Debian (and by extension, MX) is often called too old. What is your response to this?

[SwampRabbit]

+1 to Chris’s post number 4.

But to add to that, it’s not just the MX Test Repo that has newer packages, those packages often get moved to the Stable Repo once they are deemed good.

Plus we have software that you won’t find in any other Debian based Distro Repos, only can find in certain Distro Repos, or only find in MX Repos.

[figueroa]

The "too old" argument is spurious. Debian stable is well supported by Debian upstream, releasing security and bug fixes with appropriate frequency. It's called stable because it's STABLE and the parts are known to work together with no fiddling. "Shiny new thing" introduces new features that few people need and use, while adding bugs of all kinds until those are worked out over time, after which the packages will eventually become the next new stable.

For the most part, hardware support is in the kernel, and users can always upgrade the kernel. Users with bleeding edge hardware may absolutely need bleeding edge kernel and userland programs to have their hardware supported, and AHS tries to fill that gap. AHS pushes the envelope to provide support for newer hardware and will inherently be less stable; though many users won't notice because the changes don't directly affect them.

Users who want to constantly fiddle with their computer as opposed to use their computer to do productive work, may ignore the whole argument and just live on the edge. On the other side of that coin are the users who don't want to fuss with their computer, and don't really want to learn how to run a computer from the ugly underside, for whom "stable" is a gift that keeps on giving, and MX gives that gift better than most distributions.

[moSess]

Without sounding disrespectful, I'll take everything mentioned here as differences in priority and maturity.

I am, for all intents and purposes, an end user. I want the least amount of trouble shooting. Or none! I think alot of what goes into the choosing of MX is this. I value my time as I am older and realize it's value. Not saying others don't, I'm just giving it its proportional value. As such, being a noob that wants to run Linux, this is an obvious choice. I am a copy paster in the terminal. No programming or development experience. I'm a movement instructor who, like all in the modern age, understands the need for a computer. But, for the love of everything, just no more windows or mac.

The average age of the MX user speaks volumes as to the mentality of what's rational, reasonable, and logical, concerning acceptability.

[manyroads]

I agree that Debian stable is slow, deliberate (ponderous ?) in its release times. I, also, agree with the following truisms stated here:
--> MX offers a nice blend of being stable with newer apps.
--> Many people in the Debian world fear the notion of a new release or update (until they want one).

My experiences of some 40+ years of software engineering & management experience lead me to the rebut the following. :lipsrsealed:
--> The assertion that new software is 'mostly' unreliable. Almost all hobbiest software is unreliable. Well managed and engineered software is most frequently reliable (the opposite is also true).
--> The assertion that rolling releases are less stable than fixed releases (in both cases, good distros are reliable, bad distros are unreliable).

I do use MX. It is reliable. FWIW. I break and install MX and arch daily. I reinstall/ rebuild/ test things more frequently. I understand I am not the norm. (My mom always said I was 'special'.)

Remember this is Linux we're talking about; use what works best for you. Use what fits your needs.

[asqwerth]

Pure Debian - I think you won't have much issue with stability and security-related updates for packages in its repos.

However, I believe it is possible for an application to have minor but irritating bugs (not security-related) in the Debian Stable version of it , because that was the latest version in the repo before the Debian devs froze the upcoming (new release of) Debian Stable. This may never be solved in that Debian Stable release, as in the updated version with the fixes don't get built and added to Debian Stable, although they are found in Debian Testing/Sid.

So then, if not for MX's packaging team or flatpak, pure Debian Stable users who don't want to try backporting the updated package themselves may be stuck with that annoying issue until the next Debian Stable is out.

The team can't always backport every single new package (especially when Stable gets closer to EOL, the really new packages just cannot be backported anymore), but they do a great job on most things.

However, most ordinary users who just want their computer to work without fuss should have no problems with Debian Stable, or with MX as a whole.

[zoli62]

Every time someone recommends Debian or a Debian Stable based distro, a very common complaint against it is that the packages are too old to run and, as they say, are more unstable than more updated repos. Also tied directly to this is the accusation that Debian doesn't support new enough hardware. Now, my response to these accusations has been that before any Debian release, all major bugs in the packages in the repo need to be worked out or the package is tossed. Further, Debian needs to be run a certain way. Specifically, the Debian Stable repo should be the first stop for all software, and then if, for whatever reason, that's not an option, to just use flatpaks. And as to hardware support, MX already has an AHS flavor.

What would be your guys' answer to these issues though? Or seeming issues.

For this reasoning, my answer is that who has such needs, use rolling release distribution, it can also be stable enough, not so much ideal for beginner users than MX Linux. These include various Arch Linux-based distributions, including Arch Linux, for beginners, Manjaro Linux is recommended and Endeavouros is recommended for average users.

[rickyraccoon]

My response?

[Artim]

For me it's a trade-off: Rock-stable and trouble-free versus new and shiny but higher risk of breakage and frustration.

[oops]

For me it's a trade-off: Rock-stable and trouble-free versus new and shiny but higher risk of breakage and frustration.

Right.
+1

[Aronticuz]

My take: the linux world is far wider than Google's Apple's or Microsoft's world.
Linux seems to take in advanced research projects, network based projects, ... and so forth and so on and as a consequence some of the leftovers are picked up by communities inspired to make an operating system that works.
So specifically regarding MX is it too old? Uh-huh I hope not. I found it refreshing in many ways having used Apples Microsofts Googles ways of doing things.
I mean look at antiX - it survives and does what it does
Long may MX exist and do what it does.
The world is a better place for its existence