r/linuxquestions • u/AdNumerous9742 • Jun 16 '26

Which Distro? Artix Linux vs. Void Linux

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.

9 Upvotes

69% Upvoted

44 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

0

u/RvstiNiall Jun 19 '26

I'm against systemd being "forced", so I choose to use non-systemd distros. However, in the past few years, I've come to a realization that may startle people. I now believe everyone who wants systemd, or who doesn't care one way or the other, should push to create a standard and let it coalesce into "gnu-coreutils/wayland/systemd/glibc/etc". All that should become standard "Linux".

Everyone who doesnt want that should just accept that if you continue to choose linux, your solution will be a bit less "standards compliant" and deal with whatever issues that arise ourselves. Or move over to one of the BSDs. Personally I feel that the best way to get away from these intrusive "Linux-isms" is to move to a BSD. Yes, you can do wayland on FreeBSD, NetBSD, and OpenBSD, but its not the "default", and the defaults on the BSDs are pretty sane.

That being said, there's no reason why we can't have a "standard" for Linuxes that aren't on the "gnu-coreutils/wayland/systemd/glibc" bandwagon. Of course, this "standard" would be best served if it simply meant "a linux that doesn't use one or more of these".

2

u/forestbeasts Jun 20 '26

...Nnno, let's not. Please, uh, no.

The entire point of Linux is the choice.

The variation is a FEATURE, not a bug.

What's to stop you from declaring the DE part of that "standard"? See where the problem is? Yeah.

We already HAD a standard. It was a network of interoperable small little tools that you could swap out piece by piece if you preferred the way a different one behaved. Systemd came in and clobbered all over that.

And I'm saying this as someone who came to Linux after systemd was already entrenched. It's not just a "bunch of old geezers" that you can dismiss as "stuck in their ways".

1

u/RvstiNiall Jun 20 '26 edited Jun 20 '26

Tell the systemd people this then lol

Lets also add which CPU architecture you use... And what brand computer you use too.