Chimera Linux works toward a simplified desktop

> 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?

> 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.

> 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.

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.

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.