After the injustices done on Antix (reviewed 5 years ago but allowing all kinds of trolls to keep posting unsubstantiated negative remarks) and Obarun, it was Void’s turn to be reminded to pay dues to Distrowatch, otherwise the review will be sloppy and negative.
“While Void’s installer feels like a throwback to the 90s in its style and resembles the installers of BSDs and Slackware in its approach, it works quickly and experienced users should have no problem navigating its options“
If it was some gui that kept you in the dark of what it is doing (like Calamares wiping out your entire partition table) then it would have been back from the 90s and into the 20s? In other words, “inexperienced users” stay away from void. If you have proven to be so inexperienced yourself why don’t you refrain from reviewing a distro or have someone more experienced do it?
“When running in VirtualBox the initial screen resolution was unusually low, but could be adjusted in the Xfce settings panel without requiring any extra modules to be installed.”
It sounds like a virtualbox, and/or the distribution’s setup and headers, problem to me, not void’s. Is this an important issue for a distro, how does their live system run on Oracle’s software? Maybe if you run virtualbox out of void you wouldn’t be having so many problems, because it is one of the best I have ever encountered. But then running vbox on an old 2core AMD machine may be an issue in itself.
“pressing the PrintScreen key caused an error as Xfce’s screenshot tool could not be launched. In other words, the short-cut had been defined, but the screenshot utility was not installed. These missing pieces are easy to remedy, but give a rough early impression. ”
Needless to mention that the late images (probably used but not ever mentioned) are not official Void live images, but those created by community members. It would be a nice touch to specify with a link to the image used for review.
“When I switched over to the desktop machine I found Void could not boot in UEFI mode and could only be started in Legacy BIOS mode. Whenever I tried to launch the distribution with UEFI enabled the system would reboot and send me back to the boot loader screen. ”
Let’s see. A quick search for information reveals plenty of instructions on how to do it right. Guessing how it should be done from previous experience with other systems is not something we can blame on Void. If they had a lack of documentation it would have been understandable.
Note: before you begin installation, you should determine whether your machine boots using BIOS or UEFI. This will affect how you plan partitions.
“When I first started using Void I noticed I could not power off the computer from the login screen. I had to sign in and then shutdown the system from the application or user menus. ”
Did you read Void’s purpose and goals? The login screen is a Display Manager, not one devised by void but a popular one among the few available on the void repositories. This is how it comes from upstream, void provides software broken down to elements as possible and as they come from upstream, without being modified and hacked by distros (like debian, or ubuntu, or mint) made to pretend they are the originals. The void wiki is very detailed and nearly as good as gentoo’s. One should read before they complaint about silly matters.
“ In short, I think Void is exploring a lot of interesting ideas, but it feels as though the project is spread thin and some issues are definitely leaking through the cracks. ”
I’ll tell you what is leaking, you are full of it and you are leaking through the cracks. I am sure when those cracks are filled with dollar/euro bills then you can build up some pressure.
Trident alpha version seems to have had a better review from Distrowatch only a few days after it was announced. Trident at that stage was minimal void with zfs software and setup. Now why would this be I wonder? Maybe because they pay for advertising? This practice is beginning to take the shape of extortion: Pay or we will write a nasty review that will keep people away from the distribution.
Now imagine that the people interested in Distrowatch and unix distros, are about the same. It is a preset market. Their contributions go to their distribution they like and part of that money is handed over by distros to distrowatch for advertising them. I wonder if anyone here is catching up to this line of thinking and what it implies?