apt install musl
If you like to copy statically linked binaries between musl and glibc systems, some day you will learn about libnss.
Interestingly there is an sssd package in alpine but it cannot work. https://gitlab.alpinelinux.org/alpine/aports/-/issues/16969
https://github.com/rustadopt/uzers-rs/issues/20 ("Now the bad news: I poked around a bit and believe the problem is that MUSL does not support sideloading the NSS plugins needed to retrieve things from SSSD like GLIBC does and thus does only ever read users from /etc/passwd, see: SSSD/sssd#6586")
"Alpine Linux is good candidate, as Glibc static compilation is broken for political purposes, and Musl Libc allows static compilation."
"The GCC/Linux developer community is sold on shared library executables. They like shared libraries due to the reduced memory and disk footprints, as well as the concept that upgrading one shared library eventually automatically upgrades all applications which use that library. Consequently, information on statically linked programs is rather sparse."
https://web.archive.org/web/20170306062400/http://www.static...
I've generally seen it for embedded systems due to smaller size and you can statically link it.
But there are some compatibility drawbacks for non musl binaries as well as source that intentionally or unintentionally relies on glibc behavior or non standard functionality.
You don't want to mix and match your libc's on a running system.
Buildroot may be a good way to start to play with musl (or uClibc, another small c library).
I recently tried to run it in alpine after seeing this blog post and here's what I can say. If you lets say have debian or something or any system where any binary might work, run the script and then it would output a folder/tar and then you can move it anywhere and run it including alpine.
I am thinking of creating an article. But in the meanwhile I have created an asciinema gif to show you guys what I mean. Open to feedback as always.
I mostly consider it a non-issue because I use Distrobox. An Arch Distrobox gives me access to all the Arch software including the AUR. Graphical apps can even be exported to my desktop launcher. They are technically running on a container but I just click on them like anything else and they show up in their own Wayland window just like everything else. Or, I can run from the command line, including compiling on top of Glibc if I want/need to. And keeping everything up to day just means running yay or pacman.
I can see the advantage of Zapps in some cases though, especially for CLI stuff. Very cool.
If POSIX compliance and Glibc compatibility were the same thing, it would not be a problem.
My only issues have been:
* Nvidia proprietary drivers (when I was building a PC with an old GPU).
* DRM (Netflix).
* I think I also had problems with SQLite3 while trying to install the Twitch test server thingy inside an Alpine container.
Other than that it's just minor things, just like every distro has some things that are different but no big deal.
> I think that, if you have a very consistent usage of Alpine, where you are mostly doing the same thing and using the same tools, you could find a comfy workflow there.
Yeah, or in my case it's because I try to keep the host minimalist and clean, and do most of the dirty/experimentation stuff in Docker, just to be able to nuke it from orbit once I'm done.
It's also dumbproof to make your own native packages if you want, for example if you want to use fonts but you can't just `git clone` because they require a build step (!).
Apparently some people have had issues with DNS, but I've never had any. I don't know if it's because I always point to my Unbound instance for DNS, or if it's just been a coincidence.
The most common problem for me is software distributed as binary that links to Glibc. That shows up on surprise places. For example, building the Ladybird browser uses vcpkg which needs Glibc. In these cases, I reach for Distrobox.
Pretty sure the DNs behaviour in MUSL was changed and is no longer an issue.
But I think it all began with disliking systemd and at the same time being obsessed with ricing and minimalism. Tiling window managers, simple terminals, LuaKit as a web browser (!), stuff like that.
Back then I was young and had very strong opinions, and also had the time to be switching OS whenever I wanted, and apparently I didn't mind setting up stuff again and again (ugh). My first choice was actually Artix Linux, but it broke at some point. I was already using Alpine Linux and FreeBSD in VPSs (Linode and Digital Ocean respectively), and they were still working fine so they seemed stable enough, so I started experimenting with installing FreeBSD locally and just setting up i3wm on it (also Poudriere got me curious about compiling packages by myself with only the flags I needed). Then when I got a laptop I went with Alpine Linux there, it was already a minimal distro that I was familiar with, so if I could get i3wm working there it should be good enough.
And I have survived with them so far with no reason to change, so it's probably just coincidence that I was using Alpine Linux (and FreeBSD) when I decided to "settle down".
But like I said, today it's mostly inertia, just a personal preference thing like buying Ketchup from a specific brand whenever possible because I'm most used to how this one tastes but no big deal if it's not available. It hasn't given me any surprises or any annoyances big enough for me to seriously consider switching.
I do have Linux Mint on a third[1] computer tho, mostly for Steam, but ready to be quickly repurposed in case of any surprises.
I still have some leftover dislike of systemd and its scope creep, but it's not a religious dislike like back then; today it's similar to a "why does this website have 20MB of JavaScript just to show text and why does it ask for my location"-kind of dislike, but back then was like "the GNU Project declaring war against any software that doesn't use specifically a GNU license even if that software has an OSI-approved license"-kind of dislike. Recently when I used Hetzner for some stuff and found out they don't have Alpine Linux or FreeBSD as (easy) choices, I was like "oh well, Fedora it is".
So yeah, there you have it.
[1]: Why a third computer? Well, you can thank two spicy pillow incidents for that. Don't buy Medion laptops.
You're like a long-term classic-era-john-deere minimalist.
Personally I use it in multistage dockerfiles for when I do things like wget or file manipulation.
I missed his point here. Isn’t that what Debian Stable is? It is not like you do not get any updates in Debian. It is just that they are all security updates that do mot often bring new features. How is that different from what he is asking for?
I tend to install an Arch Distrobox but Debian would work too. Both have massive software repos all running on Glibc. Anything not natively in the Alpine repos can be installed from the Distrobox repo instead. If it is a command-line app, it is just opening a terminal and typing. And GUI apps can be exported to the host app launcher where they launch and run normally.
I guess there is some “friction” but it is very minor. And if you like the distro otherwise, the overall experience is net positive.
Personally, I dislike Glibc. I am happier without it. And, when I have to use it, I can easily.
I think I have similar feelings about tweaking my own machines vs setting one up for others, but I do not share the sentiment about systemd and especially Arch.
What cultural issues could there be?
This is exactly the sweet spot that Gentoo hits for me. The default configuration will install only "stable" packages, which are bumped ASAP for security reasons, but you're always free to switch a selection of (or all packages) to their "unstable" variants. Thanks to its source compiled nature, doing this is never a "partial upgrade", and is very well supported. Even if you use Gentoo as a binary distribution, portage is extremely meticulous in ensuring version compatibility.
ktallett•2d ago
casparvitch•2d ago
pinsl•2d ago
[0] https://hj.9fs.net/khm/p/1750378257.144987