7 ms·

Interesting. This runs on KISS Linux. https://getkiss.org/ https://getkiss.org/ Linux has become so versatile and powerful, but I miss the days of simple OS’s.

by todd8 7y ago

Interesting. This runs on KISS Linux. https://getkiss.org/ https://getkiss.org/ Linux has become so versatile and powerful, but I miss the days of simple OS’s. I used to be a Unix OS architect and would study kernel code professionally while working on virtual memory systems, distributed file systems, and so forth. Linux has gotten so big now that I don’t think I’d have the energy to dive into the kernel code anymore. The KISS Linux distro looks interesting because of it’s extreme focus on simplicity.

m-p-3 7y ago
And complexity is the enemy of security too. I like to keep things simple, even though many real-life scenarios don't always bend themselves to simplicity.
qwerty456127 7y ago
Looks curious, I'd love to try it, I always wanted a system which wouldn't run anything I don't need (e.g. I never need Avahi or Samba, I don't need a user manager and would love to startx, I agree to sacrifice boot speed for simplicity - waiting a minute is ok for a desktop PC to start if you get something as valuable as understanding your system in exchange). That's a pity it doesn't have binary packages - building everything I need from source is going to take too long. I also doubt everything is going to work without the D-Bus. AFAIK many apps also fail to work with musl, and busybox might not include all the features of the classic GNU tools I may occasionally need. So I wish there were a slightly less radically simple Linux distribution. PS: and I hate sh (as many others probably do), everything-LISP would probably be more fun.
- anthk 7y ago
  You'd love Guix.
  - qwerty456127 7y ago
    Isn't it too GNU? I want all of my system (including all the hardware) to actually function and this is hardly possible without non-free code.
    - owl57 7y ago
      You can install vanilla kernel and firmware. It won't ever be in the official repos, but the needed configuration is relatively simple and easy to google.
    - _emacsomancer_ 7y ago
      it's easy to add additional channels/repositories, e.g. https://github.com/guix-users/guix-nonfree https://github.com/guix-users/guix-nonfree , https://gitlab.com/divansantana/guix-packages-nonfree https://gitlab.com/divansantana/guix-packages-nonfree , &c.
      - NieDzejkob 7y ago
        I have found this channel to be the most complete and up-to-date: https://gitlab.com/nonguix/nonguix https://gitlab.com/nonguix/nonguix
- sjy 7y ago
  Have you tried Arch? It has binary packages; GNOME, Avahi, Samba and similar basic but non-essential packages must be explicitly installed; the package manager is ridiculously fast; and it’s usually easy to install proprietary blobs and other unsupported stuff using the huge user package repository, if you’re comfortable with the associated risks.
  - vpzom 7y ago
    > systemd
    - gmueckl 7y ago
      There' artix Linux for that: https://artixlinux.org/ https://artixlinux.org/ It's a very good derivative of arch that removes systemd.
    - JdeBP 7y ago
      Hyperbola is an Arch Linux derivative that famously does not have systemd. There are others. * https://hyperbola.info/ https://hyperbola.info/
      - qwerty456127 7y ago
        > A fully free, stable, secure, simple, lightweight and long-term support distribution The first, second and the last attributes make a kind of distributions I am really (really!) glad they exist but, unfortunately, am hardly going to use because from the real life perspective this means your hardware is not going to work, you won't be able to read common file formats and you will be limited to ancient version of software.
  - qwerty456127 7y ago
    I used Arch during the days before it switched to systemd (and before Ubuntu introduced Unity) and enjoyed it until I have accidentally found out Ubuntu feels faster on my PC so I switched to Ubuntu. Once Ubuntu switched to GNOME3 I have switched to Manjaro (with KDE5) and I really love it (it feels like the perfect spot between Arch freshness and reasonable stability - you still get the fresh stuff reasonably fast but they test it before that so it's much less likely for an update to ruin your system) but I don't know how to get rid of Avahi: :: removing avahi breaks dependency 'avahi' required by geoclue :: removing avahi breaks dependency 'avahi' required by gvfs :: removing avahi breaks dependency 'avahi' required by kdnssd :: removing avahi breaks dependency 'avahi' required by libcups :: removing avahi breaks dependency 'avahi' required by mpd :: removing avahi breaks dependency 'avahi' required by nss-mdns :: removing avahi breaks dependency 'avahi' required by ostree :: removing avahi breaks dependency 'avahi' required by pulseaudio-zeroconf :: removing avahi breaks dependency 'avahi' required by sane i.e. I certainly need CUPS (to have a virtual PDF printer) and it depends on it (and I don't even know what 2/3 of the rest of the packages listed do). It is also very much possible the situation is the same on Arch. Also, I don't really mind systemd from the practical point of view but the actual idea we were speaking about is having a simple, intuitive init system, which systemd is not.
- vpzom 7y ago
  Thoughts on https://voidlinux.org/ https://voidlinux.org/?
  - petre 7y ago
    It's nice, simple, boots fast. Uses runit as init. The package manager, XBPS, has a funny name which I always misspell, the tools are separate like legacy apt-get, apt-search etc and it's CLI is a bit like pacman's, as in not quite the user friendliest. Package number is comparable to alpine. It's probably a bit like a modern Slackware.
blackhaz 7y ago
Have you looked at BSDs?
- edgyquant 7y ago
  I wouldn't call any BSD simple. They have less kernel code than Linux, sure, but they are huge beats in of themselves.
  - jonhohle 7y ago
    In my experience as an end user, they are decidedly simpler, have much better documentation, and changes are broadcast through standardized release processes. I spend a lot less time “admin-ing” my FreeBSD servers than I did when they were Linux.
  - zelly 7y ago
    FreeBSD you mean. OpenBSD and NetBSD are still simple. You can realistically read the entire source code of OpenBSD, compile it, and know exactly what's on your computer front to back. To do the same with Linux is a research project.
    - skissane 7y ago
      > You can realistically read the entire source code of OpenBSD, compile it, and know exactly what's on your computer front to back. To do the same with Linux is a research project. openbsd/src is over 17,000 *.c files with over 3 million lines of code
      - nineteen999 7y ago
        That's just a light weekends reading for your average testicle in an eggcup.
    - majewsky 7y ago
      > and know exactly what's on your computer front to back That's assuming you read all that firmware code already...
zelly 7y ago
Check out OpenBSD. It gives me that old Linux feeling before it became corporate infrastructure. The code is not bloated like Linux so you can actually contribute as an individual.
- newnewpdro 7y ago
  > The code is not bloated like Linux so you can actually contribute as an individual. What on earth are you talking about? Individuals can and do contribute to Linux every day! The barrier to contributing to Linux is lower than ever, this is such utter nonsense.
  - rat9988 7y ago
    It is not. You are really dismissing his original point that the contribution is made difficult because of code bloat. I have a hard time believing this is easier than ever, as 20 years ago the code must have been simpler.
    - newnewpdro 7y ago
      The code bloat of what exactly? Are we talking about the kernel or the entire distro? Let's look at one of the favorite whipping boys from uninformed folks claiming linux systems are now bloated: systemd. In many ways the consolidation of various disparate userspace components that occurred with the advent of systemd has substantially simplified the task of contributing to anything it covers. There's now a mono repo encompassing a huge swath of the core of userspace with far less code duplication than we used to have in the bad old days where every little component was a snowflake project managed by its own respective cabal with its own mailing lists (if you're lucky) and its own ideas of how configuration files should be parsed, services installed/enabled/run, and generally a huge snowflake pile of redundant functionality. Anyone with basic C knowledge now can clone the well organized repo and in very little time be reading and modifying code in a DVCS, and with systems and processes like git and github in place you can have your first patch up in the form of a reviewable and upstream-mergable PR in under an hour, without anyone else's involvement! If you don't think this is has all lowered the barrier substantially for individual contributors interested in understanding, modifying, and contributing changes to the code underpinning their systems, you simply have no idea what it used to be like.
dmos62 7y ago
I hadn't heard of Kiss, looks cool. I'd say that the go-to simple linux option has been Slackware for a very long time. And the simple linux modern option is something like Void Linux. Simplicity largely comes from not using systemd in the case of Void, though I'd be reluctant to say the same of its (very powerful) package manager.
majewsky 7y ago
> focus on simplicity > explicitly uses Xorg instead of Wayland Just as I thought. No actual simplicity, just some neckbeards complaining about software evolving in the last 20 years.
- johnr2 7y ago
  > No actual simplicity, just some neckbeards complaining about software evolving... Care to rephrase that without the insulting terminology?
  - Athas 7y ago
    Nothing is particularly simple about X11, especially in its modern incarnations. It's much simpler to have an API that maps cleanly to what the hardware is actually doing, which is what Wayland is. You can still prefer X11 for its features, like network transparency, but it is more complex than Wayland.
  - oblio 7y ago
    X is not simple.
  - majewsky 7y ago
    Wayland is just a vastly simpler architecture compared to Xorg, enabling lower redraw latency and tighter control of the display hardware on modern hardware (as in: systems where the GPU rather than the CPU computes the actual colors of pixels). Those concerns are more important for graphical desktop environments, not so much for terminal multiplexers [1]. Therefore most existing Wayland compositors are focused on conventional desktop users. People with a "I just need a bunch of terminal windows" mindset will look at these and complain about bloat, but it's not really bloat to be able to play games without screen tearing (an issue that I always had with Xorg and that's just gone with Wayland). And it's not bloat to be able to play audio in Firefox either (Firefox afair only supports PulseAudio). [1] Referencing the old 90s joke that Xorg is just a graphical terminal multiplexer, since the average Unix user mostly just uses it to have multiple terminal emulator windows open at the same time.

by todd8 7y ago

m-p-3 7y ago

And complexity is the enemy of security too. I like to keep things simple, even though many real-life scenarios don't always bend themselves to simplicity.

qwerty456127 7y ago

Looks curious, I'd love to try it, I always wanted a system which wouldn't run anything I don't need (e.g. I never need Avahi or Samba, I don't need a user manager and would love to startx, I agree to sacrifice boot speed for simplicity - waiting a minute is ok for a desktop PC to start if you get something as valuable as understanding your system in exchange). That's a pity it doesn't have binary packages - building everything I need from source is going to take too long. I also doubt everything is going to work without the D-Bus. AFAIK many apps also fail to work with musl, and busybox might not include all the features of the classic GNU tools I may occasionally need. So I wish there were a slightly less radically simple Linux distribution. PS: and I hate sh (as many others probably do), everything-LISP would probably be more fun.

anthk 7y ago
You'd love Guix.
- qwerty456127 7y ago
  Isn't it too GNU? I want all of my system (including all the hardware) to actually function and this is hardly possible without non-free code.
  - owl57 7y ago
    You can install vanilla kernel and firmware. It won't ever be in the official repos, but the needed configuration is relatively simple and easy to google.
  - _emacsomancer_ 7y ago
    it's easy to add additional channels/repositories, e.g. https://github.com/guix-users/guix-nonfree https://github.com/guix-users/guix-nonfree , https://gitlab.com/divansantana/guix-packages-nonfree https://gitlab.com/divansantana/guix-packages-nonfree , &c.
    - NieDzejkob 7y ago
      I have found this channel to be the most complete and up-to-date: https://gitlab.com/nonguix/nonguix https://gitlab.com/nonguix/nonguix
sjy 7y ago
Have you tried Arch? It has binary packages; GNOME, Avahi, Samba and similar basic but non-essential packages must be explicitly installed; the package manager is ridiculously fast; and it’s usually easy to install proprietary blobs and other unsupported stuff using the huge user package repository, if you’re comfortable with the associated risks.
- vpzom 7y ago
  > systemd
  - gmueckl 7y ago
    There' artix Linux for that: https://artixlinux.org/ https://artixlinux.org/ It's a very good derivative of arch that removes systemd.
  - JdeBP 7y ago
    Hyperbola is an Arch Linux derivative that famously does not have systemd. There are others. * https://hyperbola.info/ https://hyperbola.info/
    - qwerty456127 7y ago
      > A fully free, stable, secure, simple, lightweight and long-term support distribution The first, second and the last attributes make a kind of distributions I am really (really!) glad they exist but, unfortunately, am hardly going to use because from the real life perspective this means your hardware is not going to work, you won't be able to read common file formats and you will be limited to ancient version of software.
- qwerty456127 7y ago
  I used Arch during the days before it switched to systemd (and before Ubuntu introduced Unity) and enjoyed it until I have accidentally found out Ubuntu feels faster on my PC so I switched to Ubuntu. Once Ubuntu switched to GNOME3 I have switched to Manjaro (with KDE5) and I really love it (it feels like the perfect spot between Arch freshness and reasonable stability - you still get the fresh stuff reasonably fast but they test it before that so it's much less likely for an update to ruin your system) but I don't know how to get rid of Avahi: :: removing avahi breaks dependency 'avahi' required by geoclue :: removing avahi breaks dependency 'avahi' required by gvfs :: removing avahi breaks dependency 'avahi' required by kdnssd :: removing avahi breaks dependency 'avahi' required by libcups :: removing avahi breaks dependency 'avahi' required by mpd :: removing avahi breaks dependency 'avahi' required by nss-mdns :: removing avahi breaks dependency 'avahi' required by ostree :: removing avahi breaks dependency 'avahi' required by pulseaudio-zeroconf :: removing avahi breaks dependency 'avahi' required by sane i.e. I certainly need CUPS (to have a virtual PDF printer) and it depends on it (and I don't even know what 2/3 of the rest of the packages listed do). It is also very much possible the situation is the same on Arch. Also, I don't really mind systemd from the practical point of view but the actual idea we were speaking about is having a simple, intuitive init system, which systemd is not.
vpzom 7y ago
Thoughts on https://voidlinux.org/ https://voidlinux.org/?
- petre 7y ago
  It's nice, simple, boots fast. Uses runit as init. The package manager, XBPS, has a funny name which I always misspell, the tools are separate like legacy apt-get, apt-search etc and it's CLI is a bit like pacman's, as in not quite the user friendliest. Package number is comparable to alpine. It's probably a bit like a modern Slackware.

blackhaz 7y ago

Have you looked at BSDs?

edgyquant 7y ago
I wouldn't call any BSD simple. They have less kernel code than Linux, sure, but they are huge beats in of themselves.
- jonhohle 7y ago
  In my experience as an end user, they are decidedly simpler, have much better documentation, and changes are broadcast through standardized release processes. I spend a lot less time “admin-ing” my FreeBSD servers than I did when they were Linux.
- zelly 7y ago
  FreeBSD you mean. OpenBSD and NetBSD are still simple. You can realistically read the entire source code of OpenBSD, compile it, and know exactly what's on your computer front to back. To do the same with Linux is a research project.
  - skissane 7y ago
    > You can realistically read the entire source code of OpenBSD, compile it, and know exactly what's on your computer front to back. To do the same with Linux is a research project. openbsd/src is over 17,000 *.c files with over 3 million lines of code
    - nineteen999 7y ago
      That's just a light weekends reading for your average testicle in an eggcup.
  - majewsky 7y ago
    > and know exactly what's on your computer front to back That's assuming you read all that firmware code already...

zelly 7y ago

Check out OpenBSD. It gives me that old Linux feeling before it became corporate infrastructure. The code is not bloated like Linux so you can actually contribute as an individual.

newnewpdro 7y ago
> The code is not bloated like Linux so you can actually contribute as an individual. What on earth are you talking about? Individuals can and do contribute to Linux every day! The barrier to contributing to Linux is lower than ever, this is such utter nonsense.
- rat9988 7y ago
  It is not. You are really dismissing his original point that the contribution is made difficult because of code bloat. I have a hard time believing this is easier than ever, as 20 years ago the code must have been simpler.
  - newnewpdro 7y ago
    The code bloat of what exactly? Are we talking about the kernel or the entire distro? Let's look at one of the favorite whipping boys from uninformed folks claiming linux systems are now bloated: systemd. In many ways the consolidation of various disparate userspace components that occurred with the advent of systemd has substantially simplified the task of contributing to anything it covers. There's now a mono repo encompassing a huge swath of the core of userspace with far less code duplication than we used to have in the bad old days where every little component was a snowflake project managed by its own respective cabal with its own mailing lists (if you're lucky) and its own ideas of how configuration files should be parsed, services installed/enabled/run, and generally a huge snowflake pile of redundant functionality. Anyone with basic C knowledge now can clone the well organized repo and in very little time be reading and modifying code in a DVCS, and with systems and processes like git and github in place you can have your first patch up in the form of a reviewable and upstream-mergable PR in under an hour, without anyone else's involvement! If you don't think this is has all lowered the barrier substantially for individual contributors interested in understanding, modifying, and contributing changes to the code underpinning their systems, you simply have no idea what it used to be like.

dmos62 7y ago

I hadn't heard of Kiss, looks cool. I'd say that the go-to simple linux option has been Slackware for a very long time. And the simple linux modern option is something like Void Linux. Simplicity largely comes from not using systemd in the case of Void, though I'd be reluctant to say the same of its (very powerful) package manager.

majewsky 7y ago

> focus on simplicity > explicitly uses Xorg instead of Wayland Just as I thought. No actual simplicity, just some neckbeards complaining about software evolving in the last 20 years.

johnr2 7y ago
> No actual simplicity, just some neckbeards complaining about software evolving... Care to rephrase that without the insulting terminology?
- Athas 7y ago
  Nothing is particularly simple about X11, especially in its modern incarnations. It's much simpler to have an API that maps cleanly to what the hardware is actually doing, which is what Wayland is. You can still prefer X11 for its features, like network transparency, but it is more complex than Wayland.
- oblio 7y ago
  X is not simple.
- majewsky 7y ago
  Wayland is just a vastly simpler architecture compared to Xorg, enabling lower redraw latency and tighter control of the display hardware on modern hardware (as in: systems where the GPU rather than the CPU computes the actual colors of pixels). Those concerns are more important for graphical desktop environments, not so much for terminal multiplexers [1]. Therefore most existing Wayland compositors are focused on conventional desktop users. People with a "I just need a bunch of terminal windows" mindset will look at these and complain about bloat, but it's not really bloat to be able to play games without screen tearing (an issue that I always had with Xorg and that's just gone with Wayland). And it's not bloat to be able to play audio in Firefox either (Firefox afair only supports PulseAudio). [1] Referencing the old 90s joke that Xorg is just a graphical terminal multiplexer, since the average Unix user mostly just uses it to have multiple terminal emulator windows open at the same time.