5 ms·

If you're interested in something like Adelie Linux, you might be interested in Chimera Linux. Both are musl libc based and both use Alpine's apk. * Chimera Li

If you're interested in something like Adelie Linux, you might be interested in Chimera Linux. Both are musl libc based and both use Alpine's apk. * Chimera Linux uses BSD userland while Adelie uses GNU coreutils * Chimera has the dinit init system / service manager while Adelie uses OpenRC * Adelie uses gcc as far as I can tell while Chimera uses clang as the default system compiler * Chimera uses the scudo memory allocator rather than musl's default memory allocator. Scudo is apparently faster than musl's default allocator. Not aware of what Adelie does. In general, it is not clear to me why Adelie should be preferred over, say, Alpine. The differences don't seem that significant to me to make a switch from Alpine, if you currently use it. Full disclosure: I use Chimera and I like it. In particular, I like (a) clang/llvm usage as default compiler (b) the lovely and elegant cbuild package build system A recent Chimera Linux article: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38667503 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38667503 P.S. It would be great if they listed Chimera on: https://oldwww.adelielinux.org/about/compare.html https://oldwww.adelielinux.org/about/compare.html

donkeybeer 3y ago
What are your reasons for preferring clang over gcc?
- sidkshatriya 3y ago
  Clang/LLVM allows a lot of tinkering and compiler software development that is more difficult with gcc. Clang/LLVM is just an easier platform for code instrumentation, cross compilation, code sanitizers, building your own compiler tool/language, understanding the codebase, good documentation to build your own LLVM based tools... It's a bonus that any tools/languages etc. you build using the LLVM infrastructure does not virally become GPL also. Aparently Clang is ~5% faster than GCC (at least on intel's latest chip) -- See https://www.phoronix.com/review/intel-meteorlake-gcc-clang https://www.phoronix.com/review/intel-meteorlake-gcc-clang . Though this is not a big deal for me -- it is just nice to know.
  - donkeybeer 3y ago
    GPL is a positive for me. I am not sure if there is an llvm equivalent in gcc that would pose a "risk" anyways if you embark on such a project. I'll look into the instrumentation and llvm stuff, thanks.
awilfox 3y ago
We started a separate BSD userland project before Chimera even existed, but we didn't feel the port was up to our standards of quality, so we shelved it. Removing our dependence on GNU software is a definite goal of mine, though it is relatively low priority and likely far off. Scudo can be faster in some workloads. However, I recall Scudo is woefully underperforming on 32-bit systems (it may not even work?). Replacing the memory allocator is definitely something you can do, but it introduces another variable into the mix, and I personally feel that would also compromise our goal of reliability. Differences between Alpine also include: NLS enabled everywhere, so translations work and are functional. No use of GNU gettext, only musl's gettext. A focus on providing a more "full" experience to users over optimising for smaller binary sizes. There are more differences obviously. For some uses Alpine would be better, and for some uses Adélie would be better. Also: that comparison page is on the oldwww. domain, which means it isn't a part of the current site, which is why it hasn't been updated.
- Zambyte 3y ago
  > Removing our dependence on GNU software is a definite goal of mine Why?
  - matheusmoreira 3y ago
    Ease of understanding, perhaps. I found musl source code much easier to understand than GNU libc. Or maybe GNU just rubs people the wrong way?
  - awilfox 3y ago
    * GNU tools are often bloated, with extensions that the vast majority of people do not need or want. While we don't have quite the same focus on "must be small binary size" as Alpine, needless waste is still needless waste. * GNU tools use gnulib, which is frequently incompatible with musl, and is a moving target for both building packages and passing tests. The number of patches I've personally had to write to make gnulib-based software work at all is dizzying. * GNU projects have a lot of odd contribution hurdles: I've still never managed to connect with GRUB maintainers despite trying the Savannah page and the mailing lists. It was a chore to upstream other things.
wkat4242 3y ago
> In general, it is not clear to me why Adelie should be preferred over, say, Alpine. Adelie is basically alpine but with a much bigger desktop focus. That's its raison d'etre, to stick with the French :)
- sidkshatriya 3y ago
  > Adelie is basically alpine but with a much bigger desktop focus. That's its raison d'etre, to stick with the French :) I think it would be helpful for this to be mentioned more prominently on the webpage. Maybe it is and I haven't spent enough time on the website. The Adelie webpage should be a bit more technical in nature IMHO -- the front page seemed more targetted at managers than developers. Sadly, the Adelie website feels a bit generic in its current state -- there are so many "corporate" websites like this. Home pages of Alpine Linux, Arch Linux etc. are ultimately useful to developers I think because the density of information is a bit higher and the marketing messages, while they exist, are not so front and center.

donkeybeer 3y ago

What are your reasons for preferring clang over gcc?

sidkshatriya 3y ago
Clang/LLVM allows a lot of tinkering and compiler software development that is more difficult with gcc. Clang/LLVM is just an easier platform for code instrumentation, cross compilation, code sanitizers, building your own compiler tool/language, understanding the codebase, good documentation to build your own LLVM based tools... It's a bonus that any tools/languages etc. you build using the LLVM infrastructure does not virally become GPL also. Aparently Clang is ~5% faster than GCC (at least on intel's latest chip) -- See https://www.phoronix.com/review/intel-meteorlake-gcc-clang https://www.phoronix.com/review/intel-meteorlake-gcc-clang . Though this is not a big deal for me -- it is just nice to know.
- donkeybeer 3y ago
  GPL is a positive for me. I am not sure if there is an llvm equivalent in gcc that would pose a "risk" anyways if you embark on such a project. I'll look into the instrumentation and llvm stuff, thanks.

awilfox 3y ago

We started a separate BSD userland project before Chimera even existed, but we didn't feel the port was up to our standards of quality, so we shelved it. Removing our dependence on GNU software is a definite goal of mine, though it is relatively low priority and likely far off. Scudo can be faster in some workloads. However, I recall Scudo is woefully underperforming on 32-bit systems (it may not even work?). Replacing the memory allocator is definitely something you can do, but it introduces another variable into the mix, and I personally feel that would also compromise our goal of reliability. Differences between Alpine also include: NLS enabled everywhere, so translations work and are functional. No use of GNU gettext, only musl's gettext. A focus on providing a more "full" experience to users over optimising for smaller binary sizes. There are more differences obviously. For some uses Alpine would be better, and for some uses Adélie would be better. Also: that comparison page is on the oldwww. domain, which means it isn't a part of the current site, which is why it hasn't been updated.

Zambyte 3y ago
> Removing our dependence on GNU software is a definite goal of mine Why?
- matheusmoreira 3y ago
  Ease of understanding, perhaps. I found musl source code much easier to understand than GNU libc. Or maybe GNU just rubs people the wrong way?
- awilfox 3y ago
  * GNU tools are often bloated, with extensions that the vast majority of people do not need or want. While we don't have quite the same focus on "must be small binary size" as Alpine, needless waste is still needless waste. * GNU tools use gnulib, which is frequently incompatible with musl, and is a moving target for both building packages and passing tests. The number of patches I've personally had to write to make gnulib-based software work at all is dizzying. * GNU projects have a lot of odd contribution hurdles: I've still never managed to connect with GRUB maintainers despite trying the Savannah page and the mailing lists. It was a chore to upstream other things.

wkat4242 3y ago

> In general, it is not clear to me why Adelie should be preferred over, say, Alpine. Adelie is basically alpine but with a much bigger desktop focus. That's its raison d'etre, to stick with the French :)

sidkshatriya 3y ago
> Adelie is basically alpine but with a much bigger desktop focus. That's its raison d'etre, to stick with the French :) I think it would be helpful for this to be mentioned more prominently on the webpage. Maybe it is and I haven't spent enough time on the website. The Adelie webpage should be a bit more technical in nature IMHO -- the front page seemed more targetted at managers than developers. Sadly, the Adelie website feels a bit generic in its current state -- there are so many "corporate" websites like this. Home pages of Alpine Linux, Arch Linux etc. are ultimately useful to developers I think because the density of information is a bit higher and the marketing messages, while they exist, are not so front and center.