Perhaps it was just placebo, but my system always felt snappier (even if momentarily) right after a reset. As such, it would slowly but surely reach a proverbial boiling point where starting fresh was the only thing that truly salvaged it for me. So yeah, while not exactly easy, it felt so gratifying that I couldn’t do anything but.

I had never heard of the impermanence module, that seems really cool !

It’s pretty great, isn’t it? And honestly, hearing folks get excited about it definitely nudges me closer to finally diving in this summer. Wish me luck!

Thanks for clarifying.

The example sentence could also be something like “I would like to notify everyone that I’m aware of this issue and I intend to start tackling it from <insert date> onwards. Allow me to explain the status quo for … (etc. etc.).”. Or whatever sentence you like. The point is not what the exact message is, but an alternative to the absolute radio silence we’ve met.

As for them working on it or not. Clearly, they haven’t worked on it until now. But I don’t understand what was so crucial in the last 8 releases that they couldn’t address this issue instead. Especially, in the aftermath of the XZ utils backdoor. But that’s not the issue I was trying to address with my previous comment. The issue is radio silence. It doesn’t have to set off alarm bells for themselves in order to acknowledge (timely) the concern a chunk of its user base experiences.

If with “it” you refer to Ventoy, then I’d like to inform you that they’ve been doing a good job at maintaining it. They’ve even had multiple releases^[1] since the (original) issue was opened.

Aight, gotcha. That whole business with “out of tree kernel modules” and having to “use toolbox to force out of tree software to function” definitely sounds like a pain, especially for the kind of user OP was talking about. I can see why those would be headaches in that specific context.

It’s just, when I first read that original line about atomic distros making “…many things a person may eventually want to do with their machine a lot more complicated,” my brain kinda went, ‘Whoa, many things? Like, for anybody who might want to dig in a bit more eventually, beyond OP’s initial scenario?’

So, hearing about the driver stuff and the app install workarounds… yeah, those are definitely a couple of solid examples that start to flesh out what ‘many things’ could mean, even in that wider sense. Helping me connect some dots, for sure. Still kinda leaves you wondering what else is on the ‘many things’ menu, eh? :P

deleted by creator

That being said, my other frustration was a lack of easily discoverable in-depth documentation.

That’s indeed a big concern. Thanks for mentioning that.

FWIW, uBlue’s images (which are just opinionated takes on Fedora Atomic) have better documentation, but those have only more recently been a thing.

Alright. So…, that’s one thing. Got more where those came from? I’m just asking because you said “… many things …” previously.

Edit: Just to be clear, I acknowledge that’s a big thing (at least for some). So I’m not trying to underplay it or anything*. And I agree that by itself, it may constitute sufficient of a reason for some to rightfully not consider these distros.

Sorry, I think there’s a misunderstanding.

First of all, thank you for clarifying what you meant. I’m not native, so I haven’t seen “rummage” being used within that context. And while a LLM did (at least an attempt to) provide its meaning, it didn’t make sense… by which we have arrived at the misunderstanding.

Since it is read-only

Yes, for Fedora Atomic, (most of) /usr is read-only. Perhaps this also applies to some other folders of /, however this doesn’t apply to /etc as it’s not read-only; therefore, you can actually change its content. At best, you’d have to go sudo (or fill the credentials through polkit’s window); but that’s all. This part isn’t different from how it’s over on (traditional) Fedora. Compared to its non-Atomic variant, however, we do find the following changes regarding /etc:

• The changes you apply to /etc are being kept track of. You can access these through ostree admin config-diff.
• And, related to the previous, a pristine copy of /etc is kept at /usr/etc. And, that one, is actually read-only.

So…, the following step, i.e.

you always have to copy a config file into your home/user/.config/… before you can edit it.

Isn’t required or anything. Heck, it’s the first time (after three years of Fedora Atomic) that I’ve seen something like that being mentioned within this context.

rummaging around in /etc felt really limiting.

Sorry, I didn’t get this. Could you elaborate?

their limitations make many things a person may eventually want to do with their machine a lot more complicated.

Like what?

Would anyone that installed their current system using ventoy be at risk?

In absolute sense; we don’t know for sure. It’s possible to interpret this^[1] in widely different ways:

• Just the unfortunate occurrence of a set of uneventful events from an innocent party that tries to make up.
• (OR) A facade (from a malignant/malicious party) in order to keep the communities’ trust so that people continue to get caught in the web.
• (AND) Anything in between*

Should I reinstall?

You should make up your own mind on that. The last time I installed an OS, I had become aware of this concern (i.e. the blobs). At that time, trusting it for what it was, would go against the threat model I’ve set for myself. And, consequently, if I had any (other) systems that were installed with it, then I would have proceeded to reinstall. But I’m not you, nor are you me… So, at the end of day, if you had something that resembled a threat model, then you would have used that to answer this question for yourself. As you don’t seem to have one, making one just for this seems overkill. However, you could (re)assess how safe your system is in its current state and act accordingly. (Just to name a couple of examples:)

• Do you just randomly run scripts that you’ve found on GitHub? Well, then this ventoy situation shouldn’t be very concerning.
• Do you deliberately refuse to install the unverified software on Flathub and only^[2] stick to its verified offering? Then, you should seriously consider reinstalling.

Assuming you’re finally done with your edits^[1] (the transition from 0 -> 1 likes is the only thing I’m going off of), I think your comment is overall just a work of art; attempting to add anything on/to it feels like tarnishing it. Though, a major correction is due: The “the return of Ventoy’s maintainer”-remark was meant to convey their return to the issue. I didn’t want to imply that they left the project and returned. Though I totally understand the confusion; my apologies*. Furthermore, my striped remark was actually somewhat meant as a joke - I hoped that blatantly stating “The conspiracy theorist inside of me would like to think” was enough of a hint for that - but I totally get where the misunderstanding is coming from.

Anyhow, if anything, I hope that we’ll be met with a solution that’s compliant with your suggested solution (or better if possible). Nonetheless, I would like to voice my appreciation for this lovely interaction! Thank you!

I was trying to stir a discussion/conversation: How much can we tolerate from our beloved (F(L))OSS developers? Can they get away with anything as long as they return with some promise?f

The fact remains though: why did they literally go radio silence on this issue for over a year? Like, a simple, “I would like to notify everyone that I’m working on this.” would have been sufficient. Was that too much to ask?

To me, what matters is what guarantees they offer and/or plan to offer,

Let’s indeed hope that they back it up with action. Better late than never. Though, I wonder what “guarantee” you’re referring to.

FWIW, slightly over a month ago, someone started working on a solution. The conspiracy theorist inside of me would like to think this is related to the return of Ventoy’s maintainer. But I digress…

I’ll try to keep it brief/concise/short. Apologies if this makes me come across as abrasive in the process.

If I’d attempt to distill the point(s) in your reply, I’d come to:

• You want to uphold the respect and good will (F(L))OSS developers absolutely deserve for doing the thankless work and effort they put. I’m with you on this. The only difference could be that I’m actively trying to uphold a standard^[1] for this and applying that (subjective) standard here. That’s also why I asked you questions^[2] to understand your standard in hopes of coming to a mutual understanding or at least a better understanding of each other.
• Insinuating that I might have some anti-Chinese bias (or something). Honestly, I didn’t want to go over this as I deliberately skipped a lot of other points (like implying that enterprise level code is somehow better, ignoring the fact that binary blobs go completely against the spirit of (F(L))OSS, ignoring that Ventoy -however small of a project you may view it- has a unique position for malicious use or somehow implying that big corpo software is more interesting to be targeted) that I didn’t deem worth discussing here. I hope you understand why I couldn’t ignore this (possible) ‘allegation’. I’ll keep it brief, though: No, it being supposedly by a person that knows Chinese doesn’t even remotely affect my judgement and/or evaluation. I find it distasteful/appalling that that’s even considered. But I thank you for laying your cards in this respect as this will help to move on to the actual meat of the conversation.

The guy is trying to address the issue and he is building this in his free time. Give him some credit at least, I am sure this is consuming a lot of his free time.

Fam, you’ve chosen to trust them for reasons that are unclear to me. Honestly, I don’t see anything (yet) that would clear their name. For all we know, they could have ties to some intelligence agency; which the infamous Jia Tan has (retroactively) been accused of as well.

I personally find this Ventoy an amazing piece of software

That’s not the issue. I’ve also made plenty use of it in the past. But at what point do you start to second guess the intent behind the maintainer?

he also seems to be willing to address the issue and be more transparent in the future which is also commendable.

Again, arguably too little too late. They literally ghosted the issue for over a year. Then, within 24 hours of possible proof of malicious code, they appear and (perhaps) “pose the image” of putting in a gargantuan effort to resolve the issue. But, like, where were they for a year? Furthermore, the hints of justifications for their actions are simply not up too par.

Don’t get me wrong. As I clearly hinted at it in my previous comment, if they pull through and provide/produce (bit-by-bit) reproducible builds of Ventoy^[1], then I obviously have no qualms against them or their software. Why would I? But until then, I will steer clear.

What should have happened for you to be more concerned?

Perhaps I’m too skeptical and/or have trust issues, but isn’t this too little too late? This issue had been ignored for so long, but -suddenly- within 24 hours of this very peculiar find^[1], Ventoys maintainer goes into full damage-control mode. Should we just accept that?

Sorry, at least for now, I simply don’t buy it.

Wow, Niri has been shaping up lovely since the last time I checked on it.

That reminds me; I should probably revisit Wayfire (and the other Wayland-WMs) as well 😅. Thank you for the reminder!

As someone with a perpetual desire for clean system management—even back in my M$ days^[1]—I deeply resonate with the desire to declare the desired state within a config file and treating it as the single source of truth; this is exactly why NixOS with the Impermanence module has captivated me ever since it appeared on my path, like a long-sought truth.

I’ve only abstained this long due to lacking a spare device for a proper test run that might lead to permanent adoption. Perhaps this summer will finally be the time to take the plunge.

Looking forward to bringing order to chaos at last.