Arkosios Productions
New Member
For this, I will be using Nobara OS as a worse example. I’ve been running Nobara OS for a while, and while I generally appreciate the gaming-oriented tweaks and convenience it offers, I’ve repeatedly run into issues with the update system, particularly when it comes to Wi-Fi. After certain updates - or even failed suspend/resume cycles - my Intel Wi-Fi stops working, leaving me with only the loopback interface (lo) visible. It’s extremely frustrating because it essentially bricks my internet access until I troubleshoot or reinstall components, which can sometimes be impossible without temporary internet access. And not to mention, the same also happens when my computer fails to go to sleep and gets stuck in that state unless I forcibly shut it down and then start it up again. I basically love and hate Nobara as an OS, because for ALL the successes it has brought, and for ALL the immense fixes it has throughout the system, the OS is not that stable as others would portray it as. It makes absolute sense to criticise all that in terms of the distro's firmware design.
This leads me to think that the update philosophy in Linux distros like Nobara could use some rethinking when it comes to firmware. Windows and macOS generally ship internet firmware from the start, and for most users, it just works without being touched until ABSOLUTELY necessary. Why can’t Linux adopt a similar approach? My proposal would be to offer specific ISO flavours where network firmware is kept separate from regular updates. If the network firmware is not broken or damaged, it should simply not be modified by the update system. This would give users more control, prevent frustrating regressions, and reduce situations where updates leave essential hardware unusable.
Of course, I understand that kernel and firmware are tightly coupled and that new hardware might need firmware updates, but for users who have stable hardware and functional Wi-Fi, there’s no reason the system should force firmware updates that could introduce instability. By providing a separate ISO flavour or a version-locked firmware option, distros could satisfy both use cases: users with cutting-edge hardware would continue to receive updates, while users with stable setups could maintain a working environment without unnecessary risk.
Possible Counter-Arguments and Responses
Counter-Argument: "Firmware updates are required for kernel compatibility; freezing them may break driver support."
Response:
Absolutely, firmware must match the kernel for newer drivers. The solution is not to freeze all firmware forever, but to offer separate ISOs or optional version-locks. Users with working hardware can opt into a stable ISO, while bleeding-edge hardware users still receive updates. This is about choice and risk management, not complete immutability.
Counter-Argument: "Users with older firmware may miss security or bug fixes."
Response:
True - but users opting for stable ISO flavours should be informed that this trade-off exists. It mirrors how enterprise distros handle LTS releases: they prioritize stability over cutting-edge fixes. Critical security patches could still be selectively applied, leaving non-critical firmware untouched.
Counter-Argument: "Maintaining multiple ISO flavours increases testing and support burden."
Response:
Yes, there’s extra maintenance required. However, many users benefit from hardware stability over aggressive updates, and providing optional ISOs is a feature, not a mandate. Distros could start with one or two curated options to gauge demand, similar to how Fedora offers Workstation vs. Silverblue.
Counter-Argument: "Linux users are expected to manage their system and troubleshoot; why make it simpler?"
Response:
The goal is not to remove user responsibility, but to prevent catastrophic regressions. Even advanced users shouldn’t have to spend hours fixing a completely non-functional Wi-Fi after a routine update. Reducing this friction actually empowers users to focus on their priorities (like gaming or development) rather than endless recovery steps. UNLESS, the whole entire Linux community has an even better idea...
This leads me to think that the update philosophy in Linux distros like Nobara could use some rethinking when it comes to firmware. Windows and macOS generally ship internet firmware from the start, and for most users, it just works without being touched until ABSOLUTELY necessary. Why can’t Linux adopt a similar approach? My proposal would be to offer specific ISO flavours where network firmware is kept separate from regular updates. If the network firmware is not broken or damaged, it should simply not be modified by the update system. This would give users more control, prevent frustrating regressions, and reduce situations where updates leave essential hardware unusable.
Of course, I understand that kernel and firmware are tightly coupled and that new hardware might need firmware updates, but for users who have stable hardware and functional Wi-Fi, there’s no reason the system should force firmware updates that could introduce instability. By providing a separate ISO flavour or a version-locked firmware option, distros could satisfy both use cases: users with cutting-edge hardware would continue to receive updates, while users with stable setups could maintain a working environment without unnecessary risk.
Possible Counter-Arguments and Responses
Counter-Argument: "Firmware updates are required for kernel compatibility; freezing them may break driver support."
Response:
Absolutely, firmware must match the kernel for newer drivers. The solution is not to freeze all firmware forever, but to offer separate ISOs or optional version-locks. Users with working hardware can opt into a stable ISO, while bleeding-edge hardware users still receive updates. This is about choice and risk management, not complete immutability.
Counter-Argument: "Users with older firmware may miss security or bug fixes."
Response:
True - but users opting for stable ISO flavours should be informed that this trade-off exists. It mirrors how enterprise distros handle LTS releases: they prioritize stability over cutting-edge fixes. Critical security patches could still be selectively applied, leaving non-critical firmware untouched.
Counter-Argument: "Maintaining multiple ISO flavours increases testing and support burden."
Response:
Yes, there’s extra maintenance required. However, many users benefit from hardware stability over aggressive updates, and providing optional ISOs is a feature, not a mandate. Distros could start with one or two curated options to gauge demand, similar to how Fedora offers Workstation vs. Silverblue.
Counter-Argument: "Linux users are expected to manage their system and troubleshoot; why make it simpler?"
Response:
The goal is not to remove user responsibility, but to prevent catastrophic regressions. Even advanced users shouldn’t have to spend hours fixing a completely non-functional Wi-Fi after a routine update. Reducing this friction actually empowers users to focus on their priorities (like gaming or development) rather than endless recovery steps. UNLESS, the whole entire Linux community has an even better idea...
