6 ms·

The Void (Linux) distribution

58 points by ColanR 8y ago

aetherspawn 8y ago
I couldn’t find a “Why” section that explains why this needs to exist. Anyone?
- codetrotter 8y ago
  According to Wikipedia: > Void Linux was created in 2008 by Juan Romero Pardines, a former maintainer of NetBSD, to have a test-bed for the XBPS package manager. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Void_Linux https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Void_Linux
  - joecool1029 8y ago
    The other odd thing is the creator, xtreame, just fell off the face of the earth early this year without any notice. I still wonder if he's ok. In any case, it's a very nice distro and the community did an excellent job of pulling things together after his disappearance.
- interfixus 8y ago
  Because any independent distro is interesting in its own right. Because++ an independent, lightweight, rolling distro with a fresh take on various issues is even more so. I am an Arch user at home, and a huge fan of Alpine Linux for my servers. Taking this - and Christmassy time off - as oppurtunity to reacquaint myself with this fun, light, enjoyable, and hyper-fast Linux, so thanks for posting.
  - meddlepal 8y ago
    > Because any independent distro is interesting in its own right. Nope.
    - yjftsjthsd-h 8y ago
      Any chance you could do better than a one word dismissal?
  - em3rgent0rdr 8y ago
    I think programmer resources would be better spent helping make another disto better...and as this seems similar to arch linux, why not just focus on making it as an arch linux variant...one that ueses Runit instead of systemd, or make an arch-linux install CD that only uses musl instead of glibc.
    - interfixus 8y ago
      Apparently the people pouring time, work, and commitment into this project feel differently, which is their undisputable prerogative. Personally, I applaud such effort. We need fresh takes on things. Looking back to the early years of the century, what would you have had the Arch crowd do? Stop pissing around, just fork off Debian Sid?
    - kungtotte 8y ago
      While superficially similar, Void is not really close enough to Arch that it would make sense to have developed it as an Arch derivative. There is currently Artix Linux that fills that niche (comes with runit or OpenRC). It's also a fallacy to think that not working on Void means these people would work on some other distro. They do it because they want to build Void, not because they want to build "a distribution".
    - duncaen 8y ago
      You think, but you have no clue about the differences, which are so substantial that it wouldn't be possible to convince arch to change things like this, may it be for legacy reasons because some things are breaking changes or may it be just something the Arch team doesn't care about. - Arch Linux supports only x86_64 in the main project - Void supports i686, x86_64, armv6, armv7 and aarch64 with both musl and glibc under one project, one source repository. - Arch linux does not allow partial updates - Void linux allows partial updates because the package manager tracks shared libraries and big issues can be avoided by aborting the transaction if a conflict exists - Arch puts everything into one big package - Void splits packages, not as much as debian, but at least the development stuff is in a `-devel` subpackage. This reduces the installation size by alot (especially useful for embedded systems, arm...). - Arch has no repository with debugging symbols - Void has a repository with -dbg packages containing the debug symbols. - Arch only maintains two kernels, mainline and lts. - Void maintains kernels in packages with the a version suffix, `linuxX.XX`. Users can choose which series for how long they want to use. (also great for embedded systems) - Arch kernel updates remove the old kernel version - Void keeps the old kernels, the administrators can boot the previous kernel until they decides to purge old kernels with the `vkpurge` script if new kernels work fine. This are the differences on top of my head, there are plenty more. But yes tell people they waste resources.
- yjftsjthsd-h 8y ago
  Reasons I like it: * Non-systemd * Rolling release, generally up to date * Supports glibc and musl * Tends to make software choices I like (doas in main repos, recommends socklog) * xbps is a nice package manager * doesn't believe in AUR/PPAs but compensates with massive main repos
- kazinator 8y ago
  Alan Perlis, Epigram 104.
JamesCoyne 8y ago
Anyone care to give the sales pitch?
- tyingq 8y ago
  There's one in a review here: https://www.thelinuxrain.com/articles/void-linux-the-strangely-overlooked-distribution https://www.thelinuxrain.com/articles/void-linux-the-strange... Key bullets from that: Independent distribution, entirely volunteer run runit system service manager by default (no systemd) xbps system package manager, simple ports-like system akin to the BSDs or the Arch Build System Fresh, constantly updated software thanks to rolling release Uses LibreSSL by default instead of OpenSSL A real hands on but KISS approach to system management, akin to Arch/ BSD etc.
  - Carpetsmoker 8y ago
    I ran Void Linux for about a year. I thought it worked pretty well. I like the runit system, which proves you can do a sane service mangement without tons and tons of complexity (cough systemd cough). A lot of other stuff took a similar simple Unix approach, which I rather like (Linux, for better or worse, often takes a more complex approach). The reason I stopped using it is because I changed jobs and had to run Vagrant, which doesn't work with the musl libc. I had to reinstall it to the glibc version, and figured I might as well use the more "mainstream" Arch Linux while I was at it, as I was a bit tired of having to spend effort in getting stuff like that to work.
    - sulam 8y ago
      I have to admit I’ve never understood why systemd is perceived as so hard to understand. Still, it’s good to see some real alternatives.
      - busterarm 8y ago
        The problem that most people have with systemd is not that it's hard to understand.
merricksb 8y ago
Past discussions: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15114055 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15114055 (16 months ago) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16670337 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16670337 (9 months ago)
kazinator 8y ago
Can someone explain this: https://github.com/void-linux/void-packages/blob/master/srcpkgs/txr/patches/musl-configure.patch https://github.com/void-linux/void-packages/blob/master/srcp... This configure test uses a C program to detect that #include <$try_header> works for some value of $try_header, like alloca.h: note angle brackets. After detecting it this way, why would we need to switch this to #include "..." for the sake of Musl, to get the actual program to compile?
- kazinator 8y ago
  I figured it out (without actually building with Musl). Musl's <stdlib.h> includes <alloca.h> already if _GNU_SOURCE or _BSD_SOURCE is defined. Musl's <alloca.h> defines an object-like alloca macro if compiled with GCC: #define alloca __builtin_alloca. When we try to include the <alloca.h> header through a macro, as in #include ALLOCA_H, it's subject to macro expansion: ALLOCA_H is replaced with <alloca.h>. This is five pp-tokens: < alloca . h >. The second one is the macro that was defined due to <stdlib.h> having included <alloca.h> already, and so this gets replaced now; we end up with #include <__builtin_alloca.h>.
efiecho 8y ago
I have been using Void for months on the desktop, and I like it very much, especially the package manager, but something that REALLY annoys me is how bloated every package seems to be. Maybe you only want to use Writer from Libreoffice, but you have to install absolutely EVERYTHING, many gigabytes including Java stuff that only 0.01% will ever need, and this is true for most packages, QEMU is another horror example. In Alpine Linux almost every package is split into multiple small sub packages so you can install only the stuff you need. This is great.
- kungtotte 8y ago
  That's a Libreoffice issue, not Void. You'll see the same thing on any Arch-based distro too for example, and I'd venture to guess that most distros are the same since there's little incentive for them to rip apart upstream packages and repackage them.
  - efiecho 8y ago
    Alpine has a separate Writer package, Debian has a separate Writer package and probably many more distros. Same thing with QEMU, a separate package for every architecture, separate GUI packages etc. I like so many things about Void, but the package bloat is just crazy.

58 points by ColanR 8y ago

aetherspawn 8y ago

I couldn’t find a “Why” section that explains why this needs to exist. Anyone?

codetrotter 8y ago
According to Wikipedia: > Void Linux was created in 2008 by Juan Romero Pardines, a former maintainer of NetBSD, to have a test-bed for the XBPS package manager. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Void_Linux https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Void_Linux
- joecool1029 8y ago
  The other odd thing is the creator, xtreame, just fell off the face of the earth early this year without any notice. I still wonder if he's ok. In any case, it's a very nice distro and the community did an excellent job of pulling things together after his disappearance.
interfixus 8y ago
Because any independent distro is interesting in its own right. Because++ an independent, lightweight, rolling distro with a fresh take on various issues is even more so. I am an Arch user at home, and a huge fan of Alpine Linux for my servers. Taking this - and Christmassy time off - as oppurtunity to reacquaint myself with this fun, light, enjoyable, and hyper-fast Linux, so thanks for posting.
- meddlepal 8y ago
  > Because any independent distro is interesting in its own right. Nope.
  - yjftsjthsd-h 8y ago
    Any chance you could do better than a one word dismissal?
- em3rgent0rdr 8y ago
  I think programmer resources would be better spent helping make another disto better...and as this seems similar to arch linux, why not just focus on making it as an arch linux variant...one that ueses Runit instead of systemd, or make an arch-linux install CD that only uses musl instead of glibc.
  - interfixus 8y ago
    Apparently the people pouring time, work, and commitment into this project feel differently, which is their undisputable prerogative. Personally, I applaud such effort. We need fresh takes on things. Looking back to the early years of the century, what would you have had the Arch crowd do? Stop pissing around, just fork off Debian Sid?
  - kungtotte 8y ago
    While superficially similar, Void is not really close enough to Arch that it would make sense to have developed it as an Arch derivative. There is currently Artix Linux that fills that niche (comes with runit or OpenRC). It's also a fallacy to think that not working on Void means these people would work on some other distro. They do it because they want to build Void, not because they want to build "a distribution".
  - duncaen 8y ago
    You think, but you have no clue about the differences, which are so substantial that it wouldn't be possible to convince arch to change things like this, may it be for legacy reasons because some things are breaking changes or may it be just something the Arch team doesn't care about. - Arch Linux supports only x86_64 in the main project - Void supports i686, x86_64, armv6, armv7 and aarch64 with both musl and glibc under one project, one source repository. - Arch linux does not allow partial updates - Void linux allows partial updates because the package manager tracks shared libraries and big issues can be avoided by aborting the transaction if a conflict exists - Arch puts everything into one big package - Void splits packages, not as much as debian, but at least the development stuff is in a `-devel` subpackage. This reduces the installation size by alot (especially useful for embedded systems, arm...). - Arch has no repository with debugging symbols - Void has a repository with -dbg packages containing the debug symbols. - Arch only maintains two kernels, mainline and lts. - Void maintains kernels in packages with the a version suffix, `linuxX.XX`. Users can choose which series for how long they want to use. (also great for embedded systems) - Arch kernel updates remove the old kernel version - Void keeps the old kernels, the administrators can boot the previous kernel until they decides to purge old kernels with the `vkpurge` script if new kernels work fine. This are the differences on top of my head, there are plenty more. But yes tell people they waste resources.
yjftsjthsd-h 8y ago
Reasons I like it: * Non-systemd * Rolling release, generally up to date * Supports glibc and musl * Tends to make software choices I like (doas in main repos, recommends socklog) * xbps is a nice package manager * doesn't believe in AUR/PPAs but compensates with massive main repos
kazinator 8y ago
Alan Perlis, Epigram 104.

JamesCoyne 8y ago

Anyone care to give the sales pitch?

tyingq 8y ago
There's one in a review here: https://www.thelinuxrain.com/articles/void-linux-the-strangely-overlooked-distribution https://www.thelinuxrain.com/articles/void-linux-the-strange... Key bullets from that: Independent distribution, entirely volunteer run runit system service manager by default (no systemd) xbps system package manager, simple ports-like system akin to the BSDs or the Arch Build System Fresh, constantly updated software thanks to rolling release Uses LibreSSL by default instead of OpenSSL A real hands on but KISS approach to system management, akin to Arch/ BSD etc.
- Carpetsmoker 8y ago
  I ran Void Linux for about a year. I thought it worked pretty well. I like the runit system, which proves you can do a sane service mangement without tons and tons of complexity (cough systemd cough). A lot of other stuff took a similar simple Unix approach, which I rather like (Linux, for better or worse, often takes a more complex approach). The reason I stopped using it is because I changed jobs and had to run Vagrant, which doesn't work with the musl libc. I had to reinstall it to the glibc version, and figured I might as well use the more "mainstream" Arch Linux while I was at it, as I was a bit tired of having to spend effort in getting stuff like that to work.
  - sulam 8y ago
    I have to admit I’ve never understood why systemd is perceived as so hard to understand. Still, it’s good to see some real alternatives.
    - busterarm 8y ago
      The problem that most people have with systemd is not that it's hard to understand.

merricksb 8y ago

Past discussions: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15114055 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15114055 (16 months ago) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16670337 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16670337 (9 months ago)

kazinator 8y ago

Can someone explain this: https://github.com/void-linux/void-packages/blob/master/srcpkgs/txr/patches/musl-configure.patch https://github.com/void-linux/void-packages/blob/master/srcp... This configure test uses a C program to detect that #include <$try_header> works for some value of $try_header, like alloca.h: note angle brackets. After detecting it this way, why would we need to switch this to #include "..." for the sake of Musl, to get the actual program to compile?

kazinator 8y ago
I figured it out (without actually building with Musl). Musl's <stdlib.h> includes <alloca.h> already if _GNU_SOURCE or _BSD_SOURCE is defined. Musl's <alloca.h> defines an object-like alloca macro if compiled with GCC: #define alloca __builtin_alloca. When we try to include the <alloca.h> header through a macro, as in #include ALLOCA_H, it's subject to macro expansion: ALLOCA_H is replaced with <alloca.h>. This is five pp-tokens: < alloca . h >. The second one is the macro that was defined due to <stdlib.h> having included <alloca.h> already, and so this gets replaced now; we end up with #include <__builtin_alloca.h>.

efiecho 8y ago

I have been using Void for months on the desktop, and I like it very much, especially the package manager, but something that REALLY annoys me is how bloated every package seems to be. Maybe you only want to use Writer from Libreoffice, but you have to install absolutely EVERYTHING, many gigabytes including Java stuff that only 0.01% will ever need, and this is true for most packages, QEMU is another horror example. In Alpine Linux almost every package is split into multiple small sub packages so you can install only the stuff you need. This is great.

kungtotte 8y ago
That's a Libreoffice issue, not Void. You'll see the same thing on any Arch-based distro too for example, and I'd venture to guess that most distros are the same since there's little incentive for them to rip apart upstream packages and repackage them.
- efiecho 8y ago
  Alpine has a separate Writer package, Debian has a separate Writer package and probably many more distros. Same thing with QEMU, a separate package for every architecture, separate GUI packages etc. I like so many things about Void, but the package bloat is just crazy.