This is a perception that I have noticed floating around the discussions where there is some question of the path to take for a particular installation of a software package or group of packages. It seems, there is a misconception that layering is to be avoided at all costs, plus the general lack of comfort in container usage would seem to feed the idea that there is an opposing approach to package management WRT Silverblue. Personally, what attracted me to using Silverblue in the first place was largely the development path it promised to clean up. As such, the flexibility of layering was the first feature that fit my needs. The second thing that attracted me was the use of flatpaks for my applications I use day to day, such as various editors, etc… and the fact they updated independently of OS updates. Third, the promise of rootless containers, and using them for those specific cases where layering or flatpaks fall short.
Agree 100%. I have always viewed Silverblue as a orchestration of primarily three different methods of achieving the same computing goal. The solidity of an immutable OS with built-in flexibility that you can layer optional packages onto, can run rootless containers with, and the independence of flatpak’ed applications.
IMO I think it is more of a misconception on how to use this new thing that we have. Gentle coaching on the intent of rpm-ostree, ie. layering is acceptable, but try it out in the toolbox PET container first is an approach I have used that seems to work.