The Story of MX Linux - nice and brief. [Solved]

[DukeComposed]

I am using Arch Linux and tested Manjaro and Cachy (Arch Linux-based). The boot is slower than MX Linux. @user-hv9sg5pl8b is promoting his favorite distros.

The question here is not faster or slower but "How much faster or slower?". On my Intel i5-4300m ThinkPad from 2013, I can boot from the GRUB selection menu to a desktop in about 28 seconds. The machine has an SSD to improve performance, but beyond that saying anything boots "faster" or "slower" is not as objective as a timed evaluation, preferably on the same hardware, and measured even with something as pedestrian as just using the stopwatch feature on one's smartphone.

My real concern is how slowly MX Linux shuts down sometimes.

[FullScale4Me]

I never shut my PCs off.......you guys boot???

[DukeComposed]

I never shut my PCs off.......you guys boot???

During pandemic lockdowns, even my laptops were getting 30+ days of uptime. But yeah, of course I reboot my MX machines. I have to test out the latest Liquorix kernels.

[Artim]

I never gave a darn about boot times and I don't understand why it's so important to people. Turn it on, go to the kitchen grab a cup of coffee and by the time you get back to the desk, it's ready.

[FullScale4Me]

I never gave a darn about boot times and I don't understand why it's so important to people. Turn it on, go to the kitchen grab a cup of coffee and by the time you get back to the desk, it's ready.

+1 to that!

Back in the late 90s I supported dual floppy MicroVAXs.....you could get coffee and a bathroom break in while it booted up to the (auto-started) single user X-Ray quant analysis application. The really old ones based on the DEC PDP-11/02 CPU were known to take close to 3 minutes.

[richb]

I never gave a darn about boot times and I don't understand why it's so important to people. Turn it on, go to the kitchen grab a cup of coffee and by the time you get back to the desk, it's ready.

+1 to that!

Back in the late 90s I supported dual floppy MicroVAXs.....you could get coffee and a bathroom break in while it booted up to the (auto-started) single user X-Ray quant analysis application. The really old ones based on the DEC PDP-11/02 CPU were known to take close to 3 minutes.

Mine was a Heathkit with a 100K floppy. State of the art at the time.

[FullScale4Me]

I never gave a darn about boot times and I don't understand why it's so important to people. Turn it on, go to the kitchen grab a cup of coffee and by the time you get back to the desk, it's ready.

+1 to that!

Back in the late 90s I supported dual floppy MicroVAXs.....you could get coffee and a bathroom break in while it booted up to the (auto-started) single user X-Ray quant analysis application. The really old ones based on the DEC PDP-11/02 CPU were known to take close to 3 minutes.

Mine was a Heathkit with a 100K floppy. State of the art at the time.

Somewhere in my family's photo collection is a picture of me as a pre-teen standing in Heathkit 'Expansion 1' (late '50s) - my grandfather's plumbing business had the plumbing contract.

[CharlesV]

Speaking of speed :-) ... did anyone see this article about the "8 cores issue" ... truth or 'fake news' ?

https://thehftguy.com/2023/11/14/the-li ... -20-years/

[DukeComposed]

Back in the late 90s I supported dual floppy MicroVAXs.....you could get coffee and a bathroom break in while it booted up to the (auto-started) single user X-Ray quant analysis application. The really old ones based on the DEC PDP-11/02 CPU were known to take close to 3 minutes.

At work, where you're getting paid? Heck yeah, I don't mind if it takes a while for my work machine to install updates and restart. At home though, where I'm using that system to run something or if it's my dedicated browser box? Any reboot feels like it takes forever.

I'm amazed how, as much as things have changed they've also stayed the same: booting a PDP-11 took 3 minutes way back when, and I have a Windows machine today that, once it goes offline for a restart, will always take 3-4 minutes before I can RDP back into it. Longer if it's updating something.

[Mjaakko]

The question here is not faster or slower but "How much faster or slower?".

Before I posted, I tested MX, Arch and Fedora using my stopwatch. All on the same live CD. Arch is 8 seconds slower and Fedora 20 seconds. Speed was not the interest but when @user-hv9sg5pl8b made such a show.

About speed, if you get a faster and more responsive machine, we don't usually want to go back to a slower one. The same is true with a distro or Desktop. If the change offers a substantial functional improvement, then a slower machine is not a problem. Arch Linux is one of them where you can configure your own. I don't mind the 8-second slower. But the stability of MX I also don't want to miss when doing my office and publishing work.