[HN Gopher] Chimera Linux works toward a simplified desktop
___________________________________________________________________
Chimera Linux works toward a simplified desktop
Author : linfocito
Score : 92 points
Date : 2025-01-26 00:50 UTC (22 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (lwn.net)
(TXT) w3m dump (lwn.net)
| jmclnx wrote:
| never heard of it, but interesting setup. FreeBSD user land with
| Linux and Gnome/Wayland.
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chimera_Linux
| codetrotter wrote:
| For a while there was also a distro project working on the
| opposite direction. Debian GNU/kFreeBSD.
|
| An official Debian GNU distribution using the kernel of FreeBSD
| instead of the Linux kernel.
|
| https://wiki.debian.org/Debian_GNU/kFreeBSD
|
| Development of Debian GNU/kFreeBSD officially terminated July
| 2023 due to lack of interest and volunteers.
|
| https://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2023/07/msg00176.html
| codetrotter wrote:
| Another interesting, currently ongoing, mixture of Linux world
| and FreeBSD is NixBSD. A NixOS fork with a FreeBSD kernel.
|
| https://github.com/nixos-bsd/nixbsd
|
| I came across it earlier today.
| bpye wrote:
| It's not mentioned in the readme, but from a quick peruse it
| looks like that project also has some support for OpenBSD
| which is very neat.
| speakspokespok wrote:
| One of the side benefits of using the FreeBSD userland is all
| the flags will be consistent regardless of the of program. '-l'
| or '-a' are going to do what you expect irrespective of the
| command. It's nice, and I used free for along while. I still
| know BSD syntax better than the SystemV equivalent.
| LeFantome wrote:
| I have also used the GNU tools but the BSD ones are winning
| me over. Another benefit is consistency with macOS I suppose.
| It also uses the BSD userland.
| d3Xt3r wrote:
| Why single out GNOME? There are also KDE images, and of course,
| plenty of other DEs and WMs in the repos which you can always
| install.
| LeFantome wrote:
| The project founder uses GNOME and it says that GNOME is the
| desktop in various places including the project website and
| Wikipedia.
|
| Other options are available though and there is even a KDE
| live bootable image. I use Chimera Linux with KDE.
| rbanffy wrote:
| There used to be a Debian with a GNU userland on top of a
| FreeBSD kernel. Debian GNU/KFreeBSD, I think.
| leshokunin wrote:
| Simplified desktop doesn't very clearly map to "very text
| oriented, barebones Linux UI".
|
| I was expecting something more like the ststem76 Pop OS kinda
| thing when I read this.
| ThatMedicIsASpy wrote:
| Niri would be a simplified desktop to me
|
| https://github.com/YaLTeR/niri
| PixelForg wrote:
| I really wanted to switch to this but unfortunately it
| doesn't have support for Xwayland scaling :( in case youre
| using 4k, On Wayland only KDE and Gnome seem to have gotten
| this working.
| depingus wrote:
| If you're on KDE check out Karousel. It's a KDE Kwin script
| that does this type of scrollable tiling right inside KDE.
| Works great on my ultrawide monitor.
|
| https://store.kde.org/p/2045724
| omnimus wrote:
| There is also PaperWM https://github.com/paperwm/PaperWM it
| works pretty well. I would be using it if i didnt switch to
| Cosmic.
| desireco42 wrote:
| Wow... love it, thanks for posting.
| anonzzzies wrote:
| Cheers, that looks nice.
| christophilus wrote:
| Niri is my daily driver. I absolutely love it. Couldn't
| switch back to any other approach to window management.
| LeFantome wrote:
| I think it would be better to say "simplified desktop Linux".
| The project is more about the Linux "plumbing" than about
| opinions about the desktop environment.
|
| Chimera is not even out of beta and it already includes GNOME,
| KDE, XFCE, LXQT, and others. The founder uses GNOME but Chimera
| users do not have to.
| zb3 wrote:
| I hope Google will make Android more desktop friendly so it
| becomes the real alternative to the current status quo.
| skydhash wrote:
| We could have something like android in the linux world if
| manufacturers did the minimum to support Linux (which already
| accept binary blobs). But they also want to push their
| (bloated) apps alongside the driver.
| axelthegerman wrote:
| I hope not
| XorNot wrote:
| I don't. Google's Android support has just slowly eroded away
| all the Linux benefits with layers and layers of user hostile
| "security" without the benefits (i.e. backing up my phone to
| Google doesn't mean a new phone will one-click recover itself
| to how it was).
| depingus wrote:
| They have ChromeOS Flex which runs on normal PCs and works
| fine.
| mig39 wrote:
| So simplified I couldn't figure out how to even login, let alone
| install it.
|
| I think if they're aiming for simplicity, start with the
| installer. And no, "read the instructions" isn't making it
| simpler.
| akdor1154 wrote:
| Simplicity in implementation is not necessarily the same as
| simplicity in usability. Both are desirable, but if there's a
| trade-off between the two, then I reckon it's quite justifiable
| to prioritise the former.
| rollcat wrote:
| Try installing OpenBSD then. Even though the installer runs
| in text mode, it holds your hand thru a standard setup, all
| the way to a graphical login. The basic X11 desktop is a part
| of the base system (as opposed to packages/ports).
|
| The installer also supports a bunch of advanced features,
| like scripting an automated install. OpenBSD is also some of
| the cleanest and simplest code I've ever read.
| eth0up wrote:
| Maybe it seems a stupid question, but it's an honest one:
| why openbsd rather than freebsd?
|
| I tried freebsd when Debian integrated systemd. Being
| neither savvy or intelligent, I had trouble with the ports
| system and installations were taking hours for small
| applications. I gave up.
|
| I've always had a nagging desire to try again, but poor
| health has discouraged me from those kinds of learning
| curves. I recently left Debian again and use Void, with
| Opensuse on a separate drive for purposes of maintaining
| some competency and familiarity with systemd (just in
| case...).
|
| Anyway, I'd appreciate your input on the various BSDs. As I
| understand, recent funding suggests it may be growing and
| will remain viable for a long time, which was, however
| relevant or not, a concern for me.
|
| Edit: I might also mention that I gave serious
| consideration to Chimera before settling on Void, for
| similar reasons of learning curves. Of all distros, I had
| determined it would either be Void or Chimera and nothing
| else - or BSD.
| rollcat wrote:
| > I recently left Debian again and use Void, with
| Opensuse on a separate drive [...], I gave serious
| consideration to Chimera before settling on Void [...]
|
| Have you tried to write down your goals/expectations? It
| seems like you're throwing distros at the wall to just
| see what sticks. I don't care for apt vs xbps or systemd
| vs openrc. My own goals are simple:
|
| - I want a "UNIX workstation", overall decent for
| software development, need to run complex proprietary
| software (Logic, Compressor, Photoshop...), interface
| with niche hardware, develop for iOS, and occasionally
| play games: macOS
|
| - I want to play a couple of games that won't run on
| Mac/Linux/BSD: Windows
|
| - I want a simple system that I can understand and
| actually enjoy using: OpenBSD, Alpine
|
| > purposes of maintaining some competency and familiarity
| with systemd
|
| You can also just use a VM or a homelab box. No need to
| care for your personal device, as long as it fulfils your
| stated goals.
|
| > why openbsd rather than freebsd?
|
| I think OpenBSD is to FreeBSD what FreeBSD is to Linux,
| and then some more. I'd say these are its most
| distinguishing features (compared to almost every other
| OS):
|
| - User-friendly - assuming you have _some_ experience
| with the command line, can follow prompts, read
| documentation, etc.
|
| - Excellent documentation, check out the FAQ:
| <https://www.openbsd.org/faq/>; manpages:
| <https://man.openbsd.org>; etc. Even compared even to the
| FreeBSD handbook, which (while a step up from most Linux
| distros) isn't quite on the same level.
|
| - Secure by default: it is the upstream project for
| OpenSSH, LibreSSL, PF (notably forked into macOS and
| FreeBSD), and some others; also: privilege separation,
| W^X memory, (K)ASLR, doas, signify, pledge, unveil,
| kernel/libc random relinking, syscall origin
| verification, etc. Best part, you get all of that for
| free and you don't even notice. There's no "hardening
| guide".
|
| - Truly self-hosting - the base system has everything
| you'd require to comfortably develop the base system,
| including X11, clang, mg (an Emacs clone - if you're not
| a vi fan), tmux, etc. You will probably install packages
| anyway, to get your preferred tools, but the base system
| will still be there.
|
| - _Innovative_ , not just technologically but culturally:
| cvsweb was the first of its kind - the source code,
| including all commits, could be anonymously browsed via
| the web, in (IIRC) 1996; most contemporary projects would
| just occasionally throw tarballs over the fence.
|
| - Simplicity. It is not just the manpages or the source
| code; OpenBSD meticulously rips out or refuses to accept
| complex systems (sudo, gpg, seccomp) and instead
| introduces simpler interfaces (doas, signify, pledge)
|
| I wish I could live in a world where this is all I need,
| but unfortunately, OpenBSD brands itself as a "research
| OS", and doesn't provide any accommodations such as
| binary compatibility between releases, Linux syscall
| emulation (which FreeBSD does), and so on. Even vmd(8) is
| a recent addition.
| eth0up wrote:
| Hell of a reply. I'd definitely buy you a coffee for it.
|
| Thanks for all the considerations.
|
| PS: regarding throwing distros at the wall; I used the
| same installation of Debian for 10 years. It was my
| workstation and everything else. But its direction isn't
| mine anymore, and I gave quite a bit of thought to my
| choice, ie Void. FreeBSD would be in addition, not a
| replacement. Also, my primary needs are far more
| primitive than yours or what you mentioned. I mostly need
| something I can trust, that doesn't change for the sake
| of change. That and for it to be able to do basics, eg
| python without dependency hell, video editing, office,
| music/editing, caveman AI, and such. Hardly more. Oh, and
| freedom. That's really important.
| homebrewer wrote:
| You don't have to use ports, FreeBSD has supported pre-
| compiled binary packages since 2014.
|
| https://klarasystems.com/articles/a-quick-look-at-the-
| histor...
| eth0up wrote:
| Thanks for the info. Time flies.
| SoftTalker wrote:
| Why not just use a BSD?
| freeone3000 wrote:
| Linux driver support. There's a ton of wifi drivers and the
| like that are supported under linux but not under BSD.
| SoftTalker wrote:
| Obscure driver support doesn't seem like it fits with a
| "simplified" Linux but maybe...
| LeFantome wrote:
| The list of hardware supported by the Linux kernel is not
| exactly "obscure".
| Klonoar wrote:
| Wifi is not "obscure".
| LeFantome wrote:
| The obvious answer is to build on the Linux kernel. That means
| more extensive desktop hardware support. That means better
| desktop software compatibility. That means robust support for
| OCI containers.
|
| But Chimera goes beyond the BSD model in several ways. For
| example, it aims to bring the Systemd feature-set while
| avoiding Systemd.
|
| It also uses pipewire and Wayland.
|
| As mentioned elsewhere, the Chimera Linux founder also found
| the FreeBSD packaging system to be lacking.
|
| Chimera Linux also aims for stateless /etc and /var.
|
| There is a lot more to Chimera Linux than the userland.
| krupan wrote:
| Ok, so why use any BSD components then?
| q66 wrote:
| considering it's not a bsd nor it's trying to be like one, that
| question doesn't make a lot of sense?
| mrbluecoat wrote:
| If it was "born from unhappiness with the status quo" why not
| join forces with Void Linux?
| MaximilianEmel wrote:
| The creator used to be a Void contributor.
| LeFantome wrote:
| The were the PPC maintainer. Which is why PPC is a tier one
| arch for Chimera Linux from the start.
| rbanffy wrote:
| Interestingly enough there are almost zero reasonable PPC
| computers one can get.
| teruakohatu wrote:
| At the PPC prices, you got to have a really good reason
| to want a PPC desktop. The TalosII cost nearly $10k for
| the base 2X 4-core Power9 CPU version, and another $5k to
| upgrade to the 22-core CPU version.
|
| https://www.raptorcs.com/content/TL2WK2/intro.html
| mrbluecoat wrote:
| I see, thanks. https://chimera-linux.org/docs/faq#what-is-
| the-distros-relat...
| LeFantome wrote:
| Void Linux is part of the status quo they were unhappy with.
|
| Chimera Linux started off as a rewrite of the Void source
| packaging system. One of the complaints was using shell scripts
| for package templates. Chimera cports uses Python. Cports
| builds the binary packages (for apk 3).
| rollcat wrote:
| TBH depending on Python also isn't the best choice - it has
| become a huge and complex language, goes as far as optionally
| embedding another full language (Tcl, for Tkinter), all the
| async stuff, kitchen sink standard library, etc. I don't even
| know how much effort it would require to bootstrap.
|
| I would personally go with something like Lua - small,
| trivial to embed, multiple implementations to pick from, etc.
| It would fit exactly where the shell falls short.
| q66 wrote:
| it's absolutely the kitchen sink standard library and
| "complex" language that makes it worth using, because 1) it
| means no additional dependencies and 2) the language is
| expressive enough to let the template syntax remain simple
| and well-abstracted
|
| have you ever tried bootstrapping python? because it's
| really not a big deal (the only hard dependencies are a C
| compiler, libffi, and zlib, though distros also add libedit
| or readline, expat, sqlite, bzip2, xz, and openssl, all
| trivial dependencies present in more or less any system);
| tkinter is pretty much always compiled and packaged
| separately
|
| meanwhile with lua you'd need many additional modules, and
| the templates would be verbose and far less readable
|
| a non-exhaustive list of stuff python provides that would
| need to be provided separately:
|
| 1) subprocess management 2) path parsing (and
| normalization, manipulation, etc.) 3) various filesystem
| operations 4) shell command lexing 5) globs and fnmatch
| patterns 6) json 7) date/time handling 8) filesystem
| advisory locks 9) temporary file handling 10) http client
| (for sources fetching without external subprocess) 11)
| termios and ptys (for isolation of controlling terminal)
| 12) regex 13) hashing 14) topological graph sorting 15)
| cmdline argument parsing 16) readline functionality 17)
| thread/task pools
|
| and so on and so on
| hedora wrote:
| Have you ever tried upgrading python on a machine with a
| large codebase that you need to maintain?
| q66 wrote:
| sure, in fact i updated an entire distro to a new python
| major version several times
|
| cbuild started iirc with python 3.8, currently it
| requires at least 3.12 due to some features (it will stay
| on that minimum for a while, though newer versions are
| always supported), updating it has always been seamless
| though
| oguz-ismail wrote:
| > Chimera's recommended desktop is GNOME
|
| But that's the opposite of a simplified desktop
| rsolva wrote:
| GNOME? It is super simple. I have used Fedora/GNOME on my
| elderly family members laptops for many years now, and they
| just get it. Even the ones who came from Windows 10. The hours
| I spend on support has dropped significantly. Windows is such a
| hassel, and its desktop design philosophy is just not that
| great for casual users.
| IshKebab wrote:
| I can't think of a single thing in Gnome that is somehow
| better than Windows, in terms of usability for beginners.
| rollcat wrote:
| IMHO, GNOME is not simple, it's dumbed down. They've
| obviously tried to copy Apple where it suited them, but
| missed on a whole bunch of important details, like a unified
| menu system, a powerful terminal emulator, desktop icons
| (omg), while badly aping all of the worst parts - from
| requiring 4 clicks to shutdown/reboot (where macOS requires
| 2), thru a mostly useless top bar that steals the real estate
| from browser tabs (Fitt's law), to asking SDL to link against
| libadwaita to draw window decorations. And this is the worst
| part, they not only do not want to accommodate their users,
| but also ignore the developers - those who wish to integrate
| with and therefore empower the free desktop ecosystem.
|
| Apple can get away with all of that because they're a
| trillion dollar company, but unlike Apple, the power of the
| open source community doesn't stem from an unimaginable pile
| of cash, but from interoperability and cooperation.
| e2le wrote:
| I tried to use GNOME for about 8 months but there was just
| too many WTF moments (one caused by Ubuntu's own dock
| extension). There's plenty to love about GNOME but missing
| features, bugs, and design/usability issues makes it feel
| like beta quality software.
|
| A few months ago, someone wrote a blog post[1] cataloguing
| many of these issues. One thing not mentioned was the lack of
| a caps/num lock on-screen indicator, this is a feature that
| is present in GNOME 2, MATE, XFCE, Cinnamon, KDE, and Windows
| 7/8/10/11 out of the box and toggleable in their settings
| window. The only way to gain this functionality in GNOME is
| through a third-party extension. Many laptops continue to be
| manufactured without a caps/num lock indicator on their
| keyboard, it's insane this isn't a supported feature in
| GNOME.
|
| I don't get the feeling that GNOME team has ever implemented
| accessibility research in their design choices. For those
| with disabilities, GNOME is unnecessarily difficult to use
| [2][3].
|
| [1]: https://woltman.com/gnome-bad/
|
| [2]: https://old.reddit.com/r/linux/comments/s3vvot/state_of_
| acce...
|
| [3]: https://lobste.rs/s/3bdlpn/thread_on_deterioration_acces
| sibi...
| krupan wrote:
| It's also not really anything original and new? Not sure what
| the overall plan is here
| aktuel wrote:
| Desktops shouldn't be simple. They should work reliably and
| predictably like every good procduct. Everyone wants something
| simple until they want to do something that's not supported
| because it's not a simple use case. So unless you are a very
| simple person who always only does very simple things and lead a
| uniquely simple life (i envy you), a simple desktop is not for
| you.
| Dalewyn wrote:
| >They should work reliably and predictably like every good
| procduct.
|
| So you're saying they should be simple?
|
| >unless you are a very simple person who always only does very
| simple things and lead a uniquely simple life
|
| Considering the massive popularity of MacOS and iOS which all
| mandate the same reliable and predictable user experience on
| every Apple device, most people _are_ "very simple" persons who
| "do very simple things and lead a uniquely simple life".
|
| The power user paradigm of old that expose all the knobs and
| dials and levers there are to pleasure us simply does not
| appeal to the commons.
| Defletter wrote:
| Haven't you heard that the terminal is the most simple and
| efficient interface? Obviously everyone should just use
| terminals for their tasks /s
| rbanffy wrote:
| It is conceptually very simple and it pays to learn it.
| Defletter wrote:
| Except for most ordinary use cases. I guarantee you that,
| if someone downloads a compressed file, they'll find it
| infinitely easier to right click and select the "Extract
| here" option than whipping out some tar command. The
| linux-brain has people convinced that the layman would
| prefer the latter if only they would listen.
| megous wrote:
| That's some windows-land programming right there. The
| idea that a file is something clickable, some icon with a
| title somewhere on the screen.
|
| And typing 5 letters is clearly not infinitely harder
| than right-click and rummaging through 20 item menu to
| find the right action. The difference is actually
| infinitesimally small.
| rbanffy wrote:
| > The power user paradigm of old that expose all the knobs
| and dials and levers there are to pleasure us simply does not
| appeal to the commons.
|
| I feel that I wasted years of my life changing UI themes and
| colors since Windows 3 and MacOS 7, and, frankly, I have
| never felt tempted to do anything like that since Gnome
| Desktop. On the more vanilla Gnomes I don't even change the
| wallpaper.
| izacus wrote:
| Neither iOS nor macOS especially are even preferred by the
| majority users so this is a bizarre argument to make.
|
| If anything, their biggest criticism is that they're not
| capable enough for many productivity workflows.
| cosmic_cheese wrote:
| For iOS there's absolutely an argument that it's not
| capable enough, but as a regular user of all three major
| desktop OSes I find such complaints about macOS overblown.
| While there's small kernels of truth here and there much of
| it comes down to macOS being built around a different set
| of conventions than the desktop environment they're most
| accustomed to (usually Windows) than inherent incapability.
| This is further evidenced by how it's common for longtime
| Mac users have similar complaints about the Windows desktop
| being inadequate/incapable.
|
| Desktop environments and user workflows are insanely
| personal things, not unlike clothing, diet, and music
| preferences but for some reason many in the tech sphere
| refuse to acknowledge this and try to position their
| preferred environment as objectively more
| correct/superior/etc. It's really tiring.
| WolfeReader wrote:
| There are two categories of things that should be simple in a
| desktop:
|
| 1. Common tasks. These should be simple because you do them a
| lot. Browsing the file system, launching applications, using a
| password manager, sharing data over networks, and making
| backups - these are all tasks that should be common and should
| be simple for anyone to do.
|
| 2. Important tasks. These should be simple because they are
| necessary, even if they're not common. Installing software,
| connecting to new networks, adjusting displays, enabling full-
| disk encryption, running system updates - these should be
| simple so that anyone can do them when needed, with as little
| difficulty or friction as possible. (Admin privileges may come
| in to play for some of these, of course.)
|
| If any of these tasks are not simple, there are a lot of users
| who simply won't do them. And that's bad for all of us.
| bee_rider wrote:
| I think they mean simple in the sense of minimized complexity,
| rather than dumbed down.
| defanor wrote:
| The DEs it uses are GNOME and KDE, which are as far from
| "simple" in that sense as one can get on Linux-based systems:
| the two largest (and perhaps most widely criticized for being
| buggy and bloated) DEs. While the use of uncommon (non-GNU)
| userland sounds like a stream of unusual issues to debug,
| adding up to a strange combination.
|
| Though probably not counting the DEs as an important part of
| the system (and maybe they have other DEs or WMs in the
| repositories), one may argue that the non-GNU userland is
| simpler in a sense. But then again, it is presented here as a
| simplified desktop, while GNOME-based and KDE-based systems
| are on the images it provides. And it lists GNOME as its
| primary DE [1].
|
| [1] https://chimera-linux.org/docs/
| bee_rider wrote:
| > one may argue that the non-GNU userland is simpler in a
| sense.
|
| This seems to be the main argument of the article. Along
| with some stuff about systemD.
|
| > In service of that goal, the project is based on BSD
| tools. Chimera's frequently asked questions page explains
| that unlike other projects that use those tools for
| licensing reasons, project picked BSD tools for their
| smaller code size and reduced complexity.
|
| > But then again, it is presented here as a simplified
| desktop, while GNOME-based and KDE-based systems are on the
| images it provides.
|
| Yeah, when I read the title here, I thought it would be
| about a simplified desktop environment. But they seem to
| just be using the standard stuff. So, I don't think this is
| what they meant to say.
| spease wrote:
| No. Simple means being willing to make hard choices and say
| "no" when something's inclusion doesn't warrant the cognitive
| overhead it adds. Or effectively designing so that complexity
| is only exposed if you really need it.
| IshKebab wrote:
| Yeah maybe, but for desktop OSes it usually means "we don't
| want to do the work to implement that obviously useful
| feature". Consider for example MacOS removing the mouse
| acceleration setting. What a brave choice.
|
| > designing so that complexity is only exposed if you really
| need it.
|
| Yeah this is the right way to do things. But again, often
| stuff is just ripped out rather than sensibly managed.
| Another example: most of the useful WiFi settings in Linux
| are not accessible in Gnome by default. You have to install
| the third party `nm-connection-editor` tool. Why? All that
| stuff should be accessible from Settings.
| rbanffy wrote:
| > Consider for example MacOS removing the mouse
| acceleration setting. What a brave choice.
|
| I haven't used a Mac with a mouse in ages. I feel the
| trackpad interface is so much better (and consistent
| between laptop and desktop) that I think a move away from
| mice is a deliberate choice by Apple.
| IshKebab wrote:
| It's very good but mice are still undeniably better. Even
| Apple sell mice.
| Fnoord wrote:
| For gaming, absolutely. But macOS and Apple devices
| aren't tailored towards that, and their mice are oddballs
| anyway: one button, and heavily tailored towards
| gestures. They're a mouse and touchpad in one. I quit
| using it when I got RSI. Now I use a vertical mouse (by
| Logitech). Now that is one of a kind (but it does not do
| gestures well).
| IshKebab wrote:
| Not just for gaming. Mice are better for everything.
|
| > Now I use a vertical mouse (by Logitech).
|
| Ugh I tried that when I had RSI. Absolutely awful. The
| fundamental flaw is that you click _sideways_ which
| always moves the pointer a little unless you strain to
| avoid it, which kind of defeats the point.
|
| Get a better chair and desk. That solved the RSI for me -
| no weird ergonomic input devices made any difference.
| gjvc wrote:
| did you ever try a TrackPoint, with a HARD inverted dome,
| and mouse buttons under the space bar? Much faster for me
| than a mouse any day of the week.
| IshKebab wrote:
| You mean the IBM nub? Yeah I have used them. They're even
| slower than a touchpad. Probably the slowest kind of
| mouse there is!
| Fnoord wrote:
| For me, a couple of years ago a vertical mouse almost
| instantly solved my RSI which I only once had severe
| before in 40+ years of computer usage (that was due to
| physical work, though they attempted to gaslight me into
| being a heavy computer user). Using a mouse, trackpad or
| trackpad meant trouble. Slowly, it healed, and I can once
| again use a trackpad. But nowadays I do not use normal
| mice anymore for any prolonged tasks. Only my vertical
| one. I had a different one before the Logitech one. Some
| cheap ass brand. It worked well for a couple of months of
| heavy usage and then it had hardware malfunctioning. I
| went with the Logitech and years later still goes strong,
| with a couple of weeks of battery life.
|
| You're wrong regarding mice being always superior. Mice
| have their place, and I am not the only person who has
| benefited from vertical mice (there is a learning curve,
| btw). Mice have a severe drawback: they need more
| physical, flat, clean space than the other pointer
| solutions. Try a mouse with a cyberdeck and tell me how
| that worked out. I've done pentesting tasks with a small
| laptop the size of two mice. I would not be able to do
| that outside on the go with a mouse. I also had
| situations where back in the days I had no space for a
| mouse, so I used my trackpoint.
| LeFantome wrote:
| Simple and reliable are engineering friends.
|
| Simple does not have to mean basic.
|
| Take Systemd for example. Chimera Linux was to implement the
| same functionality and be full featured. It wants to do this
| with a simpler, more modular, more understandable, and more
| maintainable design.
| replete wrote:
| Definitely going to take this for a spin. BSD has been appealing
| to me for a long time, but the driver situation is wanting. In
| theory, a more integrated BSD like experience but with Linux
| kernel/drivers? Interesting!
| theandrewbailey wrote:
| > Chimera supports many different configurations, leaving the
| user free to carve up their disk as they please -- but does not
| support having /usr on a separate partition.
|
| On systems with both a hard drive and ssd (since on most distros
| /(s)bin and /lib* are sym links into /usr, most binaries are
| ultimately in /usr), my recent preference is to have the hard
| drive as / and ssd as /usr (then sym link or bind mount there as
| needed for things that could use the speed, like Steam). Am I the
| only one who thinks this way or am I way off?
| jackhalford wrote:
| I don't think of ssd and hdd for different parts of the
| filesystem. Rather / is a zfs/btrfs/bcachefs pool, and the ssd
| is added as a read cache to the pool
|
| Edit: it can also be a write cache but that's more tricky,
| usually with a battery backed hardware raid it's fine
| imiric wrote:
| I appreciate what the Chimera authors are trying to achieve, but
| I would never consider going back to a distro that doesn't
| support atomic upgrades and seamless rollbacks, ala NixOS, Guix,
| etc. Packaging issues and incompatibilities are inevitable and
| impossible to prevent. Giving users the peace of mind that their
| system can always be reverted to a known working state is
| priceless, and something all operating systems should have.
|
| Making the system configuration declarative, reproducible builds,
| etc., would also be a bonus, but I wouldn't consider those hard
| requirements.
|
| I realize snapshots are a feature of some filesystems, which
| partially addresses this, but I would rather have this feature at
| the OS level.
| dchuk wrote:
| "Simplified desktop"...go to their website, literally no pictures
| of the desktop interface (at least on mobile).
|
| Everyone who makes software, always follow this formula on your
| homepage: clearly state what problem exists without your
| software, show your software, clearly state what problems go away
| with your software, then describe its actual features
| Arnavion wrote:
| The screenshot you're asking for will be indistinguishable from
| any GNOME desktop screenshot you find on GNOME's website.
| Before giving advice it would be worth understanding the
| subject matter. It's a new OS, not a new desktop shell.
| Rochus wrote:
| The title statement "works toward a simplified desktop" makes
| the authors' focus pretty clear, so it's just fair to look
| for screenshots. It would be disappointing if it was just the
| same as GNOME.
| q66 wrote:
| well that's just what the LWN article states, the project
| itself does not do that anywhere
|
| the desktops on chimera are standard (gnome/kde/xfce and a
| variety of compositors and window managers available for
| installation)
| Arch-TK wrote:
| Probably meant as "Desktop OS" not "Desktop UI".
|
| A Linux distribution meant for desktop use as opposed to
| server use.
| Rochus wrote:
| To quote G.B. Shaw: " _The single biggest problem in
| communication is the illusion that it has taken place_ "
| LeFantome wrote:
| Towards a "simplified desktop Linux distribution", not a
| "simplified Desktop Environment".
|
| The screenshot could be GNOME, KDE, or something else. It would
| not help you understand what Chimera Linux is trying to
| achieve.
| Rochus wrote:
| Apparently the article doesn't help either.
| bryanlarsen wrote:
| It's the userland that always sends me back to Linux. I've tried
| BSD a few times, but there are enough gnu flags in my muscle
| memory for command line utilities that it's painful.
| LeFantome wrote:
| This is an honest question. Do you have any examples?
|
| I have always been a GNU user but have been using Chimera
| Linux. I ran into differences with 'sed' and read about a regex
| difference with "find'. Really curious what flags other people
| are using.
| nerflad wrote:
| one sticking point for GNU users can be that BSD utils are
| more strict about positional order of e.g filename parameter
| and input options. rm ~/foo -rf || rm -rf ~/foo
|
| I was forced to get used to BSD syntax when I switched to
| MacOS but now I prefer it...
| jacobtomlinson wrote:
| I assumed this was a post about ChimeraOS, a gaming focused Linux
| distro, but it seems this is talking about a totally different
| Linux distribution with the same name.
|
| Chimera OS: https://chimeraos.org/
|
| Chimera Linux: https://chimera-linux.org/
| replete wrote:
| Had a go at booting this in a VM. The ISOs apparently have some
| issues, meaning you can't just boot in a VM and have a poke
| around...
| c-c-c-c-c wrote:
| It's stance on keeping it's own reimplementations of parts of
| systemd as a dependency sadly rules it out for me. It would be
| a great choice for a linux jail on freebsd.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2025-01-26 23:02 UTC)