So, using an immutable system, one could achieve… having one less backup target, apparently? Which is good, but seemingly not good enough for this particular case. ¯_(ツ)_/¯ As far as I understand, it could certainly save the day if I mess up its settings, but in case of FS corruption it effectively just adds a different kind of procedure that I’ll have to execute for its full restoration? And splitting my system and data to a different partitions… well, this approach in itself have nothing to do with immutability, isn’t it?
Meanwhile, I managed to recreate exactly the same system with all my data and stuff, down to ctimes, mtimes, hardlinks and reflinks, as if nothing happened at all. Just saying!
So, using an immutable system, one could achieve… having one less backup target, apparently? Which is good, but seemingly not good enough for this particular case. ¯_(ツ)_/¯ As far as I understand, it could certainly save the day if I mess up its settings, but in case of FS corruption it effectively just adds a different kind of procedure that I’ll have to execute for its full restoration? And splitting my system and data to a different partitions… well, this approach in itself have nothing to do with immutability, isn’t it?
Meanwhile, I managed to recreate exactly the same system with all my data and stuff, down to ctimes, mtimes, hardlinks and reflinks, as if nothing happened at all. Just saying!