MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <OpA1zgz--F-9@tuta.io> <ccda5a36-7994-4593-8d22-f5151e082f74@web.de>
 <CAD1Ag0w-aRz9=g3Uoo2fdR9RxoLAvhRtyqxSRDpsQkP+dd3c8Q@mail.gmail.com> <2838510e48dd7564e67dcb67562b968ccc4a9724.camel@riseup.net>
In-Reply-To: <2838510e48dd7564e67dcb67562b968ccc4a9724.camel@riseup.net>
From: Jerome Marc <marcjero@yahoo.com>
Date: Fri, 3 Apr 2026 02:01:07 +0200
Message-ID: <CAD1Ag0yfan8tXn3kcYLvKkWmvgbe+9Zr2ThDWfcsQp-W4Mi8gg@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Why'd you go with Alpine Linux?
To: Ralf Mardorf <ralf-mardorf@riseup.net>
Cc: ~alpine/users@lists.alpinelinux.org
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="00000000000045a9b1064e8304b2"

--00000000000045a9b1064e8304b2
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

apk makes a clear difference between a package installed explicitly or as a
dependency. Therefore removing a package removes useless dependencies
automatically. No need to use things like  autoremove. Plus apk supports
diskless mode natively. Plus apt uses much more packages which creates
complexity. I find apk is easier to go and is faster also. I used
debian/ubuntu for years.

Plasma is not bloatware. And memory footprint is ok, lower than with gnome
actually. It supports touchscreen and tablet mode on my tiny arm64
chromebook. The user experience is amazing compared to the pathetic
ChromeOS it was running before. Imagine that Chrome OS is less efficient
than Alpine KDE : slower,  memory hungry (thanks to the VM/containers mess
that Google introduced to isolates subsystems)

The only downside is musl for apps compatibility. But I can use flatpack in
this case. Flatpack consumes more memory but it's the same for the other
distro. At least the Alpine base system is lighter so it gives more room
for applications.

So yes it sounds surprising but Alpine (and postmarketos) offer a really
good desktop experience. My 8gb chromebook is my main machine now when it
has become almost useless overtime under ChromeOS). Anyway I don't have a
choice: postmarketos is the only distro supporting this computer.

Le ven. 3 avr. 2026 =C3=A0 00:55, Ralf Mardorf <ralf-mardorf@riseup.net> a
=C3=A9crit :

> First of all, I=E2=80=99d like to say that a distro built on BusyBox and =
Musl
> has its advantages. Alpine is, without a doubt, an excellent distro.
>
> However, I have a hard time with some of the statements because I can=E2=
=80=99t
> quite wrap my head around them.
>
> On Thu, 2026-04-02 at 20:58 +0200, Wolfgang Klein wrote:
> > with full KDE desktop
>
> For me, as someone who uses the command line instead of file managers
> and who doesn=E2=80=99t use a desktop environment at all (just a window m=
anager)
> regardless of what Linux or FreeeBSD based BSD I run, I don=E2=80=99t see=
 the
> point of installing a bloated desktop environment on top of a system
> based on BusyBox and Musl, nor do I see how it ends up being any lighter
> than any user-friendly major distro.
>
> On Thu, 2026-04-02 at 22:07 +0200, Jerome Marc wrote:
> > I prefer the apk package manager (vs apt) because it's easier to
> > control which software you install overtime.
>
> There=E2=80=99s no question that building deb packages is a hassle, it ha=
rdly
> gets any worse than that (and even that happens), but I don=E2=80=99t und=
erstand
> why it should be a problem with apt to keep track of which software
> you=E2=80=99ve installed over time. Could you please explain in what way =
apt is
> supposed to be worse in this regard than any other package manager for
> any other package format?
>

--00000000000045a9b1064e8304b2
Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<div dir=3D"ltr">apk makes a clear difference between a package installed e=
xplicitly or as a dependency. Therefore=C2=A0removing a package removes use=
less dependencies automatically. No need to use things like=C2=A0 autoremov=
e. Plus apk supports diskless mode natively. Plus apt uses much more packag=
es which creates complexity. I find apk is easier to go and is faster also.=
 I used debian/ubuntu=C2=A0for years.<div><br></div><div>Plasma is not bloa=
tware. And memory footprint is ok,=C2=A0lower than with gnome actually. It =
supports touchscreen and tablet mode on my tiny arm64 chromebook. The user =
experience is amazing compared to the pathetic ChromeOS it=C2=A0was running=
 before. Imagine that Chrome OS is less efficient than Alpine KDE : slower,=
=C2=A0 memory hungry (thanks to the VM/containers mess that Google introduc=
ed to isolates subsystems)</div><div><br></div><div>The only downside=C2=A0=
is musl for apps compatibility. But I can use flatpack in this case. Flatpa=
ck consumes more memory but it&#39;s the same for the other distro. At leas=
t the Alpine base system is lighter so it gives more room for applications.=
</div><div><br></div><div>So yes it sounds surprising but Alpine (and postm=
arketos) offer a really good desktop experience. My 8gb chromebook is my ma=
in machine now when it has become almost useless overtime under ChromeOS). =
Anyway I don&#39;t have a choice: postmarketos is the only distro supportin=
g this computer.</div></div><br><div class=3D"gmail_quote gmail_quote_conta=
iner"><div dir=3D"ltr" class=3D"gmail_attr">Le=C2=A0ven. 3 avr. 2026 =C3=A0=
=C2=A000:55, Ralf Mardorf &lt;<a href=3D"mailto:ralf-mardorf@riseup.net">ra=
lf-mardorf@riseup.net</a>&gt; a =C3=A9crit=C2=A0:<br></div><blockquote clas=
s=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid r=
gb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">First of all, I=E2=80=99d like to say tha=
t a distro built on BusyBox and Musl<br>
has its advantages. Alpine is, without a doubt, an excellent distro.<br>
<br>
However, I have a hard time with some of the statements because I can=E2=80=
=99t<br>
quite wrap my head around them.<br>
<br>
On Thu, 2026-04-02 at 20:58 +0200, Wolfgang Klein wrote:<br>
&gt; with full KDE desktop<br>
<br>
For me, as someone who uses the command line instead of file managers<br>
and who doesn=E2=80=99t use a desktop environment at all (just a window man=
ager)<br>
regardless of what Linux or FreeeBSD based BSD I run, I don=E2=80=99t see t=
he<br>
point of installing a bloated desktop environment on top of a system<br>
based on BusyBox and Musl, nor do I see how it ends up being any lighter<br=
>
than any user-friendly major distro.<br>
<br>
On Thu, 2026-04-02 at 22:07 +0200, Jerome Marc wrote:<br>
&gt; I prefer the apk package manager (vs apt) because it&#39;s easier to<b=
r>
&gt; control which software you install overtime.<br>
<br>
There=E2=80=99s no question that building deb packages is a hassle, it hard=
ly<br>
gets any worse than that (and even that happens), but I don=E2=80=99t under=
stand<br>
why it should be a problem with apt to keep track of which software<br>
you=E2=80=99ve installed over time. Could you please explain in what way ap=
t is<br>
supposed to be worse in this regard than any other package manager for<br>
any other package format?<br>
</blockquote></div>

--00000000000045a9b1064e8304b2--