Now this is WHY I love UNIX and UNIX-likes, the fact you can chop and change core components like the Kernel, Userspace, Init, etc. and (within compatibility limits i.e. MUSL/GLIBC) run a hybrid system like Chimera.
Would I run Chimera as a daily-drive? Probably not. Is it cool that someone can? Absolutely!
When I last looked a few years ago, there were some efforts and successes in the far East doing "chimera Windows", mostly based on running an older userland (like XP) on a newer kernel (10).
For those that like the LLVM/musl/mimalloc choices of chimera, but also want signed commits, signed reviews, container-native design, full source bootstrapping, 100% deterministic builds, and multi-party-signed artifacts check out https://stagex.tools
This seems interesting, but I've been using Alpine as a desktop distro wth ZFS for years now, it has native support and ZBM is available in the community repo. Not sure what advantages Chimera would add.
Alpine and Chimera however both are not reproducible or full source bootstrapped or signed and do not enforce code review. I would honestly steer clear of both for anything but low risk hobby use cases.
IMO they should be best thought of as research projects useful for reference by distros designed for production use.
Would I run Chimera as a daily-drive? Probably not. Is it cool that someone can? Absolutely!
https://chimera-linux.org/docs/configuration/musl
IMO they should be best thought of as research projects useful for reference by distros designed for production use.