MX Linux Forum

Richard wrote: Fri Oct 19, 2018 10:37 am Just create a table of releases showing heritage
and place the link everywhere the question might arise in someones mind.

Richard,

Below is a link with MX heritage posted.
https://distrowatch.com/table.php?distribution=mx

JR

log wrote: Fri Oct 19, 2018 4:57 pm

Stevo wrote: Fri Oct 19, 2018 4:16 pm It would be nice to have a new release that would support 2018 hardware out of the box (Ryzen and Intel Coffee Lake), with an updated kernel, Mesa stack, and firmware.

The october monthly upgrade version seems to work fine on my 1950x. The debian backports 4.18.x kernel seems to work fine in the two days I've had it, with the exception being that during boot, it'll sit around for a few minutes "waiting for devs to fully populate" (I first thought it was freezing. Nope, it's just slow), whereas the 4.15 kernel just plows straight to the login screen.

What hardware are you having issues with?

Not any problems at the moment, it's just that I know that Intel Coffee Lake graphics does require an updated kernel and Mesa to work correctly. If you want to use the Intel driver for it instead of the kernel's modesetting driver, that also needs an update.

You guys all have a lot of history together. Release aspects and preferences aside, consider my original points as questions:

1) Do all the volunteers feel they get enough timely recognition, respect, reward and appreciation for their contributions to the MX product?
2) Are you proud of the target position of MX and how the critics and public focus on the innovations you've delivered?
3) Are the donations to the MX project generating the revenue to finance the product and your vision for it?

These goals are often found in an org's top 5, and if you've answered "yes" to all, you get the gold star of perfection. You'd be crazy to change anything.

Adrian wrote: Fri Oct 19, 2018 9:49 am Yep, that was my proposal, the only downside that I could think of: it might be confusing to have the same major version like 19.3 and 19.12 for example based on different Debian bases (and also having a string of different major release numbers 17.x, 18.x, 19.x all based on Stretch).

No if you have : 17.03_H (H for Horizon), 18.03_I (I for what you want), .._J, etc

I think the numbering system is fine as is.

Yes, the number system actually doesn't matter
so long as the numbers keep increasing. :)

@namida12,
Thanks for the link.
That really seems to be a complete history,
coupled with the More Info button that goes back to the beginning version 14.0.

boys ... I only asked when mx18 started to see the light of day and did not expect a discussion about the numbering, this is something that the developers have to determine imo.

darknetmatrix wrote: Fri Oct 19, 2018 10:43 pm boys ... I only asked when mx18 started to see the light of day and did not expect a discussion about the numbering, this is something that the developers have to determine imo.

I'm curious though what you'd want to see in MX-18 that is different than the monthly snapshot (MX-17.1 + all pool updates)?

Adrian wrote: Fri Oct 19, 2018 11:57 pm

darknetmatrix wrote: Fri Oct 19, 2018 10:43 pm boys ... I only asked when mx18 started to see the light of day and did not expect a discussion about the numbering, this is something that the developers have to determine imo.

I'm curious though what you'd want to see in MX-18 that is different than the monthly snapshot (MX-17.1 + all pool updates)?

Maybe if it's possible to add the deepin desktop environment to the Mx-package installer?

That doesn't need a new release, to be frank.