Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Chimera Linux

chimera-linux.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 224 posts

Re: Chimera Linux

#51

Post by creatonez »

eternityforest wrote: post #7

It's really cool, but I get worried anytime I see something that seems to want to be a user friendly, mainstream distro, after seeing how hard Manjaro tried with the whole "Bring simplicity to the masses" stuff and how many issues they still have. Is this an experimental or hobby distro or does it intend to be something grandma can use? If I had to choose this or BSD, it looks like I'd very strongly considering this…

The website doesn't really give the impression that it intends to be a mainstream OS. Marketing seems to be "lightweight hacker distro using musl, but simpler than the others in the same category".

I wish Linux distributions could advertise to existing Linux users without inadvertently causing this sort of confusion among the non-Linux tech media. Many Linux users don't want the OS to take off, because things will get materially worse in many regards if it gets popular. You often only find the new users and tech media theorizing about the 'year of the Linux desktop', or about Linux's product weaknesses in the narrow lens of comparing it to Windows.

Fedora is able to balance this public image issue fairly well. In their landing page, they emphasize that it is for "developers and makers of all kinds". But because Fedora Workstation actually is fairly close to being an easy-for-all-users distro, in their "Is Fedora For Me" page, they have this paragraph that essentially explains that it might also be for non-developers as long as they are curious/enthusiastic about computers in general:

> The Fedora distribution is made for enthusiastic and curious computer users that like to learn and experience newer versions of software and therefore might not suit everyone. Although the Project works hard to make Fedora as usable as possible for the widest possible audience there are inherent limitations on how fast a new software can be translated, gain accessibility features, provide the most comprehensive documentation and guidance. If you on the other hand need a stable Linux distribution that supports even the latest hardware, are willing to put some effort to help the free and open source software (FOSS) community and file some bug reports this might be a perfect system for you!

Re: Chimera Linux

#52

Post by ekianjo »

Levitating wrote: post #36
eternityforest wrote: post #7

It's really cool, but I get worried anytime I see something that seems to want to be a user friendly, mainstream distro, after seeing how hard Manjaro tried with the whole "Bring simplicity to the masses" stuff and how many issues they still have. Is this an experimental or hobby distro or does it intend to be something grandma can use? If I had to choose this or BSD, it looks like I'd very strongly considering this…

> Is this an experimental or hobby distro or does it intend to be something grandma can use? It's an experimental hobby distro. If you want something grandma can use, you want to use use something everyone uses. Chimera is fairly niche and goes against all standards. You're always going to run into Chimera specific issues. Chimera also has a nice transparant build system that one can tinker with. As for Manjaro, I do…

> Manjaro developers just suck

This. They cant even be trusted to renew their certificate 4 times in a row. The level of incompetency reaches new highs.

Re: Chimera Linux

#53

Post by dataangel »

wavemode wrote: post #16
torstenvl wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Saying musl is non-standard is a serious allegation. Can you expand on that? In what way does it violate the standard?

I read "nonstandard" in their comment by its dictionary definition ("not average, normal, or usual"). Not that it literally violates a published standard.

yes exactly what I meant

Re: Chimera Linux

#54

Post by dataangel »

torstenvl wrote: post #20
wavemode wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I read "nonstandard" in their comment by its dictionary definition ("not average, normal, or usual"). Not that it literally violates a published standard.

That strikes me as disingenuous. Can you show me even one example of another person using "nonstandard" in this way as applied to a C library ?

That is really how I meant it. Using Linux for almost 20 years I've found the most important part of having a working system is being on the beaten path. Distros that do too much exotic stuff spend all their time fruitlessly trying to keep up with porting and end up confined to a small user base of OS geekery enthusiasts.

Re: Chimera Linux

#55

Post by dataangel »

marcus0x62 wrote: post #22
torstenvl wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Saying musl is non-standard is a serious allegation. Can you expand on that? In what way does it violate the standard?

> Saying musk is non-standard is a serious allegation. No, it isn't. It's the GP's opinion. Standard has a few different meanings, including something typically or commonly used. As in "GNU Libc has been the standard C library used by Linux distributions since 1991." That would be, you know, a statement of fact. Musl is, at best, a niche option used by a few distros.

It's not used by any of the major ones, so in practice lots of apps will be broken. I like musl, and I link it for my own stuff but I only have to make sure my stuff works. if I had to make sure everyone's existing stuff worked glibc is the only practical choice.

Re: Chimera Linux

#56

Post by NewJazz »

LeFantome wrote: post #39
NewJazz wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Most Linux installs are going to be using Bionic libc, so still dubious to call glibc "standard". This is Linux. There is no standard. OpenWRT used uClibc until 2019.

I am a fan of Chimera Linux and both Alpine and Void also use MUSL. But there is no denying that Glibc is the de facto standard on Linux Desktops and many desktop applications assume it. To me, that is a bad thing and we agree that diversity should be possible. We do not agree that “most Linux installs are going to be using Bionic”. Android uses the Linux kernel but it is not what people mean when they say “Linux”. T…

Android uses the Linux kernel but it is not what people mean when they say “Linux”.

Speak for yourself.

In my mind, Linux is home routers, smart TVs, digital signage, tablets, smartphone, fridges, and yes, servers and workstations.

Re: Chimera Linux

#57

Post by cycomanic »

akosoaaafjdr wrote: post #38
xcv123 wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

GNU is defined as what it is; that it is an operating system and that it is free software. "What is GNU? GNU is an operating system that is free software—that is, it respects users' freedom." https://www.gnu.org Although GNU stands for "GNU is NOT Unix" that doesn't count as its a boomer hacker meme that started before GNU.

I'll add that most anti-GNU people I know in the BSD space and related projects are not at all against GNU politically speaking or it's ideals or the free software movement. We mostly think that a variety of terrible technical decisions have been made and allowed to metastisize over the years, and that they are largely unfixable so long as Linux remains an operating system devoted primarily to ease of use, popularity…

Your statement is incredibly handwavy. GNU userland was doomed because the programmers were not professionals? Apart from the fact that many of the programmers were actually professionals, what were the design decisions that were made, keeping in mind that much of the userland design is essentially governed by posix.

Also if I look at many of the "professional" unixes userland tools I'd choose GNU userland any day, because the userland tools are incredibly handicapped, e.g. name one Solaris (or even better hp ux) core userland tool that is better than it's GNU equivalent.

Re: Chimera Linux

#58

Post by cycomanic »

NewJazz wrote: post #56
LeFantome wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am a fan of Chimera Linux and both Alpine and Void also use MUSL. But there is no denying that Glibc is the de facto standard on Linux Desktops and many desktop applications assume it. To me, that is a bad thing and we agree that diversity should be possible. We do not agree that “most Linux installs are going to be using Bionic”. Android uses the Linux kernel but it is not what people mean when they say “Linux”. T…

Android uses the Linux kernel but it is not what people mean when they say “Linux”. Speak for yourself. In my mind, Linux is home routers, smart TVs, digital signage, tablets, smartphone, fridges, and yes, servers and workstations.

Are you saying that just to be contrarian? When somebody tells you they're running Linux on the laptop, you actually think they are owning a chrome book (considering that there are likely more chrome books than laptops with other linuxes), when you read a job add which requires Linux admin knowledge, you think they mean being able to install apps on android?

Re: Chimera Linux

#59

Post by cycomanic »

akosoaaafjdr wrote: post #42
dataangel wrote: post #9

So they're basically saying "our system will be better because more things will just work" but then they decided to use nonstandard libc and coreutils so actually getting existing Linux scripts and software to work in this distro will be harder .

I think they are saying that in the operating system developer way, where "just works" means coherent and behaving according to some technical specification. It absolutely does not mean "no manual programming or customization from the user required". It means no dirty hacks, like the ones mainstream distros employ to make some of the customization and programming unnecessary that is actually kind of inherent to the w…

Citation needed, seriously if you make such broad, sweeping statements at lest back it up with specific evidence.

Re: Chimera Linux

#60

Post by q66 »

NewJazz wrote: post #18
5- wrote: post #10

i really like a lot of design choices in chimera linux (particularly around its packaging/build system), but as a current alpine linux (main pc, not docker) user, i find i still can't justify musl. i like small simple correct software, but musl, despite being all of those things, is, in my experience - slower than glibc, and in occasionally difficult to predict spots; - causes just a bit too much trouble porting soft…

[musl is] slower than glibc, and in occasionally difficult to predict spots Note that sometimes (/often) this purely due to the allocator, and as far as I remember Chimera uses a different allocator than the stock musl one.

in most applications where it matters, it actually tends to be the allocator; you'll find that especially interactive applications (e.g. browsers) tend to feel significantly more responsive in chimera than in alpine, as well as other things (e.g. LTO link times with lld take a third of the time)
Post reply on HN