68

Just learned about it recently. It has received a lot of praise as a rolling release distro. Also it uses runit instead of systemd.

It has been praised also for being more stable and better designed than Arch.

And I wonder how it compares to OpenSUSE Tumbleweed,

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] redshift@lemmy.zip 20 points 2 days ago

I've used it for quite a few years on several machines, and I love it. It probably shouldn't be anyone's first distro, but if you're comfortable with basic Linux tooling or willing to teach yourself, it can be a great for personal use or a server.

As an example, the installer only handles some common setups. If you want a different setup (e.g. full-disk encryption) you can follow a guide, but it's going to assume you know (or can learn) how to create partitions, for example. Personally, I follow the guide rather than using the installer even for common setups, because it reinforces knowledge of the basic tools, and it exposes the relatively simple job a Linux installer actually does: create partitions, create filesystems, mount them, and install packages. The real Void Linux install is in a single command, which is just telling its package manager (XBPS) to install one package, and that package in turn depends on (installs) the kernel, userland tools, and other necessities.

Not every part of a "standard" distro will be there, but it probably won't affect you much, unless you're working on the distro itself. systemd isn't there, but packages in the repos will have runit services, and it's easy to create services for software you install manually - usually just one line. If you use a desktop environment like KDE, that will hide most of the differences at a higher level.

There won't be as many random guides tailored to Void Linux, of course, but Void mostly sticks to standard Linux tooling, so guides from most other distros usually work just fine, and you just ignore the specifics of systemd. I rarely need to tweak system services. The developers do a good job.

Compared to Tumbleweed, it's a lot simpler. Simpler than Arch, too. I've found it more reliable and faster than both, but that will depend on your setup and your priorities. Either option would be good for "normal" usage or gaming. (Not sure of your intended use...)

Updates for big security-sensitive packages are done quickly - kernel updates, Firefox, etc. are often out within a day. Larger efforts like KDE updates can take a month or two. Less commonly used packages may depend on community help. (I find the same to be true in bigger distros...)

Thank you that was a great read!

this post was submitted on 25 May 2026
68 points (100.0% liked)

Linux

13785 readers
398 users here now

A community for everything relating to the GNU/Linux operating system (except the memes!)

Also, check out:

Original icon base courtesy of lewing@isc.tamu.edu and The GIMP

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS