26
submitted 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) by calcoline582@programming.dev to c/linux@lemmy.world

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.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] risottobias@slrpnk.net 28 points 2 days ago

Why not systemd? You seem to want futuristic and secure things like Wayland and flatpak, yet don't want the security benefits of systemd?

[-] racketlauncher831@lemmy.ml 2 points 1 day ago

Will we ever get to the point where we are too tired to explain why we hate systemd, and the point where we get respect for deciding to not use systemd? To me it's about the same level of asking me "why be a lesbian" now.

[-] possiblylinux127@lemmy.zip 2 points 23 hours ago

"Ok grandpa let's get you to bed"

[-] Zedstrian@sopuli.xyz 7 points 2 days ago

Probably because of its compliance with age verification standardization.

[-] BartyDeCanter@piefed.social 21 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 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.xyz 7 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 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.social 12 points 1 day 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.

[-] modem_down@thebrainbin.org 4 points 2 days ago

Or the other issues listed at the site posted by the OP: https://nosystemd.org/

this post was submitted on 16 Aug 2026
26 points (100.0% liked)

Linux

18721 readers
134 users here now

Welcome to c/linux!

Welcome to our thriving Linux community! Whether you're a seasoned Linux enthusiast or just starting your journey, we're excited to have you here. Explore, learn, and collaborate with like-minded individuals who share a passion for open-source software and the endless possibilities it offers. Together, let's dive into the world of Linux and embrace the power of freedom, customization, and innovation. Enjoy your stay and feel free to join the vibrant discussions that await you!

Rules:

  1. Stay on topic: Posts and discussions should be related to Linux, open source software, and related technologies.

  2. Be respectful: Treat fellow community members with respect and courtesy.

  3. Quality over quantity: Share informative and thought-provoking content.

  4. No spam or self-promotion: Avoid excessive self-promotion or spamming.

  5. No NSFW adult content

  6. Follow general lemmy guidelines.

founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS