If I'm being honest, Void is so much better than Arch, wow!

(Kevin Moses) #1

Just from the little I’ve played with it, it just seems like the attention to detail that void has far surpasses that of arch. Especially from command line only builds.

A couple of things: in Arch, the date command never worked properly. It always showed utc time, no matter what you did.

Another thing, in Arch, if you ran any long complicated command from the command line and then you had to arrow back through your history, when you got to that long command, you couldn’t move passed it without creating a lesion and half of the command “stuck”.

And for that matter, the history command in void comes default with line numbers out of the box.

Only thing I kinda don’t like about void is well having to remember if the command is xbps or xbsp, lol.
I can just tell that whoever is responsible for void is really putting a lot of effort into this.
Arch seems like it has become the Ubuntu of minimal distros.
While void is trying to be more like openbsd (that is making things that just work!)

(Max) #2

There are many people here who moved from arch over :slight_smile:

I too had some trouble remembering the different commands in the beginning. Especially because there are two different command for installing/removing. The wiki has a good cheatsheet for it.

Of course you could always alias the pacman commands :smiley:

(X) #3

luv this f***** distro !


Just use xtools and aliases and you don’t have to remember. :wink:

(Benjamín Albiñana) #5


Well, I used arch before, I hated it. At least for me, it was too unstable. Eventually I ended trying void, never gave me big problems like arch, it’s really stable, it just works. I’ve been using it for almost a month now and I don’t plan to change or try other distros, this distro really is for me.
It’s funny because a friend of mine tried arch and he is always coming to new problems every day or so, I tried to convince him to try void but he doesn’t want to try it because arch is ‘‘the famous one’’, what a poor soul… But it always ends with each person decision, that’s the fun of linux!

(Kevin Moses) #7

That is too funny.
Like I said, the only real thing arch has that void doesn’t besides a lot of headaches, is their wiki.
But the funny thing is that you can use the arch wiki to get help with void, lol.
Everything in void is built better it seems to me.
And if you know a little something about Linux, you can figure out anything.

There also seems to be a myth that void is more difficult than Arch, that is hardly the case with me.
Everything works, is easier and I’ve found everything I needed in the repository, so I am definitely happy with void.
The only thing I noticed was that duckduckgo doesn’t seem to index void wikis and I’ve had to resort to going to Google, which I hate.


I use duckduckgo and I also noticed that, but the wiki is very intuitive so you don’t have to search in other search engines. At least I don’t.

(Erin) #9

https://searx.me does… no need for the big G!

(Kevin Moses) #10

Hey I wanted to tell you guys something, if any of you are in to text browsers, forget what people tell you about w3m, elinks and lynx.

I have tried them all, and I can tell you that links is So much better.
The thing is that links doesn’t support a lot of the features that w3m and elinks supports, mainly tab browsing and persistent cookies.
But at the same time, links is stable, it renders pages better and especially if you post on forums with text browsers, it is going to show how superior it is.
I also think it is actually still being maintained. Elinks was shit for me. And w3m was too dependant on obscure commands.
Links is the best.

(X) #11

That’s it dude !

(X) #12

That’s it dude !


Interesting… Does it have the same purpose as duckduckgo? (besides being a search engine :sweat_smile: )

(Max) #14

Sadly, that is true :frowning:
Although the wiki is growing and in many cases the VoidWiki entry is more precise and to-the-point than the ArchWiki in my experience. Anyone can contribute to the Wiki to make it better. :slight_smile:

DuckDuckGo can actually search the VoidWiki. :smiley:
If anyone didn’t know: Just append !voidwiki to your seach query and it will open up the relevant voidwiki page (if there is one).


Sorry, but as a metasearch engine Searx doesn’t really index much. What it did for me was to show interspersed bing/google results: google’s were relevant, bing’s weren’t; all as expected (the search query was “void linux uefi”). What is the added value of Searx quality-wise?

Yandex.com does index the Void’s wiki, on the other hand.

(Erin) #16

It abstracts the negative elements of Google away. All search engines suck, some less than others and usually subjectively based on the user’s expectations or wants.

(William Rueger) #17

“Different strokes for different folks” is the old (American?) saying. The real advantages to Arch are the wiki, as mentioned above, but also the AUR, which covers a wide array of special use cases, and widely expands available packages. Void has very valid reasons not to follow that model, but I do miss it.

Also, to be fair, having used both for more than 2 years, and with XFCE, MATE and LXQT desktops, I find Arch to be just as stable as Void, partly because Arch is able to work out issues in the “Testing” branch before committing to the regular package repos. This is true even though Arch is a little more “bleeding edge”. This is not a big criticism, since Void is still very stable for a rolling release.

Void’s problems for me are often due to library dependencies breaking with some upgrades, and breakage in Void often takes longer to repair,
due to the smaller number of maintainers.

Having said all this, I am here because I like Void better. Xbps is a very good package maintenance system. Void has a slightly more Unix feel which appeals to me, and can be made faster and leaner for the same functionality, compared to Arch. Thanks to all responsible for a very well-done distribution.

(Samdeep) #18

Ye links is pretty good, just checked out. Any reason you use terminal browsers?

(Kevin Moses) #19

The practical reason is that I’m using a command-line only setup.
But beyond that I’ve actually grown to love the consistency that a terminal browser offers. It always shows a website the exact same way whether it’s ESPN or anything else.
There’s not a bunch of weird layouts that you have to deal with.
Originally when I was first thinking about going command-line only, I thought that I would really miss the video and multimedia options that a real browser offers.
But I actually don’t miss it that much.
I don’t have to resize text every time I go to a new website nor do I have to deal with pop-ups or ads or anything. I just get what I’m after which is text.

(Edmond Dantes ) #20

some should have figured at this point that I’m definitely not an Arch fan. But I’m not going to tell which of the 2 I think is better, because I’ve only used Arch for 2 weeks: any comparison of mine would be useless and totally untrustworthy.

I don’t know why so many people come here from Arch, neither why they think this distro is more similar to it than something like, let’s say, a Debian Testing minimal netinstall.

What I can do instead compare it with Slackware: more modern, easy to use and definitely more up to date while being nearly as simple and lightweight.

I can compare it to CRUX: what I said about Slackware mostly applies even here,with the addiction that Void saves the trouble of having to compile from source

Obviously and naturally less stable than Slackware and CRUX, which follow fixed releases…sometimes, and only sometimes, not stable enough for my tastes: I’d compare its stability to something like NetBSD-current, which is a development branch, and definitely less stable than OI-hipster, which is a rolling-release (yet thought for everyday usage like Void) OS too

So if Arch is less stable than that, I can’t imagine why people would want to put it on their desktop and I’m amazed to hear someone even went that far to put it on his/her server