Are they so different that it’s justified to have so many different distributions? So far I guess that different package manager are the reason that divides the linux community. One may be on KDE and one on GNOME but they can use each other’s packages but usually you are bound to one manager

  • Drito@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    14
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    Some differences can be explained. Pacman was created after the Debian package manager (I guess that because Debian is older than Arch) . It is justified because Pacman is faster than Apt. But its too much work to replace Apt by Pacman comparing to the benefits.

    But in some cases I don’t know why. As instance I wonder why a distro, such as Void, created its own package manager instead of using the Alpine one. If Alpine is younger than Void, invert the sentence of course.

        • khorovodoved@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          It is extremely fast and simple. Also, it has its own “aur”, called xbps-src. But nowadays void is not just xbps, it is also defined by runit (which is also extremely fast and simple) and minimalist dependencies (you will have to manually install many things, that other distributions ship reinstalled, in case you need them. By the way, if you prefer GUI package manager, there is octoxbps (not an advantage of xbps, but you might want that when you try void linux).

          • mrbaby@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            Nice! I’m coming from arch with systemd so it’ll be interesting to play around with runit too. Definitely going to give it a tinker.

            Thanks for the info!