MX Linux Forum

This thread unraveled pretty quickly...loose threads all over the place.

Jerry3904 wrote: Mon Jan 14, 2019 7:46 pm This thread unraveled pretty quickly...loose threads all over the place.

Yes it veered off from a comment about the panel addition he made. My fault.

I'm not particularly pleased with the review or the bottom line. Need to think about this for a while...

Jerry3904 wrote: Mon Jan 14, 2019 7:55 pm I'm not particularly pleased with the review or the bottom line. Need to think about this for a while...

I'm new enough here to miss the nuances. Sorry.

I do look forward to hearing your concerns @Jerry3904. I hope you know I am happy to help address challenges, obviously, within the limits of my skills.

TBH I have never liked his reviews (even though he has made positive ones about MX) since I think his focus is far too narrow i.e. far too much about aesthetics. (his main complaint about MX-18 is down to looks, which mostly relate to xfce - he seems to be in love with kde plasma looks now).
Fortunately, he has never reviewed antiX ( we would probably get less than 5)

Jerry3904 wrote: Mon Jan 14, 2019 7:55 pm I'm not particularly pleased with the review or the bottom line. Need to think about this for a while...

IMO we should try to replicate and address some of the issues. If this is possible.

BitJam wrote: Mon Jan 14, 2019 8:10 pm

Jerry3904 wrote: Mon Jan 14, 2019 7:55 pm I'm not particularly pleased with the review or the bottom line. Need to think about this for a while...

IMO we should try to replicate and address some of the issues. If this is possible.

I can see the reviewer's concerns about 'beauty' & eye-candy; but xfce has constraints. I, also, agree with @anticapitalista, beauty should not be more important than technical excellence. antiX & MX are technically excellent (full stop).

"Beauty is in the eyes of the beholder" --- anonymous, 3rd century BC Greece

The question is: "Are we happy with the aesthetics of MX?" If not, then we have work to do...

Clearly the guy is much happier with KDE where you can configure everything in three different ways :) But Xfce is faster, simpler in a good way, and yes--not always as pretty, but it's stable. I could pick apart KDE like he did Xfce for different issues. There are trade-offs with everything in Linux, or with any other OS for that matter.
He does have a few good points though. Bluetooth could be better. There is always room for improvement. Overall a good review with some nitpicking on eye candy.

manyroads wrote: Mon Jan 14, 2019 8:23 pmThe question is: "Are we happy with the aesthetics of MX?" If not, then we have work to do...

I agree that D. complained about aesthetics but he also pointed out bugs and other problems. I'm not going to copy and paste them all here. IMO D.'s reviews have always been valuable to us. I'm sure there are some things we can't fix and other things we don't want to fix but there are also things that we should try to fix. I don't have the time/energy now but we could copy and paste D's various issues into a list and then decide how to handle each one.

For example, when booting via UEFI on the live system we try to avoid the jump in resolution that D complains about by setting gfxpayload to the highest possible resolution. The jump happens when udev starts and a modesetting graphics driver is being used. Unless the "video=xxxx" boot parameter was given, the graphics driver will jump to the highest possible resolution. If we start out with that resolution then there is no jump or a very minimal one.

I agree with BitJam, if someone offers constructive criticism then it should be considered.

From the article:

I also wanted to use the global menu (topmenu) plugin for Xfce, as I've shown you in my tutorial, but I hit a whole slew of problems there. The plugin did nothing, and only after making a whole bunch of environment changes did it run. I actually used a thread on MX Linux forums to do this.

Here's the thread viewtopic.php?t=46164

Criticism with a suggested solution.

That's useful.