MX-19 Beta 3 Feedback

[asqwerth]

I have benefited from the mepis and now antiX/mx installer since around 2007, when I was a Linux newcomer still using XP. Have not had problems with it. Have not found Gparted difficult either.

[bpr323]

All other installers just write the pre-existing/already-created image on the iso to the hard drive.

And what's wrong with that? I do all my tweaks AFTER the install, anyway.
Maybe the MX intention is to give me the option of tweaking the boot USB, then install from that modified image to system disk, and keep the tweaked-out USB as a bonus - ala Windows "system rescue disk"?
To me, the most valuable part of MX is the ability to create a snapshot ISO (that fits on a 4gb USB) of my tweaked-out main system, then CLONE it back on my own PC (if I stuff it up), or promote MX to friends and family. The only thing I need to tweak after that is change the User name and put back the individual's .mozilla and .thunderbird folders.

[Eadwine Rose]

I have benefited from the mepis and now antiX/mx installer since around 2007, when I was a Linux newcomer still using XP. Have not had problems with it. Have not found Gparted difficult either.

I came from W2000, and found using the whole thing incredibly easy.


And trust me.. I can make things VERY difficult for myself as many around here know

[dolphin_oracle]

All other installers just write the pre-existing/already-created image on the iso to the hard drive.

And what's wrong with that? I do all my tweaks AFTER the install, anyway.
Maybe the MX intention is to give me the option of tweaking the boot USB, then install from that modified image to system disk, and keep the tweaked-out USB as a bonus - ala Windows "system rescue disk"?

yes. The antiX live system (that MX uses) is very much leaps and bounds ahead of other live systems, allowing a ton of configuration before the system is ever installed, and carrying those changes over. Its one of the "selling" points. I rarely actually use snapshot, preferring to keep a live-usb w/ persistence up to date with my preferred apps updates. then a reinstall is a quick trip.

And in antiX's case, I rarely install antiX at all, just use the live-USB full time.

[Adrian]

This is not a place to debate, it's a place to report bugs with Beta3.

Since we are very close to RC1 and developers should not waste time monitoring this thread I suggest moderators lock this thread.

[Eadwine Rose]

Yep, well said.


Locked pending the release of the RC

[chrispop99]

So for MX to be useful for 80% of home users who just want a beautiful distro with snapshots, we need two installers. No worries.

Yes, we need a simple, robust, uncomplicated installation routine for the un-initiated home users trying to migrate from Windows.
If the other 20% of hard-core CLI-loving enthusiasts want a "fancy" installer - give it to them as an option.
Ie. pop up a question on the 1st splash-screen "Do you know how to use Gparted - Y/N" - if the answer is No - have mercy on them and kick off a no-brainer installer.

It's a myth that 'one day, Windows users will migrate to Linux', regardless of how easy or otherwise it is install. One of the reasons they run Windows pre-installed on a machine they bought is because they don't have the skills or the interest to install any operating system. The only way 99% of computer users could have another OS installed is to get someone more knowledgable to do it for them. That's regardless of the installer.

You seem to be approaching the installation of MX Linux as if it's a commercial product that the developers need to sell to the world - it's not.

Chris