3 ms·
The chied point here seems to be the non-GNU (other than Make) chassis. Other than that, just running Alpine would seem less "exciting".
by smitty1e 3y ago
The chied point here seems to be the non-GNU (other than Make) chassis.
Other than that, just running Alpine would seem less "exciting".
- yjftsjthsd-h 3y agoI'm not sure i follow; Alpine is already not GNU? (At least, not at runtime (coreutils/libc); I think it might use GCC.) That said, an actual BSD/Linux is neat just like a GNU/BSD system (RIP Debian/kFreeBSD:(... ).
- smitty1e 3y agoChimera is as non-GNU as possible. Beside that, I don't see what Chimera offers beyond Alpine.
- q66 3y agoi don't think that statement makes much sense considering these two are not similar at all chimera provides a comprehensive, opinionated OS, and little to nothing is common with alpine (not even the package manager, as apkv3 hasn't been deployed anywhere else) it's probably the only linux distribution that has actual goal of having service management and other things practically comparable to systemd without using systemd, including first-class and built-in support for user services, session tracking and others; it utilizes stronger userland hardening than alpine (including e.g. clang CFI, until now only really deployed in android as far as linux distros go), has a superior (faster, more powerful, more secure) packaging infrastructure, and so on and so on as for non-GNUness, it's more of a how it turned out thing and a means to an end, not a goal or a selling point in itself (it never really was that), however any sort of "why not use GNU" question is itself fallacious, considering this is a from-scratch project and there are always choices to be made (and there is no reason not to choose the one that fits better and provides practical advantages) the faq has a lot of more detailed information: https://chimera-linux.org/docs/faq https://chimera-linux.org/docs/faq