Chimera Linux works toward a simplified desktop
104 comments
·January 26, 2025dchuk
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)
aktuel
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.
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]
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...
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.
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
replete
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
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.
imiric
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.
replete
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!
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?
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?
leshokunin
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
Niri would be a simplified desktop to me
christophilus
Niri is my daily driver. I absolutely love it. Couldn’t switch back to any other approach to window management.
PixelForg
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.
omnimus
There is also PaperWM https://github.com/paperwm/PaperWM it works pretty well. I would be using it if i didnt switch to Cosmic.
depingus
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.
anonzzzies
Cheers, that looks nice.
desireco42
Wow... love it, thanks for posting.
LeFantome
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.
“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