Distrowatch review grumbles

[pannet1]

We've all known for years that KDE has made great strides in reducing resource usage, while XFCE has become somewhat heavier with the migration to GTK 3. This is not news. You can try the KDE MX if you want.

Thanks Stevo,
I already migrated to MX KDE.

[pannet1]

It's now a matter of which interface, and look and feel philosophy you prefer, not so much the resource consumption.

Some just like straightforwardness of xfce without so many bells and whistles, plus its modularity . Others love the extreme customizability of plasma, and pretty visual effects that are possible.

MX Linux must have chosen XFCE as the main desktop for many reasons and using less resource might be one major reason, to support older hardware. Since, you used the word modularity, i guess XFCE could be stripped to a far leaner than KDE.

[calinb]

We've all known for years that KDE has made great strides in reducing resource usage, while XFCE has become somewhat heavier with the migration to GTK 3. This is not news. You can try the KDE MX if you want.

I haven't checked x64 architecture in some time but I recently compared Manjaro XFCE to Fusion on my arm64 Pinebook Pro and the memory footprint immediately after boot was significantly larger with Fusion than with XFCE. I'll admit that boot times and general usage seemed to be about the same but that would surely change if the Fusion system needs to use swap space and the XFCE system is still running from RAM. On the other hand, the difference might not be too bad, if swap is running on a fast NVMe SSD on the PBP.

[siamhie]

This review cracked me up.

Code: Select all

Version: 21-rc1
Rating: 1
Date: 2021-10-07
Votes: 0

Using MX Tools basically encourages users to crash their systems. This is pretty unstable 
and I’ve had a bit of crashes and lockups using MX. I do not recommend it.


Was this review helpful? Yes No 

[Adrian]

Was this review helpful? Yes No

Hmm, hard to decide, I would go with No...

[siamhie]

Was this review helpful? Yes No

Hmm, hard to decide, I would go with No...

[SwampRabbit]

I saw that so called review and laughed, it’s just idiotic.

[uncle mark]

MX Linux must have chosen XFCE as the main desktop for many reasons and using less resource might be one major reason, to support older hardware. Since, you used the word modularity, i guess XFCE could be stripped to a far leaner than KDE.

MX was originally conceived with low powered netbooks as its primary target hardware. That influenced the DTE choice, and is still reflected in the default vertical panel.

[SwampRabbit]

We got our first "review" on Distrowatch for MX-21, its kinda a "grumble"

Version: 21
Rating: 8
Date: 2021-10-22
Votes: 0

Amusing but waaaaayy too cluttered. Settings scattered all over the place. Not very organized. Seems to play nice with local Windows shares right out of the box so thats good.

Not sure if I agree that "scattered all over the place" is really correct. I mean we have MX Tools and MX Tweak (MX Tools includes MX Tweak) but yeah those are are major "settings" apps.
Everything else is pretty much settings apps provided by the Desktop Environment (Xfce or KDE) and its not like we are going to remove those, that's just silly.
Fluxbox has individual settings apps, but even those are consolidated under two major windows, so I wouldn't call it "scattered" by a long shot.

[Huckleberry Finn]

MX Linux has a great deal of bloat. You also need a decent system to run it efficiently.
It's not the best nor is it the worst. It is somewhat OK.
Too many preloaded MX Linux apps and apps in general.
It is Debian based so you won't have the latest updates and the repository will eventually become stale.
There are better Debian based distributions out there.

Version: 21
Rating: 1
Date: 2021-12-28
Votes: 0