MX 23 or wait for MX 25?

[Arnox]

So I have a bit of a large decision to make. It is now nearly time to FINALLY move my main Windows 8.1 workstation install off of my main NVMe drive and onto a side archival drive to make room for a full MX install. But the question now is... Do I go with the old stable MX 23? Or do I wait for the new hotness of MX 25?

MX 23:
+ As with all old stable versions, tons of work has been done on it already.
+ Available right now. No waiting needed.
+ I'm gonna add another point for stability just because it's that important to me.
- Starting to get old now as is usual for Debian-based distros of this age, and this problem will only get worse over time.
- Official Debian updates will stop for it in a couple years.

MX 25:
+ Lots of new stuff incoming including GIMP 3.x.
+ More time that it's supported with updates compared to MX 23.
- It's not out yet.
- It won't be out till, like... June I imagine.
- Won't be as stable as MX 23.

[Eadwine Rose]

If you want to wait almost a year... I'd say go for 23 :)

[AVLinux]

FWIW Gimp 3 is already in MX-23 Test Repo and I would imagine even if MX backports slow down due to Bookworm aging (ie libc6 etc.) stuff like AppImages and Flatpaks will continue to work on MX-23 until 25 is out... As far as stability the MX devs are sticklers for details, I have no doubt whenever MX-25 is released it will be well vetted and solid.

[CharlesV]

Personally, I wait until I have an 'understanding' of the version... so for me.. that means mx23 was installed after .3 ... and I will retain it until after several versions of mx25 .. UNLESS I see a really good reason to move forward on it.

fyi.. I am right now moving my main production machine to MX23.4 and have worked through all / any issues with my secondary machines and test units.

[Arnox]

FWIW Gimp 3 is already in MX-23 Test Repo and I would imagine even if MX backports slow down due to Bookworm aging (ie libc6 etc.) stuff like AppImages and Flatpaks will continue to work on MX-23 until 25 is out... As far as stability the MX devs are sticklers for details, I have no doubt whenever MX-25 is released it will be well vetted and solid.

Oh, absolutely, but the potential issues with MX 25 I'm talking about are those kinds of issues that annoyingly won't actually reveal themselves until people having been running it for a while. For example, I THINK there was a filesystem issue with kernel 6.10.x that people weren't able to find out until later. (If I'm wrong on the details there, let me know.)

[FullScale4Me]

I've been watching the various Debian mailing lists nd one thing is obvious: the KDE is generating a LOT more 'noise' about minor stuff compared to the last cycle (Debian 11/12).

My gut is MX 25 version of KDE will have more alpha/beta period post Trixie release this time.

[AVLinux]

I've been watching the various Debian mailing lists nd one thing is obvious: the KDE is generating a LOT more 'noise' about minor stuff compared to the last cycle (Debian 11/12).

My gut is MX 25 version of KDE will have more alpha/beta period post Trixie release this time.

Geez,

I don't doubt that you're right but I'd hope by late spring or summer they would have gotten things down to a pretty reliable Plasma version to freeze into Trixie...? My concern is where are we going to be with X11 and Wayland... half in and half out...? With Desktop Environments all over the map with Wayland support who knows what we're in for...

[DukeComposed]

Oh, absolutely, but the potential issues with MX 25 I'm talking about are those kinds of issues that annoyingly won't actually reveal themselves until people having been running it for a while. For example, I THINK there was a filesystem issue with kernel 6.10.x that people weren't able to find out until later. (If I'm wrong on the details there, let me know.)

So far as I know, MX-23 uses a 6.1 kernel and it still does. People changing the default OS kernel are welcome to do so, but this is not an action without some amount of risk and responsibility.

As new kernels appear it's certainly beneficial for the MX devs to port and integrate them into their existing OS, but this must be seen for what it is: a value-add service that's not meant for everyone. Kernel development is complicated, and I promise you Linus and team are not losing sleep at night trying to figure out how the Debian folks will handle it when they decide to change some internal data structure.

Stock Debian is pretty stable. Notably so. Stock MX is pretty stable. Notably so. No one is twisting your arm to run a 6.12 kernel. If you want to start customizing things you have to accept that it won't always be tea and crumpets.

[asqwerth]

Agreed about the kernel. If your hardware isn't the latest and greatest, and you don't need the latest kernel for some special function not found in 6.1, I would stick to default 6.1 kernel on MX23. It's working very well for me.

As for which MX to install, I would say MX23. No one can know exactly when MX25 will be released, so unless you want an indefinite wait for MX25, install MX23 now. Even after MX25 is released, you could wait a while, like some of the posters in this thread who prefer a release to be settled in and bugs fixed before they install it.

[dreamer]

There is a notification on my Android phone to upgrade from Android 14 to 15. So I thought to myself. Do I need to to that? Now? No, there is plenty of life in Android 14.

There is an offer from Microsoft to upgrade from Windows 11 23H2 to Windows 11 24H2. Do I need to to that? Now? No, there is plenty of life in Windows 11 23H2.

Which brings me to MX Linux. Do I miss anything in MX-23? No. I don’t know what would make MX-25 better than MX-23. Updated DEs and applications are nice, but it’s “just” more of the same. If everything is working, what can become better?

It may sound crazy, but I think software is generally very good these days. If not out of the box, then after a few tweaks.

Thanks to all the devs that make everything work.