As much as we try to avoid it, there are always cases where an OS can break beyond repair, usually due to user error (think LinusTechTips.) That's why I propose maybe in the future we could have an optional secondary partition mounted at a place like /mnt/recovery. This partition would contain a minimal garuda image and tools like chroot, a net installer and more! This image would be updated via the package manager (ideally) using the current image as the seed file and delta downloads. This partition could be listed in grub as Garuda recovery. When used, you would be able to revert snapshots, attempt to fix your OS (chroot), fix grub and/or add kernel options or reinstall over the internet!
You are pretty much exactly describing the recovery partition System76 released on Pop_OS 21.10.
I read through this discussion here. It’s an interesting idea and I can tell you have given it thought and fleshed out some of the details.
Not only does the ability to roll back with snapshots take care of probably 95% of cases where the recovery partition would be helpful, but keeping an up-to-date ISO on boot media has kind of already been established as a best practice on Garuda for the other 5% (or whatever). A lot of effort has been put in to get the Garuda Downloader to a state where it can be easily updated for this purpose.
I take your point that a flash drive can be easy to lose or whatever, but on the other hand it has other useful features that a recovery partition does not–you can use it to install Garuda onto a new machine, for example. There is also something to be said for the 4GB of SSD space not having to sit there doing basically nothing.
All that to say: I think it’s an idea with merit, but considering the tools Garuda already has in place the recovery partition might be a lot of work to solve a problem that doesn’t exist.
Sorry, but I strongly disagree with this. It will just add additional bloat to Garuda Linux, similar how laptop manufacturers use recovery partition to restore the factory-installed yet bloated Windows on their laptops. Why mimic that if we already have the timeshift/snapper system and being an advanced user - we can use whatever imaging program and have your system image stored on an external drive.
I actually think it is a useful idea. It solves problems that can't be solved with snapshots.
The question is, is the effort involved in creating and maintaining a system like that worth the effort for those cases that can't be handled by snapshots? PopOS is a static release distro so when they have a new release, they can update the partition which a new set of static packages for recovery. Garuda is rolling so a different approach would have to be taken.
Further, it would need ongoing management and maintenance.
My personal feeling is that on a distro like Garuda, snapshots solves 80% of the problems and that remaining 20% wouldn't warrant the investment it would take to create and maintain.
This would also create another opportunity for the Garuda bashers to carry on about how bloated Garuda is. There are already far too many multi-booters shoehorning Garuda into a drive crammed with other OS's. Multi-booters give Garuda far too little room when installing and this would only compound that issue and make it even worse.
I could just see the field day all the YouTube faux Linux experts would have bashing Garuda because of its excessive ram and drive space usage. We'd only be giving them yet another ax to grind against us.
It just gets very tiring seeing developers hard work be continually bashed by people who are only looking for click bait. The Devs created the barebones editions specifically to allay all the critiscm of Garuda's "bloat". Yet here we are, still listening to all this garbage after the Devs created the barebones minimist editions to offset this.
These YouTubers are just too much to take sometimes with all their sensationalist click bait idiocy
After using Arch based Distros for over 20years i find this a totally pointless suggestion. even snapshots are pointless apart from saving your self from yourself. never felt the need to backup. Arch based Distros are not for new users, All some new users think about is bragging rights nothing more they are not interested in learning anything about Arch or Linux.
Even in windows i have never needed recovery partition or had to use the recovery tools, or even backup.
Now if we talk Data partitions well that could be beneficial if you have a failing drive or delete a partition but should never happen, as i was taught at work as a young man "check 3 times before committing the job right 1st time".
Having a backup routine should never be criticized as being wasteful or unnecessary. You have no idea what kind of data people keep on their system, or how much hard work they have put into it. Backing up your data or having safety measures in place is perfectly reasonable.
Computers are just machines, and all machines are subject to breakages and failure. Add to that the fact that humans are prone to make mistakes–at any level of experience–and having a backup becomes absolutely a careful person’s routine.
Being careful and taking backups are not mutually exclusive. In fact, they are closer to being the same thing than being opposites like you suggest here.
Your advice comes across as: “people shouldn’t wear safety belts while driving, everyone should just drive more carefully.”
Ditto, biggest space waster, and first thing I always removed from a factory Windows install. You need to accept responsibility for your own backups as you are your own system administrator running Linux.
Arch is hard, if you have no intention of learning how to manage your own system, then you’ve picked the wrong place to start your Linux journey.
I am not sure I understand how this relates to the proposal here. The recovery partition has nothing to do with management and accountability. It is basically like having a garuda ISO on your disk that automatically gets updated on a regular basis.
Think about this scenario. You are traveling and you don’t have access to a flash drive and something goes wrong. You can still boot onto the recovery partition and rescue your system.
Alternatively, if your filesystem becomes totally corrupt, you can reinstall without a flash drive.
IMO, it is most useful for people who are highly mobile or who have limited access to technology. I mean, not everyone even owns their own flash drive. In some cases people are borrowing them to do the install in the first place.
Definitely, their interest is earn as much $$ from their videos (via ads) regardless of the victim lol. Youtubers have no concept of code-of-ethics like established professions.
There is always a need to backup, because we have not yet reached hardware and software nirvana. Come on it's silly to make general statement that backups are not neeeded.
It's just that a recovery partition for a rolling release is going too far IMHO. All Arch-based distro users should have an image backup in-place for the rainy days.
Stop selective reading see the part you conveniently missed system and data are 2 totally different entries see below the part you missed
On the subject of system arch can be installed in 5mins you don’t even need a install disk, Arch Distros are a rolling release everything changes by the sec. Arch has a simple rollback by date upto about 10 years why waste time with backups.
You guys really need to learn Arch Linux not read and believe the rubbish posted on sites like Reddit by users with no clue what they are talking about.
Also get out the bad Win habit of storing every thing in your home folder,
You can change to any Linux system in mins keep important data safe at the same time, then you will have the best security Linux can give by having no data on the operating system. and password protection on your data
On a different note If users don’t understand me tough i’m dyslexic and got fed up apologising years ago.
Remember i Have to spend a lot of time trying to understand what others try to write.
No you don’t that is the whole point.
Nothing Arch based needs a backup disc even a initial install does not need a disc. Not recommended for the inexperienced mind you.
Stop selectively applying significance to your message. I saw what you wrote; trying to backpedal and twist your own words at this point is unlikely to make you appear less foolish.
Any distro can be installed in five minutes.
Just because you haven’t bothered to configure anything worth saving on your machine doesn’t mean other people haven’t. “Nuke and pave” is not a good solution if the problem can be fixed, because for many people re-doing their whole setup the way they prefer is very time consuming and frustrating.
Let me kindly remind you that it is possible and even desirable to have different points of view and approaches.
Let us try to keep the discussion on a calm tone.
I see a dangerous "crescendo" that I would like to slow down before we go beyond the limits of good manners.
I believe I see both sides of the coin. Arch Linux is for those that want it and are diligent in learning to install it, however, Garuda Linux, though "based in Arch" is not Arch nor does it pretend to that status. It stands alone.
And that is where the confusion--real or imagined--occurs.
Arch users, particularly longer term ones, have learned a set of computing habits that work well for them, but not necessarily with Garuda. And the reverse is most certainly true.
So, just like any other discussion comparing Apples with Oranges, we are comparing apples and oranges. We should let it stop at that observation.
Ya'll be wasting bandwidth and precious time that I (or you) will never get back.
As regards the topic: I just inadvertently destroyed irretrievable data through user-stupidity. Nearly a terabyte's worth. (Another tb's worth was recovered with photorec.) No "recovery" partition can protect me against me. I don't have the hardware necessary for as triple rsync. And the data is all that really matters.
