FreeBSD 11.1 on ASUS VivoBook S301LA

I decided it is time to write a piece on FreeBSD, since I now officially use it as my main operating system both at home (alongside OpenBSD) and at work. My mobile battle gear of choice is the ASUS VivoBook S301LA. It’s a 4th generation Intel-based ultrabook-class laptop, one of the many released by ASUS every year. It has strong points, though also quite some disadvantages. I would like to discuss it from the perspective of a FreeBSD enthusiast.


Photo courtesy of and the Interwebs

Hardware specifications:

  • Processor: Intel Haswell core i3-4010U @ 1.70 GHz
  • Graphics: Intel HD 4400 integrated GPU with up to 768 MB shared RAM
  • Memory: 4 GB DDRL 1600 MHz (soldered) + empty slot for another 4 GB
  • Hard drive: Western Digital Blue 500 GB 5400 rpm (replaceable)
  • Ethernet: Realtek 8169 Express Gigabit
  • Wireless: Mediatek MT7630e with Bluetooth built in (half-sized, replaceable)
  • Sound: Intel HD Audio (SonicMaster)
  • Webcam: Azurewave USB 2.0 UVC HD Webcam
  • Touchscreen: USB SiS Touch Controller
  • Battery: 4 hours
  • Microphone: yes, next to the Webcam
  • Keyboard: Generic AT keyboard
  • Touchpad: Generic touchpad with integrated click-fields
  • Additional ports:
    – left side: Ethernet, HDMI, USB 3.0, microphone/headphone jack
    – right side: Kensington lock, 2x USB 2.0, SD card slot


The good:

  • Extremely lightweight
  • Never overheats
  • Moderately fast after upgrades

The bad:

  • Paper-thin keyboard
  • Slippery touchpad
  • Highly reflective, mirror-like screen
  • Cheap, lower-end wireless card

Overall, this device is a fairly standard consumer-grade ultrabook. The crappy keyboard is something one can get used to rather quickly. I’m not a fan of touchpads, therefore I rely on PC mice for clicking and scrolling unless I’m on a plane or train. Nowadays, reflective screens are no longer an issue thanks to anti-glare screen protection sleeves. The obvious downside is that anti-glare screens lack sharpness typical of reflective screens. In general, the drawbacks can be easily mitigated with upgrades, which however turn the laptop into a moderate investment. The choice is down to the prospective user.  Furthermore, the manufacturer (ASUS) made some choices, which I am not entirely convinced by. Firstly, touchscreens are more useful on hybrid flip-laptops like the Lenovo Yoga. In this model the touchscreen is more of a nuisance when cleaning the plastic cover on the display and draws power needed elsewhere. Secondly, the wireless adapter is perhaps the worst of its generation with a nominal bandwidth of 150 bpms. Still, it’s more of a travesty to see it in high-end ROG gaming models (yes, it’s true…).


The FreeBSD perspective:

This might be somewhat disappointing. Depending on what one expects from a mobile device, the S301LA is either average or just plain broken. Not to sound rude, but I’m sure a Thinkpad or an Ideapad would be a far superior choice. Haswell HD 4400 graphics chips have proper (aka working) FreeBSD support since just release 11 and most other components are barely supported. The Azurewave USB webcam actually works (webcamd needs to be attached to USB device ugen0.2 by root, a superuser or a member of the webcamd group), but no VoIP software is available on FreeBSD out-of-the-box. I guess one could get Windows Skype to run via WINE or force the alpha-quality Linux client into submission, but that’s a lesson in futility, I think. Personally, I wouldn’t be using this ultrabook at all if not for the fact I finally managed to replace the trash wireless adapter with something half-decent (albeit from 10 years back) from Intel, namely the WiFi Link 5100. After adding another 4 GB RAM and a Western Digital SSD, I would consider this ultrabook worth the money and time. However, as I mentioned earlier, there are far better choices on the market.


Show Me Your Code!

For the last couple of months I have joined and participated in discussions in multiple Facebook tech groups. As demographically diverse as Facebook is, I noticed a worrying trend. Most of the inquiries have the following features:

  1. Incomplete, badly written and/or fail to explain the problem at hand in an understandable fashion.
  2. Expect immediate answers and solutions.
  3. Demonstrate that the inquirer did not try to address the problem him- or herself prior.

Feature 1. can be explained by the fact that most of the Facebook group members are not native English speakers and struggle with forming comprehensible questions. Still, I find it odd that they invest so little effort. For instance, if an inquiry refers to issues with a specific operating system, it would be wise to provide the full specification of the computer running the operating system or at least name the operating system, no? I would assume that this should be dictated by common sense, though perhaps education also plays a role here? After all, we are taught how to pose questions at school and in university. The consequence is that even if the question is answered, the inquirer may not understand the answer, because his language and/or technical skills are insufficient. It is a sad, but inescapable aspect of discussion groups.

Features 2. and 3. are interconnected, and grind my gears the most. The phrases I often encounter are “suggest me”, “give me solution”, “give me program command”, “give me/show me your code”. All of them assume that the answering party is obliged to provide a solution as quickly as possible, while in reality the opposite is true. The answering party is not obliged to do anything! Rather, the inquirer should display humbleness in order to receive a reliable answer. What is even more insulting and disrespectful is the fact that some of these questions are phrased in such a way that they could easily be executed as a Google query. No additional help from a dedicated technical group is needed. Other questions expect a detailed and clear explanation of an entire framework, which usually takes a year if not years to build. For instance, the inquirer wants to know how to build a fingerprint system for monitoring/registering students at a local school. He/she anticipates a full outline of the entire system in a “ready-to-go” package, best to be described in layman terms so that he/she can proceed with building such a system. In all honesty,  endeavors like this typically require a team of experienced software engineers not a ragtag group of volunteers.

In the end, it boils down to the issue of instant gratification, which plagues modern societies. Many Western business models are based on the premise that much can be achieved with minimal effort and that the evanescent everyman can become a hero instantly. A fantastically enticing end product is shown, together with a set of trivial instructions, which need to be followed. People seek happiness and obviously it’s best if that happiness is achieved quickly. However, instant gratification is not lasting and requires more units of the product or a newer product. That in turn drives the ever increasing demand for the product. Technology is no different. People are made to believe that coding is easy and great programs can be written overnight. Also, everyone can instantly become an experienced hacker, because why not? Reality is different, though. Impressions are cheap, while actual experience resource-intensive. Learning is a process, which takes time. We can disagree, though that will not alter reality. Merely our impression of it.

The Ubuntu Conundrum

Ubuntu is perhaps the most popular Linux-based operating system, however for that very reason it has as many proponents as enemies. I myself use Ubuntu (Xubuntu 16.04 LTS, to be exact) at work, both as a development platform and to host services in libvirt/KVM virtual machines (Ubuntu Server 16.04 LTS there). It performs alright and so far hasn’t let us down, though we haven’t been using it through more than 2 releases so we’re unable to gauge its reliability properly. On more personal grounds I can say it works splendidly on my early-2011 MacBook Pro 15″ with faulty AMD graphics and has since the very beginning (out-of-the-box, as one might say). Singular package upgrades don’t bring about all of the regressions people profess so fervently. However, I can understand where the hate is coming from and I admit it is partially justified.

Product and popularity
For whatever reason human psychology dictates that we equate quality with popularity. If something is extremely popular, it simply must be good, right? Wrong. Completely. A product is popular, because someone with enough resources made it visible to as many consumers as possible. The product was made popular. Quality is a useful, but clearly secondary measure. A good anecdote is the long gone rivalry between VHS and Betamax. We all remember VHS, though most of us do not remember Betamax, which was technically superior. However, it lost the popularity race and will forever be remembered as the second best or not remembered at all. Now, this is not to say that Ubuntu is in any way inferior…

Ubuntu, the (non)universal operating system
The main issue with Ubuntu is that it succeeded as a more open operating system alternative to Windows and macOS X, however did not solve the underlying problem – computer literacy. Of course, not every computer user has to be a geek and hack the kernel. However, when I see that Ubuntu users address their PC-related issues with the same shamanism and hocus pocus as in Windows, my soul twists in convulsions. We did not flee from closed-source operating systems only to change the names of our favorite tools and the look of our graphical user interfaces, though observing current trends, I might be terribly wrong. The other problem is that Ubuntu’s popularity has become self-perpetuating. It’s popular, because it’s popular. Many tutorials online and in magazines assume that if one uses Linux, he or she surely runs Ubuntu on all of his or her computers. This is extremely hurtful to the entirety of the Linux ecosystem, because neither Debian nor Ubuntu represent standard Linux. Both of those systems introduce a number of configuration improvements to applications, which are not defined in upstream documentation and absent in other distributions (so-called Debianisms). Therefore, Ubuntu being a universal operating system is more of a publicity gimmick than a fact. Especially, considering that on servers, SLES (SUSE Linux Enterprise edition), CentOS and Red Hat clearly dominate.

The solution?
I would say it’s high time we begin showing newcomers that there is an amazing world of Linux beyond Ubuntu. To that end, I have a couple of suggestions for specific needs and distributions covering those needs. Related questions come up often in the Linux Facebook group and around the Internet, but get answered superficially via click-bait articles listing top 10 distributions in 2017/18. Not exactly useful. Anyhow, the list:

  • Software development:
    – Fedora (up-to-date packages and developer-centric tools like COPR)
    – Arch Linux (up-to-date with a wide range of packages via AUR and vanilla package configuration for simplicity)
    – openSUSE Tumbleweed (up-to-date with a rolling, snapshot based release cycle, but sharing the Leap / SLES high-quality management tools like YaST2)
  • Servers:
    – openSUSE Leap (3-year long support life cycle, high-quality management tools like YaST2 and straightforward server + database + VM configuration)
    – CentOS (binary compatible with Red Hat Enterprise Linux)
    – FreeBSD (ZFS hard drive pool management + snapshots, reliable service/database separation via jails, rock solid base system)
  • Easy-to-use:
    – Manjaro Linux (based on Arch Linux, with lots of straightforward graphical configuration tools, multiple installable kernels, etc.)
    – Fedora (not only for developers!)
    – openSUSE Leap (for similar reasons as above + a streamlined, user-friendly installer)
  • For learning Linux:
    – Gentoo (painful at first, but extremely flexible with discrete software feature selection at compile-time via USE flags)
    – Arch Linux (Keep It Simple Stupid; no hand-holding, but with high-quality documentation to make the learning curve less steep)
    – CRUX (similar to Gentoo, but without the useful scripts; basically, vanilla Linux with a very simple package manager)
  • For learning BSDs:
    – FreeBSD (as mentioned above)
    – OpenBSD (strong emphasis on code-correctness, system engineering and network management)
    – DragonflyBSD (pioneering data storage and multi-processor systems)

Linux and the BSDs

Throughout my many months of using various open-source and proprietary operating systems I have made certain observations that might be useful to some. I started with Linux, though at some point migrated to the BSDs for personal and slightly more pragmatic reasons. I quickly became a lot more familiar with FreeBSD and OpenBSD than I ever was with openSUSE or Ubuntu. It may seem odd as Linux is far easier to get into, however seasoned UNIX admins will surely understand. BSDs have this technical appeal, which Linux steadily loses in favor of other features. To the point, though:

1. Save for Windows, most operating systems are extremely similar. macOS X, as it is now referred to, relies on a huge number of BSD utilities, because at one point in time they were more accessible (well-documented and permissively licensed). In turn, the open-source BSD family operating systems, such as OpenBSD and FreeBSD adopted Clang with its LLVM back-end (Apple’s compiler toolchain) as their main system compiler. A number of former, now defunct, proprietary operating systems were based on some revision of UNIX – IRIX, HP-UX, Solaris, etc. There is also a significant overlap of other tools, such as sysctl and ifconfig, which were forked, modified and adjusted to fit individual systems, but bare functional resemblance between various flavors of UNIX. The remainder (text editors, desktop environments, etc.) is typically BSD/MIT/GPL-licensed and available as packages or ports. Therefore, the high-level transition between BSDs and Linux isn’t as dramatic.

2. Above being said, the BSDs and Linux follow different philosophies, of which the BSD philosophy seems a lot more practical in the long-run to me. What most people forget (or never become familiar with) is the fact that Linux is just a kernel and development teams creating distributions (the actual Linux-based operating systems!) can do almost anything they want with it. This leads to myriads of possible feature sets already on the kernel level. It is also up to the distributions to assemble the kernel and userland utilities into a full-fledged operating system. Unfortunately, distribution teams are often tempted to add a bit of an artistic touch to their work, which causes Linux distributions to differ in key aspects. While on a higher level this is hardly noticeable, it may bite one back when things get sour or manual configuration is required. This Lego blocks or bazaar concept makes it difficult for upstream software developers to identify bugs and for companies to support Linux with hardware and software properly. Eventually, only certain distributions are recognized as significant, such as Ubuntu, CentOS, openSUSE, Fedora or Debian. BSDs take a more organized approach to system design, which I believe is highly advantageous. An operating system consists of the kernel and basic utilities, which make it actually useful, such as a network manager, compiler, process manager, etc. Depending on the BSD in question, the scope of the base system is defined differently. For instance, OpenBSD ships with quite some servers, including a display server (Xenocara). FreeBSD, in turn, focuses on providing server capabilities.

3. Recently (or not so much), the focus of Linux has switched from being merely a server platform to a desktop replacement. That’s the ballpark of MS Windows and macOS X, both of which are fairly tried as desktop platforms. The crux of the matter is that utilities had to be adjusted to fulfill more GUI-oriented roles, making command-line work slightly trickier. The other problem is that the software turnover in Linux-land is extremely rapid and programs either become stale way too quickly or they break too often. That’s clearly a no-go for server scenarios. This is where BSDs come in. FreeBSD was designed as a multi-purpose operating system, however with a strong focus on networking, process sandboxing and privilege separation, data storage, etc. In these aspects it clearly excels. NetBSD favors portability and supports many server and embedded platforms, which act as routers, switches, load-balancers, etc. OpenBSD emphasizes code correctness, security and complete documentation. Last, but not least, DragonflyBSD focuses on multi-processing and leverages filesystem features to improve performance. One could say that due to greater resources Linux surpassed all of these operating systems. However, one should not underestimate quality BSD utilities and the almost legendary stability of Berkley-derived OS’. One of the main problems I ever had with Linux was the inconsistent breakage of individual distributions. Upgrading packages would eventually render them useless or impossible to troubleshoot due to uninformative error messages. The lack or staleness of documentation made matters only worse. Having to deal with above problems, I simply jumped ship and joined the BSD crowd. Granted, neither OpenBSD nor FreeBSD make my PCs snappier. Quite the opposite, Linux still wins in that respect. However, I now have full access to the operating system source code and can fix issues first-hand should such a need arise. Not to mention being actually able to read clearly written documentation and learn how to use the tools my operating system offers. I doubt Linux can beat that.

On Using Computers

I’ve been planning to write this piece for a while now, though due to work related stuff I was somewhat hampered in my efforts. It’s a bit harsh at times, but I feel it should become a must read for beginner Linux users nevertheless.

I am a part of the open-source community and as a member I try to contribute to projects
with code, documentation and advice. I fully understand that for the open-source way of
producing content (not merely software!) to succeed, everyone has to give something. However, in the recent months I noticed a sharp influx of new users (newbies), who want to be part of the community, but are extremely confused as to its principles. Incidentally, these newbies “contaminate” the open-source community with former habits and expectations, and make it harder for both existing members and themselves to cope with this temporary shift in the user expertise equilibrium. I blame two main phenomena for the confusion of new users:

1. The open-source way is advertised as inherently “better”, which is misleading.

2. The open-source way requires members to think about what they do and possibly to contribute however they can.

Since the imbalance has reached a peak of being unbearable for me and other existing members of the open-source community, I decided to write this introductory article so that newbies quickly adjust and the equilibrium is restored.

I. User-friendliness is a lie
Following up on the thoughts laid out at, I want to make this statement extra clear. There is no such thing as user-friendliness. It.does.not.exist. The Internet is crawling with click-bait articles entitled “The best user-friendly Linux distribution!” or “The most user-friendly desktop environment!”. These articles were crafted in order to increase the view count of the host website, not to provide useful information on the topic. Alternatively, they were written by people who are as confused as newbies. “User friendly” just like “intuitive” is a catchphrase – an advertising gimmick used to get you to buy/get a product. There is no extra depth to it. What people wrongly label as “user-friendly” is in fact “hand-holding” – the software/hardware is expected to do something for the user. Not enable the user to perform an action, but actually do the action for him/her. A stewardess on a cruiser or an aircraft is helpful, because she answers passengers’ questions, however she does not hold anyone’s hand, as that would mean leading every single passenger to their seat. If anyone ever tells you that something is user-friendly, ignore them and move on. You know better :).

II. Qualities, quantity and gradation
Generalized comparative statements are being thrown about virtually everywhere. This annoys me and should also annoy you after reading this paragraph. The truth is that most of those statements are fundamentally wrong, because they assume objects of different qualities can be compared using abstract terms. They CANNOT. A useful reference point is comparing apples to oranges. Can it be said that oranges are better than apples? No. What about apples being better than oranges? Neither! “Better” is an abstract term, which by itself means nothing. Therefore, saying “OpenSUSE is better than Ubuntu” means absolutely nothing, also! However, what can be done is comparing specific features of A and B. You cannot say “Apples are better than oranges”, but you can claim that an average apple is heavier than an average orange with specific examples of both. Color-wise, you can say that apples tend to be green-red, while oranges yellow-orange-reddish. You cannot directly compare colors, mind you, unless you express the color of A and B in a uniform color scale, like “the amount of red”. No fallacy has been committed that way. Therefore, neither software, nor hardware can be directly compared, though you can say, for instance that “openSUSE has a number of tools like YaST, which make it potentially more convenient for system administrators than Ubuntu”. Remember that!

III. The “use case” concept
Knowing that user-friendliness does not exist and that many things cannot be directly compared, the next step is understanding the “How” inherent to all problems. You have an issue or an inquiry. What is that you want to achieve? What are the exact requirements to reach your goal? What is the situation in which you experienced your problem? Being specific and being able to disassemble large problems into smaller tasks is paramount to understanding the problem and finding the possible solutions to it. This is true not only for computers, but for everything in life alike. Once you know your “use case”, you will know which hardware and software (including the operating system) to choose. Different operating systems cover various use cases or use scenarios, thereby understanding  your use case well will allow you to find the perfect operating system or any other piece of software quicker.

IV. Options, decisions and the “good enough”
All of the above being said, humans have this need to always aim for optimal solutions. Subconsciously,  they want only the “best” for them. What if it’s impossible to identify the best option? What if all of them satisfy our requirements equally well? Thus, the concept of “good enough” comes into play. Sometimes, the “best” solution is the first solution we decide upon and stick with it. No second thoughts allowed! Until we identify a legitimate reason why solution #1 no longer satisfies our needs for a prolonged period of time. Wondering which operating system to choose? Linux Mint? Ubuntu? Debian? Fedora? Perhaps not a Linux based OS, but a pure UNIX-like BSD? There are so many! If you’re a beginner, it doesn’t matter which you choose. Pick one, stick with it and change only if experimenting or your first choice was completely wrong.

V. Thinking and the individual responsibility
This will be a harsh one. Proprietary operating systems create this illusion of user friendliness (it’s a lie, we know it now!) and that the user is not required to take responsibility for his/her actions done on his/her software/hardware. This is one of the major fallacies in the computer world. The moment you buy a computer, you are completely responsible for it. Consider it your “child”. You need to make sure it’s always clean, powered up etc. No one will ever do it for you. Others can recommend solutions, give advice, provide support even, but the final decision is on you and you alone. Whatever you do with your computer, it is your success or failure. The primary reason why malware spreads like wildfire is that people are convinced that they don’t need to actively care for the safety of their computers. Dead. wrong.

The open-source way is not better than the proprietary/closed-source way. It’s different, nothing else. I chose it, because it aligns with my personal preferences well and I believe that it will prevail. It is for you to decide whether you can accept that. If the answer is “Yes”, I congratulate you. Go forth, learn and become a full-fledged member of the open-source community :).

GNOME3 Oversimplified?


Seeing as how GNOME3 and KDE (4? 5? Plasma? Neon? Ion?) are the leading desktop environments nowadays, I decided to give GNOME3 a try on my openSUSE Leap 42.3 workstation (my current main distribution on most hardware, including a Raspberry Pi 3). There are good and bad things and some of it agrees with my former assessment of GNOME3. However, I assumed that since I’m more pro-desktop now, my opinion might change. Well, it did perhaps…

The Good:
In material design alone GNOME3 wins a trophy. There is a lot of MacOS X mimicry and I think that speaks well of the project. The guys (and gals!) from Apple know their stuff so why not get inspired by them a little? The overall UX (user experience) is also positive. Thanks to the highly intuitive interface finding important desktop features is a breeze. One just needs to browse a bit and not follow the imprinted this option must be hidden somewhere philosophy that other desktop environments teach us. Also, I greatly appreciate the attention to useful features like the one-click offloading of graphically intensive applications to the discreet nVidia card on Optimus laptops. If our day-to-day tasks focus on office work and leisure, GNOME3 could potentially be the desktop environment of the future. It stands to reason, because it’s an open-source project, molded and shaped into perfection by the user and developer communities. It constantly evolves so there is no limit to its improvements.

The Bad:
Unfortunately, it seems that simplicity of design has its price. Troubleshooting GNOME3 is extremely painful and many of the applications (including the Gnome Shell and the Gnome Display Manager) throw the most uninformative error messages.


Authored by the Interwebs

Case in point, the above error screen. The Oh no! Something has gone wrong is a phrase typically used in commercial applications to shield end users from the headaches of reading crash logs. By willfully choosing Linux we demonstrate that we’re no mere end users so treating us as such is quite rude. To dwell on this a bit more, the above error screen appears even when the Gnome Display Manager login panel crashes. How is one supposed to log out without being logged in to begin with? To make matters worse, since many Linux distributions have the display manager set to restart on failure, this screen will keep re-appearing until proper troubleshooting is done in one of the TTY consoles (ctrl  + alt + F1 – F9 keys). This very much reeks of Windows and MacOS X problems where the user interface basically took over the OS. All we can do is just reboot and hope for the best. Other applications show similar An error occurred messages without any means of actual troubleshooting.

My take-home from this experience is Thanks, but no thanks. If I want to get some work done, I would rather rely on LXDE, XFCE, LxQt and maybe even KDE. Traditional desktop environments without bells and whistles.

Mission: Saving Linux?

Recently, I was really into the BSDs and fiddled around with OpenBSD on some of my PCs. I still keep it on one laptop and FreeBSD on my main workstation. The point being that the BSDs are a lot more consistent, reliable and if something works out-of-the-box, it will most likely stay that way for a long while. Changes are incremental and major frameworks are not being reworked for semi-valid reasons, like oh, this looks old. Also, the very clearly superior BSD documentation – cannot go wrong with that!

Nowadays, Linux seems to be riddled with Windows-like problems. There is a surprisingly strong emphasis on easy-to-use GUI tools and hype for certain technologies (*cough* *cough* Docker) that are far from production-ready. The main rationale seems to be make it easy to set up. Everywhere I look there is loads of fluff. As Matthew Fuller put it in his discourse at, we should be improving the back-end and extending it into usable front-ends, not the other way round. I agree, it’s important to enable people to do great things with technology, but if the how is there yet the why is missing, we’re not getting far. In addition, there is a lot of wheel re-inventing going on. People forget (or simply don’t know) that many of the great frameworks and tools were implemented already and can still be used effectively. Then, there is systemd (a case study on bad software engineering) and making Linux things so Linux-centric that portability suffers greatly (see: Docker being in fact Linux + Docker on non-Linux platforms). So there, we need a hero. Otherwise, we’re doomed to drown in self-indulgence.

A rather interesting idea would be to take the Linux kernel (for hardware compatibility reasons) and build a BSD-like operating system on top of it. Forget systemd, NetworkManager and other tools that try hard to do something that has already been done successfully. Leave the kernel + GNU coreutils in a steadily improving base and separate third-party software into package repositories. Also, one needs to start fresh – a clean slate to avoid the pitfalls of existing Linux distributions. In fact, there is already a project that tries to implement some of the BSD concepts in Linux and per my very preliminary impressions looks quite successful. Enter Void Linux!

Void seems to fill the gap (pun intended) between the Linux and BSD worlds aptly. There is a simple (limited?) init implementation called runit that takes care of starting the system as our favorite PID1, and launching service daemons to get a certain degree of persistence. It’s a typical Unix-like piece of software – does its job and swiftly moves aside to let us do ours. Then, there is the XBPS package manager and ports builder all-in-one framework. Think Arch’s ABS on steroids. Instead of OpenSSL we get OpenBSD’s LibreSSL (huge plus in my book!) and the musl C library alongside (but not on one installation, mind you) the traditional glibc. Speaking of C, all of these tools seem to be quite robust and xbps is perhaps the snappiest package manager I have seen in a while. Although the developer team is small, it’s doing a decent job at maintaining Void Linux. It’s a clear sign that it’s possible to run Linux without unnecessary bells and whistles, yet with all of the standard desktop features one might expect. My generic ASUS S301LA ultrabook handled Void Linux very well and all of its hardware was both supported and configured correctly (Intel WiFi Link 5100, SiS touchpad, AzureWave webcam, Intel HD 4400 graphics, WD-Green SSD, UEFI). Below a screenfetch rundown of the setup:


Now, it is true that finding a solution to 14 problems generates a 15th problem. There are certain aspects of Linux system design that I don’t completely agree with and adding orderly features on top of a Linux distribution mess doesn’t make the final product more organized. However, it’s a very successful step towards restoring some sanity to Linux Land that we lack so much nowadays.