What's "the new Arch"? Alpine or Void?
What's "the new Arch"? [Open to interpretation]
Alpine or Void?
Other?
Why?
Syndicated from the fediverse. Read and engage on the original instance.
View original on lemmy.todayView original on lemmy.today
Syndicated from the fediverse. Read and engage on the original instance.
View original on lemmy.todayWhat's "the new Arch"? [Open to interpretation]
Alpine or Void?
Other?
Why?
16 replies
What does this mean exactly? Arch is Arch. Just because it got somewhat mainstream and anyone can install it using an Arch-based distro didn't change that. If the complaint is systemd, there is Artix for example. Without other Arch-installer distros Arch wouldn't be popular like this. If you mean older Arch, there is possibly Nix but it's different than Arch if you compare it to Alpine and Void.
Regarding Alpine, it won't get mainstream like Arch did because of
musl, at least for now. It's possible to install stuff as flatpaks of course, especially saying this for proprietary programs if one needs them, but they mostly targetglibc.However, time has changed. The people who use Arch today and the people who used Arch back then are not the same, not entirely at least. So, do you mean the distro itself or the mindset of people who use/d it? Because you would get different answers for both.
I mean for the question to be open to interpretation.
To be fair, in this current form it's too vague.
I wonder what's the point of these questions. Looks like the person doesn't care about answers and just want to discuss anything. I don't understand the goal of this, if everyone can interpret the question in any form, that means the person asking doesn't have a question. Kind of waste of time to be honest.
Yeah, they didn't even put at least one aspect to discuss. Well, hopefully they got enough downvotes that interpret how pointless this question is.
I don't think it was enough. The previous post was similar, just a different topic. I would think its an attempt to troll, at least that would make sense then.
I checked their previous post and indeed it's as vague as this post. Troll or not it's a weak post on both sides in my opinion.
Arch.
Great answer.
There is nothing wrong with arch, mentioned distros are their own thing not 'new arch'.
They probably need a more obscure distro so they can feel 'special.'
Why new Arch? I think popularity wise it could be nix.
Nix/Guix, the next stage in complexity, efficency, and epic coolness.
What does new Arch mean?
I don't know exactly what the question is, but maybe Nix?
I saw the title of a vid listing from Nic Olas, asking "Is Alpine the new Arch Linux?" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1b0JvPL6tSQ [yet to watch]. I'd long thought that status challenge more typically leaned to Void. Hence the question. Perhaps there are even better candidates for a "the new Arch Linux"... whatever that means. CRUX (once upon a time Arch was seen as the new CRUX... but CRUX is newer! So how could that be!?)? NixOS? Exherbo? Omarchy? LOL, depends how one interprets it.
I wouldn't count Omarchy in this question. Why? Because if I think as "the new Arch", I would only consider a base distribution and not a fork. Unless it becomes its very own thing and operates independently... which is sometimes difficult to say. But whats not difficult to say is, that Omarchy is not at this place (yet).
One of the problems with questions like these that are not well defined and thought out.