Hello, I am looking for a well-supported Linux / BSD distribution with focus on following features (in no particular order) -

  • Systemd free (found some here)
  • Security focused (meaning hardened, not security tools)
  • Wayland (preferably without anything X11)
  • Lightweight (as much as possible)
  • Supports flatpak, containers and VMs (preferably libvirt)
  • Atomic (more optional then other requirements)

This is expected to be run on real hardware on desktop (so alpine will not work).

Along with that, what are some good lightweight (but well-known / actively maintained) desktop environments for Wayland?

  • I see some here but am looking for opinions or if some are missing.
  • Especially ones that support stacking.

The most interesting ones I could find -

  • Void Linux (has some X11 stuff, not security focused, will try installing Wayland)
  • Kicksecure, OpenBSD, HardenedBSD (yet to explore more for these)
  • MXLinux and Artix (seem very niche)?

I am looking for more recommendations/opinions for similar requirements, especially if there are better known ones.

  • BartyDeCanter@piefed.socialEnglish
    214·
    6 days ago

    You mean the change that was writen as an act of malicious compliance, by someone opposed to age verification laws, in such a way as to make an easy end run around them for all Linux developers, but then everyone went off half-cocked and started sending the author death threats? That compliance?

    • Zedstrian@sopuli.xyzEnglish
      71·
      6 days ago

      Dominik sees practical, non-surveillance uses for the field, like tailoring workshop laptops to age-appropriate defaults without restricting access to anything.

      No one deserves death threats, but per the quote above, the existence of the setting still encourages distributions to ask for the user’s age at setup, as apps may require the setting to be enabled to know how to handle the user’s data and which experience is best suited for them.

      While this may automate the parental control process for parents, many users don’t want their data used by software in ways they don’t consent to, even if it doesn’t leave the device.

      • BartyDeCanter@piefed.socialEnglish
        121·
        6 days ago

        Thats kinda the point of the malicious compliance though. It’s an optional field. By default, distros can choose to ignore it or auto fill in 1900-01-01. In places where it’s required by law, adduser can ask and it will accept anything. The same way adduser currently asks for your real name, phone numbers, and room number but does not give a fuck what they are or if you fill them out.

        The parental controls issue is actually a bigger deal. I would love to give my kids a Linux laptop that could actually protect their privacy while also giving me good parental control tool, but such a thing does not exists. Yes, if you do a quick search for “Linux parental controls” you’ll find some things, but they are clearly half-assed attempts that don’t really work. This absolutely doesn’t either but maybe it’s a step in that direction. Instead, I do what most schools and parents do and give them a Chromebook because it has a good, though not great, parental control system.

        Let me be clear, I am also opposed to age verification laws and have written, called and had meetings with my representatives to oppose them. It’s been somewhat successful, though not as much as I would like.

        In the end, malicious compliance that allows FOSS developers plausible deniability is better than ignoring the laws and hoping that you’re not the one they decide to make an example of.