Building "Peak Linux" - What would your ideal distribution experience look like?

[r-witz]

Hello everyone,
I'm starting work on a new Linux distribution called Peak Linux, and before I get too deep into building it, I want to hear from the community first.

The idea is simple: a distribution that's lean, minimal, fast, and beautiful. Something that makes strong choices instead of trying to please everyone. I'm basing it on Arch to keep pacman/AUR compatibility, but beyond that, I'm trying to figure out what "peak" really means.


So here's my question: If you could design your ideal Linux experience, what would it look like?

I'm not asking about specific technical choices. I want to understand what matters to you in your daily experience. What frustrates you about your current distro? What makes you think "I wish this worked differently"? When you imagine the perfect Linux system, what does that look like?

Maybe it's about speed, not just boot time, but everything feeling instant and responsive. Maybe it's about aesthetics, a system that looks as good as it works. Maybe it's about minimalism, only what you need, nothing more. Or maybe it's something else entirely.


What does "peak" mean to you?

The goal with trying to build this is not at all to make a distribution to please everyone, but on the contrary to build something very opinionated, but before that just wanted to get the general vibe and opinions of the community for what the peak linux desktop experience would look like to them. Your honest thoughts would be incredibly valuable.


Looking forward to hearing your vision.

 

[tpkusr]

You can create a 'peak' Linux but can you maintain it? Can you provide support for all kind of hardware? Can you provide various software? Can you provide security updates? If your Linux can provide all this, I will call it a 'peak' Linux.

 

[dos2unix]

I see posts like this from time to time. I appreciate the thought. But the old saying is.. you can't please everyone.
Even Linux users, a great thing about Linux is we have choices, literally hundreds of distros. Do we need another one?

Still, it's fun to try. But here's an example (i'm a bad example)
I'm not a big fan of pacman/aur, but that's not the deciding factor.

a distribution that's lean, minimal, fast, and beautiful.

well, beauty is in the eye of the beholder
but fast and lean? Not for me. 16 core, 32 threads, 64GB or RAM, I didn't get all this hardware to run a minimal system)
I like the bloat, (OK maybe not all of it).. but I use a lot of tools a lot of the time. compilimng, containers, 20 browser tabs, podman, docker, web servers, postgresql, qemu/kvm VMs, etc...

I'm not about minimal, I'm about gimmee all the stuff). Everyone isn't like this, but some are.

You can't make everyone happy, so just go with what you like, no sense building what someone
else likes if you dont like it.

 

[r-witz]

I see posts like this from time to time. I appreciate the thought. But the old saying is.. you can't please everyone.
Even Linux users, a great thing about Linux is we have choices, literally hundreds of distros. Do we need another one?

Still, it's fun to try. But here's an example (i'm a bad example)
I'm not a big fan of pacman/aur, but that's not the deciding factor.



well, beauty is in the eye of the beholder
but fast and lean? Not for me. 16 core, 32 threads, 64GB or RAM, I didn't get all this hardware to run a minimal system)
I like the bloat, (OK maybe not all of it).. but I use a lot of tools a lot of the time. compilimng, containers, 20 browser tabs, podman, docker, web servers, postgresql, qemu/kvm VMs, etc...

I'm not about minimal, I'm about gimmee all the stuff). Everyone isn't like this, but some are.

You can't make everyone happy, so just go with what you like, no sense building what someone
else likes if you dont like it.

You’re 100% right that I should build what I like, and that’s exactly why I’m doing this, I'm just getting a feel for what the community opinion is, mostly curious about it too. But I think there’s a misconception about "lean." I’m not running a potato PC either; I have the hardware to run whatever I want.

For me, "lean" simply means keeping the package count minimal to avoid bloat and ensuring there isn't a heavy GUI getting in your way. You can absolutely run heavy builds, 20 browser tabs, and multiple KVM/QEMU instances or Docker/Podman containers in a lean environment. It’s about workflow speed, not just saving a few MB of RAM. Do you really feel that the "bloat" of a full desktop environment helps you manage those containers and VMs, or is it just that you want the tools available without having to install them manually?

 

[PuppyHome]

@r-witz Give it a shot.

But remember this: Maintaining a distro is key and the "competition" is enormous.

For me, "lean" simply means keeping the package count minimal to avoid bloat and ensuring there isn't a heavy GUI getting in your way.

"What will my distro set it apart from all others that are already doing that and are established?"

I applaud the enthusiasm.

 

[KGIII]

Hmm... If you want a distro that impresses me (and, as above, I do not mind 'bloat', but that sort of depends on who is defining it as bloat), then make a distro that magically supports my dark theme even when I use applications meant for other desktop environments.

I have ample hardware that'll happily run any DE out there. In reality, there's not that great of a difference between most of them when it comes to the default RAM consumption. I plan on the DE taking up at least a GB of RAM by itself, but it seldom does. I even use Mint Cinnamon on an older refurbished computer that just kind of works like it should.

 

[osprey]

What does "peak" mean to you?




Looking forward to hearing your vision.

When thinking about "peak" in relation to linux, it can be thought of as a form of specialisation. Different linux distros specialise in areas creating "peak" performance in that area of specialisation. For example:

Distro          Speciality
======          ==========
tails.......... privacy
qubes.......... security
kali........... penetration testing
ubuntu studio.. music audio and video
av linux....... audio and video production
edubuntu....... education
puppy.......... low resource usage
tiny core...... very low resource usage
devuan......... systemd-free
nixos.......... "declarative" system
caine.......... digital forensics
bio-linux...... bioinformatics
silverblue..... immutable
peropesis...... command line distro
slackware...... UNIX-like linux
RHEL........... business and commercial
trisquel....... maximally free and open source
LFS............ instructions for creating a linux system

There are many more.

There are the numerous fully-featured distros like fedora, debian, ubuntu, arch, suse etc. which can be installed either as fully-featured or as specialised for a "peak" purpose.

Perhaps some significant considerations in producing a specialised distro are:
What purpose do they fulfil that hasn't already been satisfied in the linux ecosystem?
What can the new distro accomplish that an existing one cannot do more efficiently?
What on-going resources will be needed to keep the new distro alive?
Who will do the work of maintaining inevitable aspects such as upgrades, bug management, keeping up to date, package management etc.?

Linux systems have the flexibility for a user to enable them to do whatever is possible in operating systems. Specialised linux distros are a convenience. Configuring convenience depends on the area of specialisation. Some of it is more challenging, some less. The alternative to creating a specialised distro, is to create an inventory of instructions that can be applied to any basic linux distro to accomplish whatever the specialisation is.

Nevertheless, if a specialised distro exists, it's often worth considering it. For example, in the case of ultimate privacy, there's a significant difference between the tails distro, and a debian distro configured to try and achieve the same level of privacy. Whilst it can be done in debian, it's far more economical to go straight to tails if the level of privacy it offers is the user's concern.

Creating a linux distro for pleasure though, is a different matter altogether I think .

 

[The Duck]

Create a distro with the bare minimum to get the distro installed and updated and let the user install only the software the user wants and needs.

To many Linux distros already out there with unneeded, unnecessary, will never need, will never use software taking up user real estate.

Ain't a developer anywhere that knows what software any user wants needs or will need to use although they think they do.

First thing I do with mainstream distros is to remove the default software bloat which I don't want and will never use taking up real estate on my desktop.

Some of us users don't install terabyte HDDs just don't need them.

A Swiss Army knife has useful blades on them not a bunch of useless blades and a Linux distro should be the same imo leastwise if I'm going to donate to the cause.

My 25 cents worth.

 

[tpkusr]

There is Dog Linux, which gives you a bare-minimum Debian or Ubuntu base with access to the official repositories.

Home

Another one is Slax Linux. It has a bare-minimum Slackware and Debian base with access to official repositories.

Slax Linux - your pocket operating system

Slax is a modern, portable, small and fast Linux operating system.

www.slax.org

The problem is that they don't have official forum support.

Will your distro be like this? (A bare-minimum Arch Linux without forum support?)

 

[theLegionWithin]

I dunno, I already get everything I want from Arch. any other wants I have are gated by hardware and our physical reality.

 

[MikeRocor]

16 core, 32 threads, 64GB or RAM, I didn't get all this hardware to run a minimal system)
I like the bloat, (OK maybe not all of it).. but I use a lot of tools a lot of the time. compilimng, containers, 20 browser tabs, podman, docker, web servers, postgresql, qemu/kvm VMs, etc...

Dang it! Now I'm having computer envy. Again.

On my much more modest system (2 cores/4 threads, 12 GB), I run Tiny Core - but then I load it up with not-so-light applications: Gimp and Inkscape, VLC, firefox, Thunderbird, OpenOffice. And I'm not too shy about adding in additional software, "light" or otherwise, as the whim strikes me.

What makes it my "peak" linux is that A) I have everything about it configured just the way I like, B) I understand the system well (or at least better than I understand some of the more complex, "heavier" distros and C) all that software, "light", "heavy" or in between, is there because I explicitly want it there (as Tiny Core famously comes with pretty much "nothing"). Any of it those applications that don't prove useful enough for me to explicitly mark as being loaded "onboot" will be gone the next time I reboot (for all the difference that really makes - they're still on the disk).

Now, if I had a machine with 32 threads and 64 GB... Yeah, I'd still put Tiny Core on it, if only for giggles, but I'd likely dual boot something else, too. Maybe give Peppermint a try. I'd also set the host name to something like "mega_commodore64"

 

[MikeWalsh]

I don't envy anyone that's trying to establish yet ANOTHER Linux distro.....(why???) As evidenced by the responses from other members above, more people are concerned about the security/safety aspect than anything else, wishing to be assured that that all the dull, boring, behind-the-scenes maintenance stuff is being given top priority.......and rightly so.

It's a more thankless task than many with enthusiastic "visions" had considered.

There are a LOT of Linux users out there, with a great variety of differing "needs". To my way of thinking, it makes more sense to take the Slackware approach, i.e., include just enough to get the user to a working desktop.....but at least include a basic browser of some sort, because not everyone wants to have to go through all the hassle of searching through the official repos to find, and then install one BEFORE they can even get online.

Then leave it to the user to install what they want.....even if they only use that basic browser to obtain another, better browser.


Mike.

 

[f33dm3bits]

So here's my question: If you could design your ideal Linux experience, what would it look like?

It's called Arch Linux. But ideal and something new, something like Arch Linux with a good installer and good documentation, as well as an independent package manager and good package availablility. So not something based off of something else. I only tend to prefer to use grandparent and parent distributions when I use a distribution because of not adding a lot of extra things.

 

[KGIII]

There is Dog Linux, which gives you a bare-minimum Debian or Ubuntu base with access to the official repositories.

Home

If I'm reading correctly, they're now defunct and haven't had a new release in nearly a decade.

 

[tpkusr]

If I'm reading correctly, they're now defunct and haven't had a new release in nearly a decade.

Latest dog linux is Trixie.
Here is the puppy Linux forum link

Trixie Test ISO - Puppy Linux Discussion Forum

forum.puppylinux.com

 

[tpkusr]

 

[KGIII]

View attachment 29768

Yeah, I saw some dates. I probably should have said, 'some of them'.

I was basing that on their repository.

GitHub - DebianDog/doglinux: DebianDog, Mintpup, XenialDog website

DebianDog, Mintpup, XenialDog website. Contribute to DebianDog/doglinux development by creating an account on GitHub.

github.com

Some of that code hasn't been touched in a long time. The most recent code changes are some five years old.

For example:

DebianDog Jessie 64-bit

Their latest ISO file is from 2016.

(Sorry, I should have been more clear. I did see some dates that were fairly current.)

 

[tpkusr]

(Sorry, I should have been more clear. I did see some dates that were fairly current.)

There is nothing to be sorry, they make it hard to find any new information available.

 

[KGIII]

There is nothing to be sorry, they make it hard to find any new information available.

If you go down through the menu on the left and look at things like dates or kernels used, they are almost all quite old. One of them had an ISO from 2020. Some weren't clear, but the kernel in use can help date it. (I could also click through some of those links to find dates.)

I wonder why they continue to list them? It's almost as though they're promoting stuff that hasn't been supported for years, but maybe they just leave them there for historical reasons. But, yeah, start at the top of the left-hand menu and go down through them. Look for dates or kernels.

If it were my site (and if I am understanding correctly), I think I'd make some sort of notice that said that these projects are no longer mainained and that they're just there for historical reasons. Actually, I'd probably upload all of the files to archive.org and just point folks to that resource so that the files remain a part of history.

 

[tpkusr]

That's what I emphasize: "maintenance," not just creating a new Linux distro.