They mention focusing on reliability several times, but I don't see what they're specifically doing to make the system reliable. Is the process supervisor (s6) the main thing? If so, how is s6 more reliable than systemd and other process supervisors?
When I think of reliability, my main requirement is for my system to not break after an update, which is so common on Linux, unfortunately. This is a solved problem with Nix/Guix or filesystem snapshots, so any new distro that doesn't address this major concern is not worth switching to IMO. We already have a plethora of distros that don't do this right.
I'm also not convinced why musl is specifically a selling point. IME some software breaks in strange ways with musl, and the glibc compatibility layer doesn't help. If I want a reliable system, I'd choose one with glibc over musl any day.
When I think of reliability, my main requirement is for my system to not break after an update, which is so common on Linux, unfortunately. This is a solved problem with Nix/Guix or filesystem snapshots, so any new distro that doesn't address this major concern is not worth switching to IMO. We already have a plethora of distros that don't do this right.
I'm also not convinced why musl is specifically a selling point. IME some software breaks in strange ways with musl, and the glibc compatibility layer doesn't help. If I want a reliable system, I'd choose one with glibc over musl any day.