Home | News | Download | Packages | Forum | Wiki | Github

How Void is perceived in the linux community


While surfing the Net, by chance, I came across this page:

There is something funny in the first comment…

I quote: “I suspect that Void forked Arch and separated into its own repository structure.”

:face_with_hand_over_mouth: he’s not very well-informed (but it’s a daffy idea, anyway).

(maxice8's favorite salad) #2

Too much people suspect, not enough have the capacity to use a search engine like Google, DuckDuckGo, Searx, etc.

(Benjamin) #3

Looks like someone informed them at least https://sysdfree.wordpress.com/2017/11/12/154/comment-page-1/#comment-201

(Gus Fun) #4

Yes, someone did inform us, we thank her/him …

We feel so bad making such an assumption from running void in a VM we went out of our way to get void installed. Out of 3 boxes we had (Dell GX755,760, 780, all Intel core2duo with factory gfx) none would boot void from a live medium, let alone install it. Just yesterday we got our hands on a newer machine (i7) in temporary custody, and managed to get an “uneventful” installation on a USB stick, then dd the installation into our boxes.

I, we. will have to admit, it looks good!

So now, we are having lini (linuxes) with sysvinit, openrc, openrc, S6, AND Runit! The more the merrier.

I will use it for a few days and write up a corrective record for void. It seems as it definitely meets our standards. Free of systemd crap! Emphasis on free!

vuu-do -miyo - artix - refracta - obarun - systemD Free Space sysdfree.wordpress.com


Im pretty sure i remember reading on distrowatch that void was independent and lfs at one stage, is the lfs part true?

(Edmond Dantes ) #6

@fungalnet Since I’ve seen this argument being brought up elsewhere already, I just wanted to point out a couple of things once and for all (no personal reference, I just take the opportunity to express a point of view; feel free to provide feedback)

What Void and Arch may be similar in:

  • Arch is shipped as a barebone distro, with just a minimal set of software included in the base system. Void is either shipped as a minimal image, OR a pre-built DE…That said, Fedora and other popular distibutions offer minimal memstick images to allow user to build up their own perfectly customized Linux OS, with the same degree of freedom

  • Arch and Void are rolling-release

What Void and Arch Linux differ in:

  • repositories width, repositories structure
  • init (this is a key difference between distros)
  • initramfs management
  • libc (another key difference)
  • attitude towards closed-source/binary-blobs
  • documentation
  • package manager (I find xbps very different from pacman)
  • if Busybox were to replace Coreutils in base system anytime soon, that would become another great difference
  • above all, the thing that IMHO makes binary-based distros most different from each-other: how sofware is compiled in packages, in other words, what flags are appended while compiling software. Enabling more options results in a always working, always compatible system, but gives in turn a less performing and responsive system, with higher hardware requirements for a given set of software installed. Void focuses on being minimalistc ,portable and performing, hence xbps packages are compiled with fewer flags enabled than pacman’s tarballs

Given those are some of the major things Linux distributions differ from each other (in the end Kernel and available software is always the same), assessing Arch and Void are close-cousins might feel a kind of a stretch.
If there’s something similar to Arch, that’s Debian Unstable.

Speeking of the “feeling” of Void Linux, well that’s very subjective. For me it really feels like NetBSD-Current, but that’s a strong statement and very opinionated. Void surely gives user a lot of freedom and can be accounted among those distro which more likely induce people to understand how Linux works. It’s very versatile and can be a valid choice for in a wide range of cases.

I think common opinion around Void is generally good, and rumors apart, serious sources always return an amazing feedback around it, and that’s way a choose to give it a try in the first place

(Erin) #7

For me, perception is a moot point and the usefulness of Void fits my needs and requirements. I like its lightness and it forces me to make decisions rather than imposing them on me - I now use lots of tools I had never heard of previously and my workflow/productivity is far higher. The lack of SystemD is a plus too which is what forced me to leave my previous distro choice. Void is not, and no OS should be, for everyone. For many it is a breath of fresh air. Long may that continue.

(Benjamin) #8

That is indeed true, Void was originally made as a distro for Xtraeme to tinker xbps with serious impseration from NetBSD. Many others also hold this statement but Void really feels like BSD but Linux, and its pretty great. Got all the good things about BSD with the software support and hardware compatibility of Linux.

(jacky) #9

Void-Linux is the best GNU/Linux OS out there.
I have been using Linux for the past 20 years, from Gentoo -> Debian -> Arch-Linux -> Void linux…
It only need more Packages… Debian comes with over 51000 packages. Overall still a better choice from them all.

(Silvernode) #12

To me Void feels likes a mix between Debian/Ubuntu and Arch. It feels like Debian/Ubuntu because things seem to work reliably and I rarely (if ever) have to worry when I upgrade. That said it feels like Arch since you don’t have the kitchen sink installed when you start out (even with the desktop ISO files) and you can decide what you want on your system.

(Erin) #13

Void’s package choice is quality versus quantity. The package choice is already large, getting larger but with a good toolset to allow users to roll-their-own alongside the available pre-compiled packages.

(jacky) #14

I agree with you…