I were afraid that their Wiki is not detailed enough, and expected that some packages could be missing. However, I could easily install everything I needed from the repository (except flashplugin). TeX is installed slightly differently, but the wiki entry helps here. Regarding documentation, DuckDuckGo does not show search results from Void Wiki, so I have to use Google search instead. Documentation seems sufficient, and where I need more, I can refer to Arch wiki.
With Arch, all services seemed automatically enabled when the packages were installed, otherwise you had to use systemd commands for configuration, which seemed a bit opaque to me. In Void, which is using Runit, enabling a service (like alsa, crond, cupsd, etc) is a matter of creating a symlink, which feels very transparent and reliable. I think, I like the idea of keeping the information about your services in the plain view in the filesystem. I have never been a configuration guru, so prefer this transparency and simplicity, and it felt robust so far.
It's exactly the same in systemd, although people usually use systemctl. It will report what it does:
$ sudo systemctl enable sshd
Created symlink /etc/systemd/system/multi-user.target.wants/sshd.service → /usr/lib/systemd/system/sshd.service.
Dude, we have been using *nix since decades.
There is nothing wrong with keeping things simple - no need for systemd whatsoever.
I personally like systemd as a init system and service manager, but think it is bundling too much. Variety is not just the spice of life, its needed for a health ecosystem.
As for void linux, does it have anything close to the AUR in terms of package availability?
Sadly, this has become a very political debate, and I don't have first hand experience, so much of my opinion is based on biased second-hand accounts. Though I try to get accounts that are biased both ways.
Note that the primary impetus was actually not necessarily that archlinux has degraded in quality over the years ever since Judd was no longer in charge, but primarily that systemd interferes with everything.
I have this suspicion that the author may still be a happy archer, but systemd made him reconsider. And archlinux made a deliberate decision to switch to systemd without alternatives, so I really can not hold anyone but the new archlinux developers responsible for that.
Projects often change with the "under new management" syndrome - that is inevitable.
> Sadly, this has become a very political debate
This is only partially true. While I agree that there is a lot of conflict between pro-and-con systemd, the major issue is that some random guys here and there decide - and subsequently dictate - onto everyone else THEIR particular mind view. And I think that this is the much more upsetting thing.
> so much of my opinion is based on biased second-hand accounts.
Many who dislike systemd do so not because of "political reasons" but of REAL PROBLEMS THAT THEY HAVE ENCOUNTERED.
I also encounted this, such as an infinite loop of systemd at boot-up time. And I had no patience to want to debug any of it. Went back to slackware again, true and tested; it is only a base for LFS/BLFS for me though. If anyone asks, I rather use GoboLinux - but I also can not recommend anyone currently to use GoboLinux until a few more things have been resolved. It's still the best by far.
There is nothing wrong with slackware per se, mind you. It's a bit slow in its development taste for my taste ... but it is still the closest towards "oldschool linux".
Many years ago, I bought a red hat set of CD and SuSE. Installed both... had a GUI. Knew nothing what to do.
Then I installed debian. I think it was woody or potato back then... xorg did not work, but the commandline worked, so I worked through the old handbook learning *nix. :-)
That was great!
Since systemd, I no longer touch anything of debian. devuan is the true successor here - the debian devs abandoned the users.
Until then, I can recommend voidlinux for one reason - I actually know a few people who HAVE been using it since quite some time among them this famous dude:
And I know a few more ruby-folks who are still using archlinux but may consider switching. I may try to convince jhass for example ... ;) - although I do have to say, voidlinux needs a bit more polishing still.
They will surely manage.
My understanding is that Void has xbps-src ,  for installing packages from source code, and it is somewhat similar to AUR. Xbps-src package database is essencially a github repository, you clone it and use it to build and install packages for your system. I installed it and used only once to build some obscure video streaming program, which failed to compile, and I did not follow up to figure out why it failed.
Nothing is preventing other users to fork or start their own void-packages repo on any git hosting service of their choice. In that sense it's actually more open to contributors than the AUR. Now the experience for the end user might not be perfect if they don't know that such a repo exists.
It works really well. Runit is an interesting init system. I wish it was a little better documented.
I hope we start seeing hosted providers offering Void base images. I'm a little weary of the current state of Linux distros where everything new seems to be either Debian or RHEL based.
But it has to be said, that void is pretty BSD-like, in some ways, and maybe someone will port pf one day (although I don't even know if that's possible at all...)
I personally use it on my raspberry pi, which operates as my server/home page (http://phi.k.vu/) and it's been fantastic for me. Far lower memory usage and much easier to configure. Xbps is fast and efficient, runit keeps it simple. It's like rediscovering linux or arch all over again, if that analogy means anything to anyone. Really deserves to be better known.
The one thing that keeps me back from using it on my laptop (where I run Debian) is that texlive has to be installed as one whole package, and the incomplete wiki is the other (although arch wiki can cover up quite well for tt's blindspots)
I can't think of a single system that runs MIPS instructions.
Also, what does this distro do differently from the other 1000+ distos?
Why VOID? Why not something else?
It was also one of the first to adopt LibreSSL.
The main downside for me is I have to manually install browsers. Void's packages for desktop software is sometimes out-of-date. But, I'm willing to overlook it because of all the other positives.
There is also Manjaro Openrc. But, my buggy experience with it made me decide to go with a distro designed from scratch to use a different init system. Do you use Archnosh on a daily basis? Any issues converting systemd unit files over to nosh?
I don't think that the conversion process not being capable of automatically converting every possible unit, just most of them, is something that should worry you. I suggest that you begin by reading the manual page on the subject as well as the sections on conversion in the nosh Guide and the worked example in the blurb:
That there are some outliers doing oddball things that this will not cover, requiring you to get your hands dirty writing run+stop+start+restart programs, is only a worry if you worry about writing such programs in the first place. If that is a worry, then observe that you have the same worry with runit. Ask yourself if you are worried about this with runit. (-:
At the time of writing, the nosh toolset has just over 540 pre-supplied service bundles, not counting log and etc services, from ModemManager through initctld to zfsd.
An interesting and somewhat topical example of the automatic conversion in practice was when I took the now-infamous example of a systemd unit that declared User=0day, ran it through the convertor, and started the resultant service. You can see what happened, and (more importantly) what did not happen:
* mailcatcher.service: https://unix.stackexchange.com/a/200281/5132
* sickbeard.service: https://askubuntu.com/a/617822/43344
What I really want to say is: Arch is heavily tied to systemd and I don't want to use any systemd-based distro, even if I can run something alongside it.
(I manually install Google Chrome and Opera. It's difficult for package managers to maintain them because of licensing and other issues.)
Not to open up that bag of worms, but I haven't heard anyone say Systemd is harder to use. It was made to actually make it easier.
I was trying to say: Void seems easier to use and stable.
Thanks for pointing this out. Sorry for my carelessness.
(I still would never use a systemd-based distro. I've had fewer problems since leaving it. And I've read too many horror stories to go back. And I suspect it led to many if the problems I had installing and booting. Void has a smaller community than Arch and Ubuntu, yet installs and biots up faster on my junky machines than Arch and Ubuntu. Granted, I can't blame systemd for this.... but I'll include it anyway in the lineup of suspects.)
The info on this page for systemd: https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/systemd#Writing_unit_fi... seems harder for me to understand than the info on runit: http://kchard.github.io/runit-quickstart/
You know, Gentoo, which is way more widely used than Void, and more mature than Arch, gives you the option of going without systemd.
If you've gotten addicted to Free/OpenBSD, it might make linux palatable to you.
Freescale's embedded PowerPC (e500 et. al) controllers are used in automotive powertrain ECUs (those that do not use TriCore), though it's debatable whether this counts as common.
(Just to be clear, the resulting releases have - for me at least - usually been worth waiting for.)
What makes this "distro" more interesting than all the others IMHO is that the author is a former BSD committer.
Might be wrong on that though.
So kinda like Alpine, but you can choose between glibc and musl.
Before Void Linux I contemplated jumping ship to FreeBSD or OpenBSD but Void Linux combines the best of BSD and Linux for me. (Except the awesome documentation and man pages found in the BSDs and it still uses a piece of Lennartware by default (but it can be removed): PulseAudio.)
Oh, a disadvantage (at least when I installed it) was I had to go through a wiki page to get an encrypted setup. It's not in the default installer. (Wasn't too hard though.)
edit: this last paragraph might not be true, see replies
I'd have to do a reinstall to check, but I've got work to do ;-) I'll update my original post if I can though.
Still, good to know it probably does not come with PA by default.
A few screenshots.
Thank you very much VoidLinux devs and volunteers!
I'm not seeing the wisdom in this. OpenSSL has problems so instead of fixing them incremenally we are going to leverage a complete replacement thus risk many histories repeating itself plus a bevy of new undiscovered issues that come with less mature/less utilized projects. I'm not sold on that.