From what I can tell xbps-src are just the source packages to the main repos in Void. That is not what AUR is. We have access to the main repo sources in Arch just like Void. The main thing about AUR is anyone can contribute without any gated approvals. That is the big difference between the main source repos of either distro and AUR. Unless I have misunderstood what xbps is.

but looking at templates they can actually understand its kinda simple script and get the idea of how it works

Same exact idea with PKGBUILDs. No benefit to Void here. The way Void does things will not change people looking at or understanding the packages they install. You have the same optitunities on both systems for looking at the source of packages. So that argument for Void is void :)

Also void has runit so this mean u have to get more simple programs to run system like seatd dbus and etc.

Not really a good argument either. Systemd and runit are different but that doesn’t make runit better in terms of learning anything. If you want to learn how most Linux systems boot and operate you need to learn systemd as that is what the vast majority of distros use. Learning runit instead only means you are learning a niche way of booting a tiny fraction of systems.

Neither of these arguments are a very strong case for Void over arch.

XBPS-SRC does not look like an alternative to AUR at all. It looks like Voids alternative to https://gitlab.archlinux.org/archlinux/packaging/packages - where Arch maintains all its packages. Nor is comparing the number of packages in AUR to Void main repos a good idea - Arch has its own main repos that are a better equivalent. The Void templates do not look dissimilar form what a PKGBUILD file is either and you can do the same things with writing your own PKGBUILD or pulling them from repos if you really want to. I don’t see how void is any better then Arch in anything you have described here. IMO it just looks like it does more of the same things with a bit difference in syntax/commands you run. Nothing you have said here is really a solid argument for using Void or Arch at all.

The AUR is not even that great. I think most people seem to get confused between what is in the AUR and the main packages since they just use tools like yay that install from both. But most people only use a couple of packages from the AUR - it is the package selection in the main repos which is what is so nice about Arch. The AUR is just nice for more niche things that have not made it into the main repos yet.

I hope u don’t use AUR blindly and just do yay -S something without looking what pkgbuild is doing, it might be dangerous not knowing what program can do and what script that is downloading it too right?

Same goes for Void? Most people wont read the source of third party packages they install. No matter what distro they are on. AUR tooling does try to help with this but most people ignore it. Same will go for Void. It is not a distro problem - just a humans are lazy problem. Plus even if people did read them there is only a small subset of people that actually understand them enough to spot obviously malicious packages - though that can spot hidden malicious packages are vastly smaller.

252 of that 592 used memory is buffers/cache, not application memory. That is used by the kernel for kernel buffers and the filesystem cache - IE files read by something at some point. The kernel keeps them in memory in case they are needed again to speed up file reads. You can effectively ignore these vales as they will always grow to fill your ram and will be evicted when programs require memory and there is not enough free.

These tools are not lieing to you, just telling you something other then what you are reading into them. Tracking and reporting on what is using memory is a complex topic and here used is just what is physically allocate. It doesn’t mean much over all as it always tends to be full of your system has been running for a decent amount of time. Available is typically the more useful one to look at as it is an estimate about how much the kernel can reclaim now if an application request it without needing to swap things out.

Can you share the output of free? There are multiple values to read from that.

None of that describes why a beginner would not want to use a immutable distro. It only describes why it is not a good idea if you want to learn how traditional linux distros work. Not all beginners want to learn or care about how linux works under the hood and immutable distros can be a good fit for them. They might not be right for OP, but you have not describe any reason why any beginner should avoid them.

I saw some people using Arch to learn the inside out of Linux, but I’m afraid It could be to challenging.

It will be challenging but IMO give it a shot if you think it is something you might want to do. No harm in trying really. If you mess it up or find it too hard or whatever you can always install something else afterwards. It is not like you are stuck with your first choice forever. The only thing you will lose is a bit of time and will gain a better understanding of things even if you cannot make it fully work.

I don’t agree that arch is not a beginner distro - it is a DIY distro that requires a lot of reading and willingness to learn and understand things. The arch wiki is an excellent resource for anyone (on any distro IMO) and well worth reading. If you are OK with that work then it makes a fine distro for anyone, beginner or not. It is not a distro for many people - again does not matter if they are a beginner or not. It is for people with a particular mindset. One that you might change over time or as you grow and learn more overall.

No harm either if you decide it is not for you. Play around with a few distros and try to find which one works best for you. There is really no one best distro. Just a lot of different things that appeal to different people and the only real way to find out which you like is to try them out.

If you want to be safe backup anything you care about before hand. Assume that you might end up needing to wipe the system and reinstall everything. Encrypting the Linux partitions should not affect windows but there are so many other steps that could go wrong when partitioning and installing a system it is better to backup everything you care about just incase.

Any service you use passkeys with instead of passwords won’t put you in another leaked password database. The public key just needs to be invalidated and you can move on with your life.

Does it though? Is there anything wrong with your public key being, um public? All they can do with it is verify who you are, (or technically encrypt things that only you can read - not that pass keys are used in this way?).

Passwords can be secure when the end user picks a strong one. But that is the biggest problem with them, the end user. They don’t pick good passwords and decades have shown us the general public are bad at passwords.

Passkeys are not biometrics. They are much simpler. In a very simple way you can think of them as a secure long random password that is stored on you device, generated per device, and not sent over the wire to the other side (so more like public/private key cryptography I believe).

The passkey on your device can be stored in an encrypted vault or even secure hardware that requires a pin/password or key to unlock.

They are not getting rid of multifactor codes and can be used with them. But by protecting them locally you can still have 2 factors to access them - the hardware/vault that contains them and the pin/password/biometric that unlocks the vault. And that is in addition to server side multifactor systems.

But even without all that you still gain massive benefits over passwords as it stops cross site comprises when one sites gets their password database leaked. Or brute forcing access to systems by guessing weak passwords that most people use.

You should have a live USB of the distro you want to use and ensure you have backups of all the data you care about. Then the easiest/quickest/least error prone way is to just wipe the whole drive and reinstall the distro from the live USB. They typically have an option to wipe and install things from an empty drive. Then just restore your data from your backups.

You could also, after creating backups, from a live USB environment delete the windows partitions and resize the linux ones - being careful not to delete the EFI partition as that is where the boot loader lives. You can optionally delete the windows boot loader from the EFI partition as well. If done right you should still be able to boot into your linux system afterwards though when missing with partitions like this, especially when you don’t know what you are doing, it can be easy to break the boot systems. These can be fixed from a live environment and there are many guides out there on how to do that.

You can always just reinstall the system again if you mess things up and cannot figure out how to fix them - so always prep for that case by backing up everything you care about first.

--asdeps also works when installing something to immediately mark it as a dep. Can be useful for non dep packages if you only need it temporarily as it will be removed the next time you purge unused deps.

Clean orphaned dependencies: sudo pacman -Rs $(pacman -Qtdq)

In addition to this, or rather before, you can run pacman -D --asdeps package_name to mark a package as a dep. If it is no longer required by something else it will be removed with the above. This can be useful for things that are deps that you installed manually at some point for some reason.

And remember that you can recover from anything, even removing base packages or bootloader ones with a live cd and chroot or using pacman with a different root with the --root /mnt flag to pacman.

Otherwise if your system still boots it is just a matter of following the install instructions for whatever is not working like you did the first time.

I would not worry about virtual memory usage. Virtual memory can include memory mapped files and does not indicate actual ram usage - only the address space that the program has opened at some point. There is little point in worrying about it.

IMO the best thing is to just start using it. You will start to pick things up fairly quickly then. Puzzles don’t often ingrain different ways todo things and often focus on weird or niche things that don’t come up as often. They can be a nice supplement to not a substitute for just using it in real world usescases.

I do also find it helpful to read the shortcut keys on their site to get a feel for what is available. You won’t remember everything but it can be useful to know what is possible. Then when you hit a problem you may remember reading about something that can help and go look it up again.

Just dont format the drive when installing a new distro. BTRFS or not you can delete the system folders manually first if needed but I believe that some if not all distros will delete the system folders for you (at least ubuntu used to do this last I tried). And if not you can do it manually.

It does not matter if you have a separate partition or not for /home installers won’t touch it if it already exists except to create a new user if needed. Remember, all the installers do is optionally format the drives, mount them then install files into those drives. If you skip the formatting and manually do that partitioning (or using an existing partition layout) it will still mount and write to the same places regardless of it they are separate partitions or not. So a separate partition does not add any extra protection to your home files at all.

But regardless of what you do you should ALWAYS backup your home data anyway. Even with separate partitions or subvolumes the installer can touch or delete anything it wants to and you can easily click the wrong button or accidentally wipe thing. At most preserving your home saves you from restoring from a backup it should not be done instead of backup.

There is no problem with having home on a different disk. But why do you want swap on the slower disk? These would benefit from being on the faster disks. Same with all the system binaries.

Personally I would put as much as possible on the faster disk and mount the slower somewhere that the speed matters less. Like for photos/videos in your home dir.

/boot can be anywhere though if you are getting a grub error that suggests the UEFI firmware is finding grubs first stage but grub is having issues after that. Personally I don’t use grub anymore, systemd-boot is far simpler as it does not need to deal with legacy MBR booting.

My point is the different levels of just working are subjective, not objective. I personally have spent far more time fixing bugs or just reinstalling ubuntu systems then I have over the same period for Arch systems. So many of my ubuntu installs just ended up breaking after a while where I have had the same Arch install on systems for 5+ years now. Could never get a Ubuntu system to last more then a year.

Everyone has different stories about the different OSs. It is all subjective.

You can cherry-pick examples of problems from every OS. That is my point. They all have issues that you may or may not encounter and quite a few that would make people from other OSs scratch their head and think what the hell the devs are thinking. Pointing out one issue of one OS does not change any of that.

Which is proven by the other replys to your comment - others dont find this issue to be as show stopping as you do and just live with it or dont use it at all. How many issues do you do the same for on your favorite OS?

There is no perfect OS that just works for everyone. They are all software so they all have bugs. People how say an OS just works have never hit those bugs or have gotten used to fixing/working around or flat out ignoring them.

This is true of all OSs, including Windows, Linux and MacOS. They are all differently buggy messes.

Linux is the buggy mess that works best for me though.

Might I add the idea that your terminal emulator must support your shell is utterly ridiculous?

TBH I am starting to come around to the idea of a tightly integrated shell and terminal emulator support. There are just things you cannot do with these being separate things. I am very tempted to explore the idea from the other end though - writing a shell that has a emulator built into it (like screen/tmux basically are). But I do think that this integration is needed for any per command features that is not just printing out a prompt.

It would be interesting to see what could be done with this type of integration but will likely break support for existing shells. Unless you maybe launch a shell for each command you run or something 🤔. Would like to seem more people experimenting with stuff like this and see what new things we could drive forward. We have been stuck with the current tty system since like the 80s to support devices that just dont exist anymore.