shut down my PC every few days anyway, and when I boot, I boot into the new image.

I don't see that as a problem. Rebooting is only a matter of seconds on a NVME

Did you even read the article? You definitely should!
I did, and especially the "flexibility"-argument should change your mind.
Just look at NixOS for example. It's just as configurable as Arch (from what I've read), but immutable. And it's also not more complicated, just different.

Immutable OSs only restrict you as much as you want them to be.

Also, the underlying technologies (like OSTree, nix-config, A/B-Root, and so on) aren't proprietary.
Just look at uBlue, they've utilized OSTree to share system configs.

While some things really just aren't possible anymore or require workarounds, it opened the door for many, way more interesting routes.

Also, you don't need to be angry.
Nobody will take anything away from you. Mutable distros will still persist for many many years, maybe forever?

We should be exited what the future brings!

Fedora is, at least in theory, 100% community maintained and owned.
Red Hat sponsors this project (developers and money), in the hopes, that most of it gets upstreamed to RHEL, acting as a "testing ground".

It happened often, and will happen again many times, that the Fedora team decides against interests of RH.

It's a great symbiosis: we, as a community, get an extremely well maintained and professional distro, and RH gets feedback.

Also, side note, the "advertisement" of the RH-ecosystem works. If it weren't because of CasaOS (the web interface and docker management), I would use Almalinux (RHEL clone) instead of Debian, since I'm just used to Fedora and feel more confident in it.

Well, if you like Arch and NixOS the most, I think you're a tinkerer/ someone, who likes his OS in one definitive way.
That's totally fine, I love that!

But Silverblue is, I think, more catered towards people who love reliability and prefer it over customization.
I, for example, find SB pretty much perfect how it is.

... well, actually, not 100%. I use uBlue (main), which is basically a modified image of the Vanilla SB with some minor QOL-tweaks, like a few exchanged apps, automatic updates, and so on.
You can also create your own images with this project, with effects similar to Nix.
But if you want your own, individual, config, Nix is just better.

I'm really excited what immutable distros will bring in the future. I follow them (Nix, SB, VanillaOS, etc.) closely and think, that immutability will be the future of Linux, even if that's a trope.

We already containerized everything and never touched the base OS on servers too for decades now, why not on desktop too?
That's the main advantage of Linux, and we should use that.

Yeah, I fully get why people like Nix.

I fully respect it when people want a "next-gen-Arch" with the DIY-aspect of building their own OS. At least, that's my impression on it.

For me personally, it sounds like too much work. I'm not advanced enough and want something hassle free that "just works".

But especially for professional developers (reproducibility) and Linux enthusiasts, it sounds like a dream!

Fedora Silverblue

I use Fedora Silverblue, I don't know if that (still) counts as "underground"-distro.

Reason I switched: I've been distrohopping/ desktophopping for the whole time I used Linux (~2-3 years) and always came back to Fedora. I really like it's sane (for me) defaults.

Problem: I broke pretty much any system I installed after a few weeks.
Knowing enough to change everything, but doing exactly that without knowing exactly what I do and how to fix stuff is really bad.
Instead of fixing a problem, I just reinstalled. That took me just an hour everytime, but still is a bad practice, even when it's quicker.

Also, everytime I was happy with Gnome, KDE got a shiny new feature I just wanted to have, and I switched the Fedora spin, since switching DE on a used system feels really dirty and buggy.

The last time I broke my (Tumbleweed) install without actually doing anything I just said "Fuck it, even if I loose some freedom, I will now only use immutable systems from now on!".

I decided for Fedora, and oh boy...

Actually, I didn't loose much freedom or functionality at all!

(Only exception: no VPN app, I have to use the menu from Gnome; and somehow, Boxes doesn't work atm, maybe that's just a bug).

I'm now using it for 2 months and couldn't be happier!!! Why?

• Atomic updates + super quick and easy rollback support (already saved my butt) by rebooting and selecting another image.
• Clear separation between "my" stuff and the OS, which is really intuitive.
• Feels clean.
• I can rebase anytime I want (switch to KDE, a WM, and so on) with one command and no residual data or bugs.
• Self maintaining with automatic updates in the background.
• Unlimited software: not an advantage of SB, but you have to use distrobox sometimes, and I would never discovered that tool without!
• AND, a project called uBlue . You can create or download custom images, like a SteamOS/ Nobara-clone, Vanilla with QOL-changes, almost all DEs (e.g. XFCE, which is unsupported by default), and so on.

I'm really in love with Silverblue, everybody should check it out!

Why? Can you elaborate further?
Have you tried uBlue, a custom imaging system for Silverblue?

Did the non-immutable Fedora irritate you too?

I recommend checking out Fedora Silverblue and other immutable distros, or, at least, use more containerization like Flatpak and Distrobox.

When the programs are all in their own small environment, they at least don't affect the base system like deleting the DE or other important packages when something goes wrong or changes dependencies.

But, in your case, try switching to tty (CTRL + ALT + F2) and installing the DE base (e.g. gnome-desktop). This will co-install all other dependencies, like X11.

Remember to always backup everything and reading thoroughly when using sudo in the future. And, maybe, check out the tips from my first paragraph :)

Just asking: how long have you been using Arch and why? What qualities did you like in it?

Going from Arch to Debian is a huge leap. In my personal opinion, Debian is a great distro for servers or really really conservative desktop users, but it gets stale really fast.

Something in between both is ideal for deskop use, like Fedora, Ubuntu, Mint, etc.. The half year release schedule keeps everything modern, but stable enough.

You said in another comment, that stability is the most important aspect for you. I recommend you...

Fedora Silverblue

Why?

• Great update schedule (see above)
• Extremely stable. Fedora at it's base (already pretty reliable), immutable base (less bugs, since that's more reproducible and therefore easier to fix), also
• Atomic updates. You either apply a functioning update, or no update at all. If you update on a traditional distro and loose power, it is only applied partially and your system is borked
• You can always rollback with one click if an update isn't working as it should (e.g. screen flickering)
• Seamless updates. They just get installed in the background and when you reboot, the next image is already selected for you. I don't even notice an update and never get annoyed. I shut my PC off anyhow every few days, since booting takes just a few seconds on an NVME.
• Base can be exchanged with one command. If you run Gnome and want to switch to KDE, you rebase with one command, reboot, and everything Gnome related is gone and KDE is installed cleanly! Feels like a reinstall, but your user settings and data are all still there. You can also rebase to something from Project uBlue, which offers custom images, like a SteamDeck-clone, different kernels, Cinnamon desktop, and so on...
• Huge software repository. You (should) never install .rpm s directly to your system, you use containers. Flatpak is great, but Distrobox even more! You can access the AUR too if you want and use those apps just like natively.
• And so on

You can install packages normally? I think you got something wrong here.

Yeah, you can, that's right. But it's absolutely not recommended (except drivers or stuff like that). You only do that when there is absolutely no other way.

But I'm not that exactly sure on how "bad" it is on rpm-ostree tbh. I've definitively done my research when I switched to Silverblue, and reason for the direct-install-disrecommendation didn't get explained good enough for me. Afaik it is only an additional layer on top of the base, so it is also not OS-changing. Please do me the favor and explain it to me if you can :)

I disagree with Debian. Apt is horrible, updates are bad.

I said "Debian based", not plain Debian. I never got warm with it tbh, for deskop I prefer rpm-based distros, I don't even know why. But, like it or not, Ubuntu (and therefore Debian) is just the standard if you google " how to do x on Linux". And a newcomer, who doesn't know the difference between apt and dnf for example, will get into trouble sooner or later.

While disagreeing, I still upvoted. I think more people should see this suggestion and add their opinion too.

I'm a huge fan of SB/ uBlue, but I don't know if I would recommend it to a new user.

For me personally, it's the best distro ever. It's reliable, modern, AND it doesn't break.

I'm the most talented person ever to break my stuff. I already managed to do that, even on on SB and fixing the kernel panic (+other breakages), which I would have done by reinstalling, was only one reboot and boom, it worked again. I just want to get my tasks done (gaming, etc.) and knowing I never have to spend a weekend reinstalling is godsend.

BUT, things just work differently, and sometimes more complicated. You never install something traditionally, only per container (e.g. Distrobox or Flatpak), which is extremely uncommon. And, there are still here and there some limitations. For example, you will never install a VPN client, since they want to interact and change the base system, which they can't

I would recommend something Debian-based, like Mint. If you don't tinker, they also never break. And most guides are for exactly those distros.

SB is more for either people you KNOW that they will never explore the system (e.g. my mum) and only use their device like a tablet,

or who are exactly this advanced in their Linux journey that they begin tinkering without knowing what they're doing, breaking their system and not being able to fix it themselves. Or they begin distrohopping.

I for example always broke any distro somehow "without doing anything wrong". Reinstalling was always easier than fixing for me.

And I was a huge distrohopper too, which is fixed by now.

Getting used to a UNIX shell and to UNIX philosophy can take some time, but it's very rewarding in making everything more simple (thus more efficient).

Yeah, and that's the problem for me. See my comment above. Nextcloud and those services are "bloated", yes, but very convenient. I never worked in an IT-environment, so I'm a total noob.

But stuff like NC AIO give me a whole pre-set-up LAMP stack without needing to know how everything works, and that's unbelievable for me.