Chimera Linux works toward a simplified desktop
127 comments
·January 26, 2025aktuel
WolfeReader
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.
spease
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
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
> 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.
bee_rider
I think they mean simple in the sense of minimized complexity, rather than dumbed down.
defanor
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].
bee_rider
> 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.
LeFantome
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.
Dalewyn
>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.
izacus
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
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.
rbanffy
> 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.
eenokentee
[dead]
dchuk
“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
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
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.
Arch-TK
Probably meant as "Desktop OS" not "Desktop UI".
A Linux distribution meant for desktop use as opposed to server use.
q66
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)
jmclnx
never heard of it, but interesting setup. FreeBSD user land with Linux and Gnome/Wayland.
codetrotter
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
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
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
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
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
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.
codetrotter
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.
rbanffy
There used to be a Debian with a GNU userland on top of a FreeBSD kernel. Debian GNU/KFreeBSD, I think.
mig39
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
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
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
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.
jacobtomlinson
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/
linfocito
From the FAQ (https://chimera-linux.org/docs/faq#what-about-chimeraos)
“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.”
bryanlarsen
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
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
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...
LeFantome
Thank you for the answer!
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.
hackshack
A pleasant surprise - the KDE version works "out of the box" on my 2015 MacBook 12" (A1534). This is an unusual machine, and Linux distros tend not to support its hardware out of the box. Chimera even sees the internal SSD, traditionally a stumbling point to installing Linux on this machine.
oguz-ismail
> Chimera's recommended desktop is GNOME
But that's the opposite of a simplified desktop
rsolva
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.
rollcat
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
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_accessibi...
IshKebab
I can't think of a single thing in Gnome that is somehow better than Windows, in terms of usability for beginners.
rsolva
My elderly family members beg to differ ;)
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.
krupan
It's also not really anything original and new? Not sure what the overall plan is here
theandrewbailey
> 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
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
LeFantome
It has been amazing to read in this thread how many people seem to think that “nothing new in the UI” equals “nothing interesting about this distro”.
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.
null
SoftTalker
Why not just use a BSD?
LeFantome
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
Ok, so why use any BSD components then?
LeFantome
Is this a real question? Instead of justifying the choice to use something good without taking the bad bits too, let me pretend you asked “what are the advantages of using the BSD 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.
freeone3000
Linux driver support. There’s a ton of wifi drivers and the like that are supported under linux but not under BSD.
SoftTalker
Obscure driver support doesn’t seem like it fits with a “simplified” Linux but maybe…
LeFantome
The list of hardware supported by the Linux kernel is not exactly “obscure”.
Klonoar
Wifi is not “obscure”.
q66
considering it's not a bsd nor it's trying to be like one, that question doesn't make a lot of sense?
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.