I want to choose a barebones Linux to which I can add and customize. Barebones file system, barebones init. barebones window environment, AppImage instead of a package manager.

I've used Crunchbang, which is based on Debian with a customized OpenBox. Crunchbang folded when Debian transitioned to systemd. The userbase resurrected as Bunsenlabs and Crunchbang+

A Survey of Init Systems, Bruce Byfield linux-magazine.com ~2020

Thread about MX Linux and Devuan Linux on debian.net

Linux purists, are saying that Systemd is causing bloat. The issue is that because Systemd is becoming a standard among many distros, some programs are being written that are dependent on it. These programs won't run on distros without Systemd.

Tomas, the guy over at Slax, is able to articulate the situation, but says he doesn't really care, that he's happy that someone else takes care of that layer of linux, while he works on modularity along the surface.

I've seen Windows become bloated, and I already know that I'm in the camp of KISS simplicity, especially under the hood. The complexity will increase until one person is not able to grasp it all to be able to organize it. Then there is chaos. It won't matter that Linux is open source. Then the wrong people will take advantage of the chaos for their own ends.

“ Because after systemd, no one will be able to work on their own system any more. They will just pull down systemd, and accept whatever it is - because it is a massive, deeply interconnected rat's nest, and no one but its very small group of creators will ever be able to extend or maintain it. ” Jim Lynch, infoworld.com 2017

Perhaps the main issue is that software is being made that is not modular/portable, with dependencies on systemd. MX Linux, uses a systemd shim, in order to be more compatible with software, while retaining an independent init system.

I searched for “systemd modularity” and came up with this page, which is by a developer of systemd, stating the myths surrounding the controversy surrounding systemd. Despite all of what he may say, which I am not necessarily disagreeing with, the KISS philosophy is usually the safe bet.

Does not matter that last update was 2015: Why is the init system still Runit despite it no longer being developed? Reddit

BusyBox provides many common UNIX utilities in a single small executable for embedded systems. The package includes runit… archlinux.org

I like to customize, and I need things under the hood to be stable. The only person making changes needs to be me, otherwise when things go wrong there will be too many variables to deal with. A rolling distro placates creativity and drives complacency. You end up accepting what's given to you, because it's too hard to do otherwise.

Compiling from source vs using package managers, Reddit

Ubuntu and Debian combined have the largest repository base.

Just because you don't have access to all the software in the two largest repositories, isn't the end of the world. Usually, the stuff that may not be compatible, is that way because it's a bloated piece of junk. Good software is integrated to have fewer dependencies.

When software is written, developers will often use existing libraries for certain functions. Existing functions and API's make programming easier because the developer doesn't have to reinvent the wheel.

“In an ideal world, libraries would be fully backward compatible, so that a program that depends on one version of a library, would work with any newer version of that library. But library developers don't do that, and I don't know why. Linux wants to be ideal, and take up less hard drive space and resources (like RAM), and therefore use only one version of each library. So sometimes you want to install two programs that both use the same library, but different versions, and this makes for dependency hell. The portable theology, says “lets bundle the library into the program itself, so that it doesn't use the one that comes with the system”. This is contrary to the Linux ideal, but makes things much easier for the end user.” 2018: Portable Software

Since the amount of RAM available in current hardware is usually more than sufficient, one solution would be that each program load its own library versions.

Needing additional libraries means that the developer didn't take the time to extract the parts used within a library and add those to the main program, reducing the overall footprint. This requires more work: software developers are usually not interested in taking this step.

Modular software is easier to take with you when you move from one system to another. There are groups like https://appimage.org, that package program dependencies and make a singular module. Also see AppImage page on github.

There is also Flatpak and Snap packages. These articles covers all three:
https://ostechnix.com/linux-package-managers-compared-appimage-vs-snap-vs-flatpak
https://linuxhint.com/snap_vs_flatpak_vs_appimage

The only current file system capable of larger partitions and which does not have journaling or user permissions is exFat. Also it is supported by Windows. denabre on Reddit veprof.com

“exFAT isn't supported for booting on UEFI systems but for BIOS systems it should work.” porteus.org

Desktop Environment versus Window Manager, ghacks.net

Comparison & List of Desktop Environments, eylenburg

A full desktop environment is a complete graphical user interface (GUI) that includes not only a window manager, but also a range of other applications and utilities, such as a taskbar, a system tray, a compositor for transparency, a file manager, and a desktop background. The Ultimate Guide to Building Your Own Desktop Environment, Michael Neuper

I'd like a desktop environment that is basic but has a lot of shell extensions/plugins/addons. Question on Debian Forum

OpenBox Addons Collection, github

Comparison of Linux Distributions, wikipedia

Comparison of Linux Distributions, eylenburg

What is the core difference between the Linux distros? Reddit

5 tiny Linux distros to try before you die, opensource.com

You can rank by different methods at distrowatch, including by average rating, page hits, etc.

Top 20 Linux Distributions in 2023, Ranked by Google Trends Scores, fostips.com

Expand Google Trends History

Alternativeto hearts

The following do not use systemd.

Having their own portable software may not be important because AppImage makes truly portable software across different Linux distros?

Having full hardware support may not be important because some DriverPacks for Linux may exist?

Which desktop environment has the most diverse library of plugins/extensions/addons?

Key: indep: independent, alternativeto hearts, distrowatch page hit rank, distrowatch rating, google trend

Honorable Mentions:

Is there something like DriverPacks for Linux? This question was asked on Linux Mint forum in 2009.

There doesn't seem to be anything equivalent to Snappy Drivers on Linux: alternativeto.net.

How do drivers differ between Windows and Linux?

Optimized Drivers

Slitaz Bluetooth Mouse

Something as ubiquitous as a Macbook, should have plenty of support, right? See that the 2016 and 2017 models are not 100% supported, and battery life is poor:
State of Linux on the MacBook Pro 2016 & 2017

There are instructions on tweaking the Macbooks on the following distros:

User's experience with both MacOS and Linux on a Macbook Air:
https://medium.com/@alex_nekrasov/installing-linux-on-macbook-air-838f9b087338

User's experience switching to Linux on a 2015 Macbook Pro:
https://medium.com/swlh/running-linux-on-my-macbook-9738b3b4f84d

This article compares power consumption between MacOS and Linux. However, he used Linux with no power optimizations (like from PowerTop):
https://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=news_item&px=MTE2Njk

July 2019: Linux 5.3 Will Surprisingly Support The Newest Keyboard/Trackpads Of Apple MacBooks, phoronix.com. The drivers had to be reverse engineered, because Apple purposely tries to avoid Linux progress.

Booting without ReFit/ReFind: https://glandium.org/blog/?p=2830

Android is linux with Google on top.

People use whatever they are given. If they were given computers with linux (laptop, desktop, phones), they would use linux. They can't be bothered to install something else unless it's super easy, such as installing a web browser like Chrome.

Perhaps if linux was given out as a usb drive and just worked right out of the box with the option to dual boot the original operating system, then more people would try it out.

However, sometimes it doesn't fully work, requiring additional drivers one must go out and look for. This isn't the fault of Linux, but of industry with no incentive to make Linux work on their devices. Industry actually works against linux becoming mainstream, because they make money by having proprietary operating systems.

In the case of Google and Android, Google took the free and added a proprietary layer on top which makes them money.

Trying to make sure I'm not missing any other controversial aspects of Linux, I found in the Wikipedia article:
“ Some security professionals say that the rise in prominence of operating system-level virtualization using Linux has raised the profile of attacks against the kernel, and that Linus Torvalds is reticent to add mitigations against kernel-level attacks in official releases. “
I read this as: The establishment wants to complicate something simple, so that it can later use the complexity to leverage power. History repeats itself over and over. They want to add complexity to the kernel in the name of “security”.

https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/3km9qb/linus-torvalds-is-back-with-linux
Article about news sources criticizing Linus Torvalds, and Linus Torvalds being influenced by the criticism. This could be good, and this could be bad. Good if the meritocracy continues; good if people treat each other well. Bad if this is an underhanded way of controlling the developers.