Why isn’t Manjaro the one in the meme?
I use manjaro and you said nothing but facts.
I just quit Manjaro about two months ago and i agree.
I haven’t tried Manjaro and I don’t have an opinion
I switched back to Manjaro today and I agree.
As one of the dozens of Void Linux users, I too find this very offensive!
(But hey, at least we’re getting some attention, which is nice…)
Oh, come on, I use Void too, it was just a play on Void 😁.
when you can’t be bothered to setup arch linux:
You’re using the meme wrong. The “at home” needs to be worse than the “mom can we get?”
I know, it was just play on Void 😊.
I have enough void inside me already
Haha now I kinda feel like this is Endeavour. I’m really liking Endeavour! It feels like Arch but just a bit smoother of an approachability curve. Lovely community, too.
I should mess with Void sometime. 🤔
It’s more like Arch than Endeavour though, just a heads up. Very little GUI things, especially the installer and all that. Well, the installed is TUI, so It’s not that hard to be honest.
Could someone remind me what the appeal behind Void is exactly?
Rolling release and stable. And no systemd… not by choice though, they’re not purists, you just can’t build it for musl.
Musl and stable is one worst word combinations there is. I still have nighmares from broken packages under alpine that worked just fine under normal distro. It took us like a week to find the problem. Bad times.
Alpine is an advanced user distro. I’m sure there are workarounds for the broken stuff.
It’s not their official policy, but my personal philosophy with alpine goes like this:
- If it doesn’t work with musl/busybox, find an alternative that does
- If I can’t find an alternative, then I patch it myself
- If I don’t have the time/skill to patch it myself, then I throw it into a container that has glibc/gnu coreutils
no systemd IIRC.
the only thing void has over arch is more architecture support (which is kinda ironic)
Stability as well. It’s probably the most stable rolling release distro out there.
that kinda depends on your personal experience - for example ive been running arch for 2 years, i do weekly updates and ive never encountered a single issue
fucking runit
Who remembers Antergos
deleted by creator
I do. I like it. I don’t think it tries to fill the same niche as Arch, as a former Arch daily driver.
Why? Any distro can be used for anything.
Yep, I use it as a desktop OS. Why is it baffling?
Alpine is better. It’s more minimal.
Yeah, but no glibc 🤷… some of us need it, and I can’t chroot all the time.
But it’s very minimal with a very small attack surface by default (because of Musl, glibc is bloated).
There is a busybox/musl version of Void as well, but iirc it’s only for use in containers, not a bootable distro. But yeah alpine is also great, I love it as well.
Plus it’s the base for the best mobile distribution (imo, obviously) PostmarketOS
Is void a distro?
Yes. Independent, rolling, stable.
rolling, stable
Huh?
Yep, believe it or not, it’s probably the most stable rolling release distro out there. I’ve used it for the past 4, 5 years or so, not once has it broken.
There are 2 main reasons why this is. One, they don’t roll with bleeding edge, they opt for stable, so cutting edge is more like it. And two, they don’t have something like the AUR. There is only the main repo and that’s it. The approval process for new packages is quite strict and it has to fulfil a lot of requirements, among which the software has to not just build, but also run on i686, x86_64, ARMv5/6/7 and ARM64. And not just on glibc, but also on musl. So basically, all that, times 2. Sometimes it may take up to a year to get new packages approved by the maintainers, depending on how big the package is and how integrated in the system it is.
The word “stable” usually means unchanging through a release. I.e. functionality of one release is the same if you stay in that release even if you update (security and bug fixes mostly). The experience of the system not doing anything unexpected like crashing is reliability. A rolling distro is by that definition not stable, but it can be more or less bug free and crash free.
No, it doesn’t the only unchanging distro is debian, and they do it mostly out of resourse constraints not because it is a good idea. Like the only lts package that debian does update is linux kernel. Everything else is patched for vulnerabilities at best, left to rot as stable as a rule.
A bold claim. RHEL updates are mostly security patches, are they doing that due to lack of resources too? Is it that hard to imagine that enterprise distros don’t want surprises from changing functionality?
Let’s be real, RHEL and Debian aren’t even close on what and how they give you. Better not compare them because it wouldn’t be a comparison. They mostly do security patches but when needed they actually backport features, they support every version far longer, they don’t ship packages that were outdated 20 years ago because no one can support their aging infrastructure, they actually rewritten absolute majority of oldie initscripts so you don’t need to remember how to disable an init script for a given run level, and so on.
After years of rhel moving to debian was like moving ten years in the past and to a very poor neighbourhood. Sorry if it offends you.
Edit: Anyway what I actually wanted to say in the previous post most enterprise distros aren’t religios about it, like debian is.
Yes, you are correct, reliable is the term needed there 👍.
This meme was brought to you by an arch user desperately trying to justify the mental gymnastics of using systemd in their supposedly “keep it simple” distro
EDIT: I joke of course. If arch/systemd works well for you, that’s all that matters!
It was just a pun, cuz Arch is popular, I use Void actually 😊.
It was Antergos for me, before the project was shut down.
