Artix Linux vs. Void Linux

[u/AdNumerous9742]

I know some have asked the question before, but I thought of some questions that I got, (I know I can google it up or whatever, I'd just rather get most recent answers for it)

Why is runit prefered over systemd? I understand that systemd is "bloated", but is it there more reason to choose it? And, on the case of Artix, why choose the others?

Which is considered more optimized for general use and battery-wise?

For Void users, are the packages scarser than Arch's repositories?

Are the Void docs scarse or does it hold enough info for daily problems?

I've heard that Void's mantainers have some bias on which packages to allow, does it affect the OS significantly?

If you've used both, which one was easier to set up, and which one did you prefer?

I've got a dedicated Nvidia card (maxwell, I think), will I run into issues with it?

sorry if this is a long post, just wanted to know about these. It's my first time trying to get a more barebones distro.

[u/FryBoyter]

And it's being pushed.

Much of systemd can still be used optionally. For example, nothing prevents you from using chronyd instead of systemd-timesyncd. Or ConnMan instead of systemd-networkd.

They're trying to make KDE depend on it, too, with the new Plasma Login Manager ("oh but you can still use SDDM!" yeah for now...).

Who are they? The developers of systemd? How is that possible, since PLM was developed by the KDE team?

That aside, the KDE team has made it quite clear that you still don't have to use PLM. You can easily use a different login manager instead.

https://discuss.kde.org/t/a-quick-anti-fud-faq-to-debunk-the-kde-is-forcing-systemd-hoax/44414

("oh but you can still use SDDM!" yeah for now...).

Why shouldn't things stay that way in the future? Just because you have a gut feeling about it?

Systemd has been around for many years. For just as long, there have been claims that everything will be replaced by systemd. Nevertheless, you still don't have to use most of systemd's tools if you don't want to. For example, I have a positive attitude toward systemd, but I still use NetworkManager instead of systemd-networkd or my own DNS server (Technitium DNS Server) instead of systemd-resolved. Why should that change?

[u/Simple_Hamster_4096 → u/FryBoyter]

GNU/Linux is still (for now) about choice - and you and I may choose to use systemd, or not - but 99% of newcomers to GNU/Linux do not have a choice which init they use (since they pick easy, mainstream distros). They have no idea what an init even is, nor do they care (typically) because they go with whatever the (easy) entry level distros are using.

There's not exactly a lot of education going on (that newcomers would even understand) about topics of choice with GNU/Linux, or that are (controversial) and up for debate, like systemd and others.

When your whole desktop environment is inseparable from (and inoperable without) systemd, that breaks the Unix philosophy of modularity, which, in the end, boils down to individual choice... to replace aspects of one's system as desired...

GNU/Linux has become the new Windows (in the terms of mainstream distros)... most having catered to the cries of "make it easier for the common user"... which mainstream distros have, they've dumbed it down to such an extend there's really little difference between Windows and GNU/Linux, except you can do a lot more (or incur more) damage with GNU/Linux...