Page 1 of 1

MX-Linux success: why?

Posted: 05 Jul 2019 08:40
by palimmo
What's your opinion about the MX-Linux success?
What are they doing so good so that they became so popular in the last months?
And... what could we learn/copy/use from them?


Re: MX-Linux success: why?

Posted: 05 Jul 2019 09:25
by bin
I have used MX over the years. MX-18 is of course now on the cusp of stretch>buster change. It is actually very good in that they maintain a test repo which provides the latest and greatest that CAN be backported to stretch - so for example you can install GIMP 2.10 while Stretch is at 2.8. Most important they have a revised fontconfig that definitely improves font rendering under Debian 9. I recall nomacs is around 3.8 as opposed to 3.4 in normal repos - stuff like that is useful. This seems to be better than backports.

Tools provided - standout is the remaster tool based around refracta. Dead easy to create an installable iso from running installation.
I confess that I have gone around in circles if incomprehension with the tools in Solyd trying to do the same thing. In the end it's easier to do a minimal Debian install and then whack on a snapshot from Timeshift

Good grub customisation tool.

I prefer the tabbed system management tool in Solydx - just add a grub customiser and we're good

I don't know if some of the popularity is down to the non-systemd option which seems to have a certain appeal these days.

It still runs root and user accounts, so for some stuff you can use sudo, other stuff requires root password. Clumsy but their choice.

One problem I have run into is that in some conditions the fonts in menus start to lose bits as the mouse goes over them - which is annoying - never got to the bottom of that. Doesn't happen in Solydx.

The core applications are of course the same - the tools make the difference. But, TBH I find that Solydx is just exactly what it says on the tin. Although I have swapped back and forth between 9 and 10 I have found 10 to be great. I suppose the way I look at it is that I could easily see Solydx on a corporate desktop. In my book that's praise indeed.

Re: MX-Linux success: why?

Posted: 05 Jul 2019 14:34
by ilu
Mepis merged with Antix. I'm sure they have more than 2 developers. Their website mentions 8 team leaders and a group of volunteers. They have lots of stuff you can't do with 2 people.

They are around since 2003/2007.

Mx also gets the users that don't want systemd.

Solydxk keeps much closer to debian. That's a pro in my book for several reasons:
- we keep debian repos
- administering a debian server is very close to Solydxk.
- doing things on Solydxk is really straightforward, you can use almost any ('buntu-)tutorial you come across on the net.

That refracta stuff sounds interesting, did you ever try to port the concept? How specific is it?

Re: MX-Linux success: why?

Posted: 06 Jul 2019 00:49
by tek10
All the above covers most of MX-Linux success.

Debian stable base with ongoing backports and additions.
No systemd by default. Although that may change with Buster developments.
Focus on a single desktop.
The Antix LiveUSB features.
The extensive MX Tools.
The Mepis history and connection.

One other key thing I would add is the great forum. Most of the developers are very active on it and there are many regulars who can be very helpful. While the SolydXK forum is helpful, there just isn't much happening here most of the time.

Re: MX-Linux success: why?

Posted: 06 Jul 2019 00:51
by tek10
One other important thing that stands out is the MX user manual.

Re: MX-Linux success: why?

Posted: 13 Jul 2019 04:17
by bin
It transpires that with MX you can upgrade/install a new version even if your /home is under / rather than a separate partition.

This presumably happens by simply deleting/updating everything else rather than reformatting the drive which is the norm for new installs. Obviously you've got to tick the Preserve Home box. OK most folks have different ptns but for those who don't this would be a real benefit.