On Minimalism

May 2006

On Minimalism

A day does not pass when, on almost every news site some mention of KDE, Gnome or some other desktop does not land a listing. In addition to the desktop environments available just the subject of the Linux[1] desktop makes it into online news every day. Open Source desktops and window managers are just one part of the question of minimalism. Is minimalism dead and does it even matter?

Cautionary Disclaimer

Nothing is wrong with KDE, GNOME, XFCE or the plethora of desktop environments and window managers available. Several windowing and desktop environments do new and exciting things and they have their place. The question really is aimed at a particular crowd of users [2] who tend to stick to either older window managers or desktop environments.

Approaches

Not all people who could be considered minimalists do so on purpose. In a nutshell, a few examples of minimal behavior towards operating systems in degrees are:

Practical
Comfort
Habit

And of course; all of the above.

Practical: A Shaker Approach to Systems [3]

The most motivated minimalist system user probably has a specific reason. Many hackers who prefer simpler window managers because simpler tends to be easier to configure, not intrusive and consumes fewer resources. In many ways, the shaker approach makes sense for those who want or need to make hardware last longer.

Just Like ... : Comfort Level

Many users prefer to have things as close to what each are accustomed to using. In the world of Open Source this means a lot of old software remains maintained because someone wants it. Having legacy software maintained or even branched [4] is a good thing. A juxtapose within the comfort level heuristic; many of the graphical applications that non open source users are used to have been duplicated within the open source community to accommodate the graphical user interface crowd.

Old Hands: Habit

Many a CDE user would say that e17 is a bit much to get Unix work done. The true shell of kshell users will go at great length to explain why bash is evil. The list goes on, why elvis is better than vim, vim better than nvi and vi is better than nvi. In some cases, it is simply a matter of habit. Habit differs from comfort in that most habit users never bother going to great lengths to customize their environment.

The Minimalist System

A minimalist approach is not limited to a system in particular. Instead a more generalized idea makes more sense. In general, a minimal system would be:

A small install base consisting of the needed bits (or the smallest possible components of a given systems base install).
Only additional services required. The rest shut off.
A tuned kernel, preferably by source or dynamically via a sysctl or kernel-tune [5] interface.

How the end is met varies. A very clean approach is to install a base system like NetBSD and use the pkgsrc system to add on what is needed. In the Linux world, such minimal installs are generally hard to find; the Debian netinst image is a good starting point.

Are They Just Luddites?

No, absolutely not. A Luddite feels threatened by new ideas. A minimalist understands why it has no need for something but does understand why something is needed, however, not not by them. The quintessential difference between Luddism and Minimalism is; a minimalist accepts and uses technology that enables them, a Luddite firmly believes a technology will do some sort of harm (or it may have already).

Summary

Some users expect a lot of flash. Some users could care less and are much more interested in getting it done. Some users just like what they like and that is all. Is minimalism dead? No. Is minimalism right or wrong? No. Is keeping up on the bleeding edge of N? No.

Footnotes

The desktop is not unique to Linux kernel based systems. Most if not all components developed for desktops that commonly run over the X layer work on nearly every Open Source system.

I happen to be such. Occasionally I like use a new(ish) window manager to check out some of the ideas behind it, however, I almost always end up right back using good old CTWM.
The phrase A Shaker Approach to ... is borrowed from a document regarding web design found via All Things Web's recommended online reading section.

Many people consider branching bad. Branching could be a legal issue. A good example is the current implementation of a program I took in called newsfetch. The newsfetch author - literally - disappeared. I was never granted stewardship of newsfetch, therefore I will have to someday branch or fork it.