I know eventually someone is going to point it out, so allow me to be the one to do it.
Immutable as a term is controversial. Most other distros (VanillaOS, ChimeraOS, Silverblue, Ublue) are all moving away from the term arguing that the system is technically not immutable and referring to it as such is inaccurate, since you can easily unlock it. So they are instead calling it atomic which is considered more accurate, or they avoid both descriptions all together and pretend to just be another distro.
Yet at the same time the community almost universally calls it immutable, whenever these distros are covered by media it is almost immediately referred to as such even if the distro itself never calls itself immutable.
Over at Manjaro we discussed this topic, I also discussed it with the Vanilla OS devs and did some digging in the marketing material of other distros and the socials of well known people from the immutable scene like Jorge Castro.
I think the name immutable will stay, it will just be another one of those names which may not be entirely accurate yet due to historical reasons we are stuck with it, it has taking on a meaning of its own in the context of Linux. This is not a unique situation within tech.
I have been trying to make up a name for Manjaro Immutable as to not do the opposite of what the ecosystem is trying to do, Emerald, Evergreen etc… but nothing so far has stuck.
What are the community’s thoughts on this?