Is Arch the best image for Distrobox

[golden shale]

For casual users that don’t want the hassle to always recreate their web browser container with a new Fedora image, is Arch a good solution to be always up to date? Updating by package is enough since it is a rolling release, the base image can be kept forever in theory? Tell me if I am wrong.

[lavish sinew]

Why not just use trivalent? What are we missing?

[golden shale]

I am not on SecureBlue on all my setups, I still use Fedora mutable. It is a general-purpose question for immutable distributions.

[strange owl]

it depends on what browser you're using on your other devices, because different distributions build them with differing quality. i would use whatever you use on your other laptops, i.e. Fedora by the sound of it. you can always upgrade it (e.g. F43 -> F44) the same way as a normal device :)

[golden shale]

I know I can upgrade the host, but I wanted to know if there is a way to use a Distrobox long-term without having to destroy it and recreate it for staying up to date

It seems to me that Distrobox is not for daily usage, only for temporary testing/development environment

Maybe I misunderstood the goal of Distrobox

[strange owl]

kind of, yeah

the practice of using application containers (like podman) in the long term is called 'pet containers', and they're often a bad idea for that reason

there are ways to have long-term machine containers, like systemd-nspawn and Incus/lxd (which integrates with libvirt), but they can be difficult to set up

if you're on a desktop and not a laptop (so power isn't a big issue), i would set up a VM with autostart or something, with the dynamic RAM usage enabled

that way it'll be permanent, and then you can use ssh and that'll be smooth

you can set up ssh as a terminal profile for example, so it'll be a similar experience

but with Distrobox, i don't know whether there are problems with just upgrading it the same way as normal Fedora, without reinstalling it?