MX Linux Forum

Just a note on antiX. On my antiX 13.2 on installation you can choose either Testing or Stable. That said I use MX14 on my single-core Atom Netbook almost exclusively from XFCE. But I also have KDE Standard available. Always nice to have a second DE for a change.

GuiGuy wrote:Does Crunchbang include persistence, "snapshot" etc?
If not, ISTM these facilities are overwhelming reasons for preferring MX-14.

I don't think CrunchBang includes persistence. But I'd say there are various reasons for preferring either MX-14 or CrunchBang.

CrunchBang certainly has the more eye-catching name.

I like Openbox about as much as I like Xfce. CrunchBang does a nice job with Openbox; they add other things (including some things from Xfce) so that it's not like you miss having a "full DE" or whatever.

Forums are good, too. I can't say that they're any less friendly or knowledgeable over there than here.

I went back and looked over the notes that I took when I installed CrunchBang. I noted that the installer resembled Debian's, but that the installation was much quicker and easier. I chose the "Manual" partitioning method, set up my partitions, etc., and after that, the installation took 13 minutes to complete. There was a nice post-installation script, which I used for adding LibreOffice and for a few other things.

Openbox doesn't have its own panel, so CrunchBang gives you the tint2 panel, which is nice, but I think most people would prefer something like xfce4-panel. I actually use xfce4-panel in my Openbox set-up in openSUSE. tint2 is quite configurable, though, especially once you know what to do with its config file. Still, that might be considered a drawback (to some people) when comparing MX-14 and CrunchBang.

I think both distros are excellent. I happened to have CrunchBang installed already when MX-14 came out, and could find no reason to replace CrunchBang with MX-14, but if MX-14 had already been running here I don't think I would have wanted to replace it with CrunchBang. Either way, Debian underneath, Wheezy repos available. I wouldn't say that either one's "better" than the other, overall.

Well I did it! My "review" of sorts here.

The Boy Wonder wrote:Well I did it! My "review" of sorts here.

Wow, nice write-up!

I think it should be mentioned, however, that MX-14 is really "a special edition" of antiX.

Nice review, Boy Wonder. I dropped a comment on your site.

The Boy Wonder wrote:Well I did it! My "review" of sorts here.

Well written! I do agree with malspa: much magic came from the antiX side of the symbiosis--and especailly the Lead Dev anticapitalista. If you have time and interest to revise your review, I would like to see MX-14 correctly labeled as "a special version of antiX developed in full collaboration with the Mepis Community" (website) so that the roles would be better described.

TIA.

Thanks for the corrections and advice. I have edited the post accordingly. I'm always open to correction, suggestions, and constructive commentary. I wouldn't be a very good student if I wasn't!

Special gratitude and thanks to Anticapitalista and his team for this fantastic special edition of AntiX

from one very grateful boy wonder.

karieho wrote:We'll see how Dedo criticizes Xubuntu 14.04.

http://www.dedoimedo.com/computers/xubuntu-trusty.html

Wow. Well, you can compare this to his review of MX-14 (http://www.dedoimedo.com/computers/antix-mx-14.html). I wish he would have tried Xubuntu 14.04 on the same machine that he tried MX-14 on, but whatever.

Kinda made me laugh when I saw that he gave Xubuntu 14.04 a 9.7/10 (compared to 5/10 for MX-14). I've never used Xubuntu, but people do seem to be happy with Xubuntu 14.04. I seriously doubt that it's that much better than MX-14, though.

malspa quoted:-

I seriously doubt that it's that much better than MX-14, though.

Agreed.

Maybe I'm being a little harsh, but it seems Dediomedo searched for a laptop that won't work well with Linux until he found one: The Lenovo T400. Then used that as his "test box" in order to trash any distro that doesn't work properly OOTB. Doesn't this guy realize that the ability of Linux to work with particular hardware depends largely on the kernel, and that Linux kernel developers and distro developers aren't the same people?