5 ms·

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.

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.