>>TBH, I never understood this argument.  All Linux distros compile 
>>roughly the same sources... why would one be faster than another?

I think runit has a lot to do with it.  Even compared to Arch which I've 
also streamlined... Had I never saw Void before I would think that the 
computer must have an SSD in it.

It's some times quicker for me to "git clone" and compile packages on void 
than it is to download something from apt.  Seriously, Ubuntu competes with 
windows now for slow updating.

Before using Void, I have never seen firefox open this fast, again I used 
to be a fan of Arch Linux and openbox combo.

On an R61 Laptop I used to use, windows 7 (came with it refurb) ran pretty 
ok. I didn't use it more than a day before I started installing Linux 
distros.
All Ubuntu derived distros were horribly slow to install, boot, and open 
aplications.
Arch was pretty fast, but nothing compared to void.  Sabayon felt a little 
quicker than arch.

I typically used MATE at the time, or KDE.

Thinking of KDE.  When I install and start up KDE for the first time, it 
has always been stupid slow.  Decent boot up times after the first boot.

With Void, it was way faster than I've ever seen it boot.  Even for a first 
boot.

I don't know what kind of black magic Void weilds, but if it wasn't for 
Void, I'd agree with the idea that all distros are pretty much the same.


Perhaps I wouldn't notice much of a difference if I used SSD.