[HNDV]

>never saw anyone using Alpine as the infrastructural distro for their, say like desktop environment akin to Manjaro and Fedora

Alpine runs musl libc. This makes it buggy with all sorts of software that rely on glibc-isms, that makes it incompatible with proprietary drivers like NVIDIA and make it harder to run proprietary/binary software on the userland.

musl is developed by people with that sort of break-everything attitude : https://twitter.com/RichFelker/status/994629795551031296

There is a world of pain that awaits anyone with the expectation that this sort of distro could be used on a workstation.

Musl is really meant to be run.. with software vetted by communities like https://suckless.org/

Meaning things like dwm, dmenu, st.

Which may or may not be one's cup of tea. It certainly ain't mine.

[blueflow]

Bad argument, glibc and musl are not always compatible, and you can use that as argument against either. When it comes to standards, musl is actually the more conformant one.

The glibc 2.26 release with the ucontext breakages made me stick with musl.

Plus, when i did multiarch support in Alpine later, i found that LDSO paths for musl are much more systematically and don't have name collisions like glibc.

[WastingMyTime89]

Musl is mostly a good libc.

There are some very unfortunate ideological choice made by its author but they are not the one you quote. The reluctance to give developers a way to detect Musl from C code would be a better exemple. It’s both annoying and counterproductive.

[biorach]

That's an inaccurate and quite uncharitable representation of what musl is about.