Chimera Linux works toward a simplified desktop
lwn.net
lwn.net
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.
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.
Key property of these was that they had command line, so you could easily navigate and execute arbitrary commands on what you see, by typing them in.
The major reason people don't use command line interface on windows or smartphones and other appliances, is because it does not have anything remotely comparable pre-installed, so they're forced to use the inferior interface.
> The major reason people don't use command line interface on windows or smartphones and other appliances, is because it does not have anything remotely comparable pre-installed, so they're forced to use the inferior interface.
If you say so, but you'll have to forgive me if I don't hold my breath waiting for the CLI-smartphone revolution.
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.
If anything, their biggest criticism is that they're not capable enough for many productivity workflows.
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.
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.
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].
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.
> 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.
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.
> 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.
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.
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.
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
the desktops on chimera are standard (gnome/kde/xfce and a variety of compositors and window managers available for installation)
A Linux distribution meant for desktop use as opposed to server use.
The screenshot could be GNOME, KDE, or something else. It would not help you understand what Chimera Linux is trying to achieve.
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://github.com/nixos-bsd/nixbsd
I came across it earlier today.
Other options are available though and there is even a KDE live bootable image. I use Chimera Linux with KDE.
I think if they're aiming for simplicity, start with the installer. And no, "read the instructions" isn't making it simpler.
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.
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.
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.
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.
And when I want a Mac that's much simpler, I also have a TiBook! <https://www.rollc.at/posts/2024-07-02-tibook/>
> Oh, and freedom. That's really important.
The only true freedom is to do what you desire. For me, it's e.g. playing StarCraft. Yeah I can make it run on Linux under Wine. No, figuring out why it's broken again is not my idea of free time ;)
Chimera Linux also uses doas. The Turnstile project is a good example of Chimera Linux rolling its own when no suitable alternative is available (to replace Systemd in this case).
https://klarasystems.com/articles/a-quick-look-at-the-histor...
Chimera OS: https://chimeraos.org/
Chimera Linux: https://chimera-linux.org/
“The system also has no relation to ChimeraOS, besides the unfortunate name similarity. ChimeraOS used to be called GamerOS and renamed itself to ChimeraOS later; however, at this point Chimera Linux was already in public development with its name in place.”
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.
I was forced to get used to BSD syntax when I switched to MacOS but now I prefer it...
Even as a GNU user, I never would never have thought to put filenames anywhere but the end. I mean, with wildcards, it could be any number of filenames.
You are right though, that is an important difference.
But that's the opposite of a simplified desktop
So far, my experience with people above 60 is that they quickly understand how to find and navigate between the apps they use every day. The ones coming from Windows adapt suprisingly fast, and are very pleased that the fullscreen popups and forced updates are gone. Shortly before I moved them over to Fedora, they started developing a fear of using the computer because they never knew when it would 'lock them out' because the screen was filled with a fullscreen Office365 ad that had no obvious exit button.
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.
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_accessibi...
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?
Edit: it can also be a write cache but that’s more tricky, usually with a battery backed hardware raid it’s fine
It really highlights how the relationship with computers is changing.
The goals of Chimera Linux have little at all to do with the UI. In my view, Chimera Linux is highly innovative and disruptive. Yet, some people can look at it and genuinely wonder what it does differently or what the point of it is at all. Fascinating.
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.
I am not a Chimera dev and they have answered this but here is what I understand….
You could argue that the GNU utils are bloated and over engineered. But that is just an opinion. As the Chimera devs point out, there is a “chicken and egg” dependency problem with the GNU utils when trying to build from source and / or in a container. The BSD utils solve this problem.
At the same time, the BSD utils are more complete and powerful than, for example, Busybox or other alternatives to the problem above.
The BSD userland solves one of the problems that Chimera Linux is trying to solve. The BSDs do not solve many of the other problems and so using everything from BSD is not an option.
I will point out that Chimera Linux and FreeBSD both use Clang/LLVM as the system compiler. Chimera uses it for LTO and certain security features.
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.
There is a file, /etc/apk/world that lists all the packages you have explicitly installed. When you add and remove packages, all it really does is change this list. Then it runs the solver and installs the package versions and dependencies required. You could move /etc/apk/world to another system and it would result in exactly the same set of packages between the two.
Replacing /etc/apk/world to any previous state will “roll back” the system to that point.
The package manger is transactional and apk commands either entirely succeed or fail. When I was testing Chimera in a VM, I ran out of drive space during an install of dozens of packages. The system was left in the same state as it was in before I ran apk.
Cports itself is very declarative. Also, unlike most distros (including Arch) there is no separate install and update step. Other than the kernel, and maybe a couple others, nothing runs after the package install.
Finally, Chimera Linux is aiming for stateless /var and /etc.
Chimera Linux may be closer to what you want than you expect.
> Replacing /etc/apk/world to any previous state will “roll back” the system to that point.
That's not quite what rollback means, though.
Say that a new version of a display driver crashes my display server. With NixOS I could reboot into a previous configuration and have a working system in no time. If I have to keep track of /etc/apk/world changes myself, and boot into recovery mode or chroot to fix this manually, it takes time, effort and frustration I'd rather not have to deal with.
Stateless /var is a good idea, but I'm not sure it would address this problem.
In any case, I'll definitely keep an eye on Chimera. We need more distros that are not derivatives, and try to do something different. Wishing the team the best of luck, and hoping the project succeeds!
I was expecting something more like the ststem76 Pop OS kinda thing when I read this.
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.
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).
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.
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
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
My point is that Lua-the-language provides similar expressive power to Python-the-language (including basic stuff like lookup tables), while remaining smaller and simpler to understand than the POSIX shell. It's also simpler to vendor than Python, and you probably want to vendor this kind of stuff to avoid the pain of bootstrapping / circular dependencies.
Now I haven't built a build/packaging system like xbps or apk (few people did), but I've been in charge of devops/releng at work for a decade - and if I learned anything at all, it's that it's better to start with the simplest tool that can do the job, and slowly add what you need. E.g. I wrote a tool in 2016 to replace Ansible in my team, and all of this time it's just been doing its job: <https://github.com/rollcat/judo>. Turned out nobody actually needed the kitchen sink.
What would you say is its biggest shortcoming?
For me, one of my favourite things about Chimera Linux is that it is both everything I want from Linux and 100% immune to being called GNU/Linux.
Chimera Linux: no Glibc, no GNU utils, no GCC, and no Systemd. As a user, I am finally free.
We should consider “freedom from being labelled GNU/Linux” as “the 5th freedom”.
You're pointing out, in other words, that UNIX/POSIX is what matters, regardless of the package.