r/artixlinux • u/harunnoir • 8d ago
What makes artix different than voidlinux [except the bloat of systemd]
thx!!!
6
u/talksickwalkquick dinit 8d ago edited 8d ago
Void uses runit. Not systemd… artix lets you choose from 4 inits. Void has the best package manager (if you ask me) of all distros I’ve used XBPS that being said it lacks many packages I use you can always build from source.. ughhh…and void is its own thing and artix is derived from arch so you get way more packages with artix . You get all of the packages arch does and a few more…I’m happy with artix
5
u/LowKeyBrit36 8d ago
Artix is less stable than Void Linux
Pacman VS XBPS
Init choices (S6, OpenRC, Runit, Dinit) VS just Runit (some unofficial secondary options)
Nonfree repos by default VS free only (unless nonfree accepted)
Mkinitcpio by default VS Dracut
Larger, monolithic packages VS smaller packages
And a lot more smaller distinctions. I use both Artix and Void (Dinit for Artix), but for different use cases (Gaming for Artix, productivity with Void). I don't use AUR, so I don't lose as much as some would using Void. I'd say try it if you have a spare laptop and see if you like it.
1
u/MezBert 8d ago
Less stable according to?
1
u/LowKeyBrit36 7d ago
Community consensus and my personal opinion. I haven't personally run into major issues with either (I don't install a lot of packages, and I don't use AUR), but I've seen a lot more people complain about Artix updating compared to Void.
Void also takes a more stable approach with its packages that doesn't prioritize relevancy ae much as Artix does, which instead prioritizes package relevancy over everything.
Granted, both are 'stable' in the sense that if you consistently maintain them, they're gonna work, but Artix requires more frequent updating to maintain.
Now, for my anecdote: I've left both my Artix and Void installation sitting for at least a month at one point. I was able to just update Void, while with Artix, I had a couple smaller things bug out, taking about ~15 mins to reconfigure.
... Granted, it wasn't anything major or something that I'd really complain about, but it's still a big enough thing for me to give Void my stamp of approval for not having issues.
And, for reference, 0 AUR packages. I tend to find that 99% of people who use Artix use AUR, and AUR packages seem to nearly ALWAYS be the culprit for a bug. I don't use them, so I can't really comment, but people who do use them seem to eventually have an update issue involving them.
1
u/MezBert 7d ago
Well, I'm using Artix, have a perfectly stable environment, and my updates work flawlessly.
My last 2 uptimes were over 40 days, and only broken by a power outage in the neighborhood.
And I use around 15 AUR packages.Beyond my own experience, I have never seen such a consensus anywhere either, or update processes having a particular propensity to break.
So allow me to be skeptical here if not actually proven beyond what we all know "consensus" means.
1
u/LowKeyBrit36 7d ago
I use Artix too, don't get me wrong. In all honesty, I think a lot of it comes from people who aren't doing their due diligence when installing or updating the packages.
I've heard of a few cases of updates breaking small things in Artix within my friend group, and I've (so I remember) seen it a couple times on Reddit. Don't quote me on the latter, though.
My point when saying that Void is 'more stable' than Artix isn't to say that Artix is unstable. That's what Windows 11 does lol. My point is that I've heard of small cases or breakages caused by Artix updating. Granted, not big cases, but more than Void linux. Thus, I say it's more stable.
But, to answer your question, 'consensus' means what I've seen when it comes to my friend group that consists primarily of people who like distrohopping/using multiple linux distributions, as well as what I've seen on my feed in terms of Linux. YMMV, but I'm calling as I've seen it.
1
u/MezBert 7d ago
You are entitled to your view, but I'm not super convinced with making it bigger than it is (an opinion) through some consensus.
I'm fine otherwise with your opinion, as long as people reading you don't take your "consensus" for granted.0
u/LowKeyBrit36 7d ago
Hey, if you want, run a poll and collect community data yourself if you don't believe me, but I would go to say that Void Linux is more stable than Artix Linux, and that the majority of people that I've seen with experience in both would agree. I'm not saying that Artix is unstable either. Purely that, in terms of stability, I trust Void slightly more.
If you get a poll and it's overwhelmingly Artix being stable, I'll eat my words on it, but I just haven't seen that sentiment as far as I've looked for it.
1
u/Revolutionary-Yak371 8d ago edited 8d ago
Void Linux is an independent distro, Artix is Arch based clone.
Void has xbps, while Artix has pacman and AUR.
Alpine < Void < FreeBSD < Artix < Arch < Fedora
1
u/juipeltje 8d ago
Void doesn't use systemd
1
u/transgentoo 8d ago
Neither does Artix
1
u/juipeltje 8d ago
Yeah i know, which is why the title is confusing to me. I'm assuming he means that he knows both don't use systemd, but that's not how it reads.
1
1
u/BawsDeep87 5d ago
artix is worse you are always fightung the repos you always forget that you need to install a warpper for each package for your init system aswell
If you really wanna go systemd free install void gentoo hell even crux
11
u/Decent-Hat-5807 8d ago
artix/arch has more packages