MX Linux Forum

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.

Do you want a stable system, or do you want a DIY system that needs constant care?

People are addicted to wanting to have the newest thing. I wonder how much of that is inherited from the old Windows, as we were drilled to the max to keep things updated, or we'd flush down the street or something.

It's a different skin on the same spurious argument as in: Coke vs Pepsi, HDD vs SSD, KDE vs Gnome vs XFCE, etc.

Newer isn't always better. In Linux, the best solution is the one that works.

MX Linux addresses those Debian detractors to some degree by having the MX Test repo, which carries newer versions of some software, and some software not available from Debian. It means MX Linux gives the best of both worlds, at the user's choice.

Chris

It also comes down to what you want to use your computer for.
Office tools , word processor, spreadsheet work etc.
Web browsing and email.
Gaming

You don't want to constantly to be having problems if you want it to always work.
Anybody that is using LInux knows or should know that what you have here for the most part is user supported and created.
That is pretty awesome in my opinion.

There are many avenues to debate.
Windows vs Linux

Debian Stable vs Testing or unstable

Distro vs Distro

I think it is just awesome we have all of these choices in Linux.

Debate what you will. I just know I found Linux years ago and will never leave it.

Debian is not "too old". It's just old enough to be competent, rather than young and reckless.

I have to agree with the notion that Debian and MX by extension is absolutely reliable and dependable. As Eadwine said, (and I paraphrase) stability trumps the latest shiny new thing :)

I've got to agree with chrispop99,

MX is the best of both worlds.
We have the latest Debian stable, access to the latest kernels.

Just about any program can be packaged by the packaging team, making the latest available in addition to the test repo.

I prize stability, with up times in the weeks. My MX-21 just passed my made up stability test to class 4 with 43 days uptime with no crashes or lock-ups.
[Class 1, 1 day, class 2=3 days, class 3=10 days, class 4 >40 days with no stability issues, crashed or lock-ups. After that stable hardware and software is more limited by the stability of the power mains (no UPS) ]
This test is with heavy use, massive file transfers, back-ups, constant synaptic upgrades, hibernation and waking, periods of >90% CPU usage with stockfisn12 running 11 threads. MX passes with flying colors.

So, best of both worlds, stability AND access to the latest packages.

MAYBL8 wrote: Thu Dec 16, 2021 7:57 am ... You don't want to constantly to be having problems if you want it to always work.

+1 For not stable distribs, I use a VM to play with.

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.

That statement is false because Debian is the most stable Linux distro because the packages are tested the longest and most thorough.

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.

Flatpak would remedy many of those issues of Debian. This is why the MX Linux developers added Flatpak.

+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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Arnox wrote: Thu Dec 16, 2021 2:34 am 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.

My response?

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

Artim wrote: Sun Jul 10, 2022 8:14 am 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

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

Recently a user requested a Virtualbox update, it had been released upstream in Debian Sid two days prior and was packaged for MX... two days!!

Pure Debian Stable and MX Linux are not in the same universe at all as far as timely Packaging of most common things with the exception of complete Desktop Environments... MX totally allows you to have your cake and eat it too. Anyone who thinks MX is as static and so-called 'old' as it's Debian Stable parentage isn't paying attention at all...

Many people will throw out an entire functional and secure Operating System for an ephemeral new application or update, these types of people bandy about words like 'old' and 'stable' and look down their noses only to be seen later in a forum post or with some other OS moaning because they borked their system... These are not usually 'community-minded' people and will always be after the next shiny thing... their commitment is usually as ephemeral as their taste in software so their naysaying about 'old' should really not have attention paid... If they used MX longer than 10 minutes they might know between the backports and MX Test Repo you will enjoy as much blending of stability and upgrades as you can anywhere..

Well said!

Right! And the MX Package Installer neatly summarizes all the options, so it is easy for any user. Compare that to other distros where the different package sources are all over the place, eg. snaps, flatpaks, repository packages, and so on. MX thought of what all other distros didn't, that's what sets it apart.

Ah! An afterthought! I think if there are any avenues for MX linux to explore and possibly catch up in it is ... (wait for it!)
mobile devices such as phones, tablets, ....
There must be some good opportunities there? No?
Well, especially now when there are new directives, rules, laws, whatever about all product things computer related with monopoly or oligopoly in the market.
Maybe some assessment of where MX linux can be placed under the new market rules is a good thing?
Some explanation here https://youtu.be/LrEbmUGTwQY?t=108 or for the click-shy user search you tube on LrEbmUGTwQY and look for the start of Chapter 3 about 108 seconds in

I don't care about mobile devices in the slightest, but maybe some do, so it is a good thought.

Coming from (and still using) Slackware, I've learned to just create my own packages, install, and maintain them. There is plenty of documentation on how to do this, you just need to spend the time learning. So, for all the applications that I want the latest stable version of and they are not found in the repos, I'll just create my own. Its not rocket science.

bassplayer69 wrote: Wed Aug 03, 2022 2:39 pm Coming from (and still using) Slackware, I've learned to just create my own packages, install, and maintain them. There is plenty of documentation on how to do this, you just need to spend the time learning. So, for all the applications that I want the latest stable version of and they are not found in the repos, I'll just create my own. Its not rocket science.

I'm sure the devs would be happy to have your contributions be made available.

bassplayer69 wrote: Wed Aug 03, 2022 2:39 pm Coming from (and still using) Slackware, I've learned to just create my own packages, install, and maintain them. There is plenty of documentation on how to do this, you just need to spend the time learning. So, for all the applications that I want the latest stable version of and they are not found in the repos, I'll just create my own. Its not rocket science.

Any pointers for the keen hearted but unsure of how to proceed?

Another thought ... MinisForum UM350 type mini-PCs as the lounge based set top box with wifi/bt keyboard with included touchpad to assist any and all lounge lizards.
Check email on tv - back to 'net tv sort of thing.
I mean IF Amazon TV cannot be limited to Amazon tv dongles and so forth ... And other providers cannot be tied in to their own hardware (everyone looks at Apple) that is surely any lounge lizard or sofa surfers dream. No? Here is a link to MinisForum ... https://store.minisforum.com/products/um350
And no, I am not affiliated in anyway with MinisForum - no pecuniary interests at all apart from sofa surfing

Aronticuz wrote: Wed Aug 03, 2022 4:49 pm

bassplayer69 wrote: Wed Aug 03, 2022 2:39 pm Coming from (and still using) Slackware, I've learned to just create my own packages, install, and maintain them. There is plenty of documentation on how to do this, you just need to spend the time learning. So, for all the applications that I want the latest stable version of and they are not found in the repos, I'll just create my own. Its not rocket science.

Any pointers for the keen hearted but unsure of how to proceed?

Here's a good intro:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=anJ1bMSAm8w

Aronticuz wrote: Wed Aug 03, 2022 4:49 pm

bassplayer69 wrote: Wed Aug 03, 2022 2:39 pm Coming from (and still using) Slackware, I've learned to just create my own packages, install, and maintain them. There is plenty of documentation on how to do this, you just need to spend the time learning. So, for all the applications that I want the latest stable version of and they are not found in the repos, I'll just create my own. Its not rocket science.

Any pointers for the keen hearted but unsure of how to proceed?

https://www.debian.org/doc/manuals/main ... rt.en.html

LU344928 wrote: Thu Aug 04, 2022 7:34 am Here's a good intro:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=anJ1bMSAm8w

Thank you for these pointers

My response to it is they should use Arch if they want the latest bleeding edge software. I find that newer software still fails to address the biggest issue in my experience with Linux is it fails at being able to update devices like head units in automobiles GPS, fails to update Radar detectors, and fails with many other devices requiring updates.

Mauser wrote: Thu Aug 04, 2022 4:27 pm My response to it is they should use Arch if they want the latest bleeding edge software. I find that newer software still fails to address the biggest issue in my experience with Linux is it fails at being able to update devices like head units in automobiles GPS, fails to update Radar detectors, and fails with many other devices requiring updates.

That's not a failure of Linux. The fault there lies with the device manufacturers who don't or won't create a Linux interface.

People who say Debian Stable is "too old" don't seem to understand what the concept of stability means in this context. Of course it won't have the latest, greatest, shiny new bleeding-edge stuff, it has somewhat older, tried and true, known-working versions with most of the bugs already fixed. That's why it's so stable. And of course it's not going to work on hardware that didn't even exist yet when the latest version of Debian was released: Debian developers can't see into the future. And the onus is actually on the hardware makers to provide Debian driver support for their stuff but most don't bother, or if they do they only provide support for Ubuntu (which drivers may or may not work in Debian Stable.)

That's what's so nice about MX-21 AHS and MX-KDE: much better support for very recent hardware vs. regular Debian Stable. Not to mention the fine work by the MX packaging team about making updated versions of software available.

j2mcgreg wrote: Thu Aug 04, 2022 7:58 pm

Mauser wrote: Thu Aug 04, 2022 4:27 pm My response to it is they should use Arch if they want the latest bleeding edge software. I find that newer software still fails to address the biggest issue in my experience with Linux is it fails at being able to update devices like head units in automobiles GPS, fails to update Radar detectors, and fails with many other devices requiring updates.

That's not a failure of Linux. The fault there lies with the device manufacturers who don't or won't create a Linux interface.

Pushing the blame game doesn't change the fact that it still doesn't work which is an ongoing issue with Linux. It's because of these excuses that it hasn't been fixed.

Okay - I'll dive into the discussion too - but first! History? Or is it History! There are good reasons why patterns of short term releases, long term releases and rolling releases seem to have become the norm, well until a new norm happens along. And that is probably: because it caused the least disruption, limited damage and kept costs down. How many Ad*be users turned off auto-updates because an auto-update borked a system in the middle of an important contract?
These are as most can guess stability, costs in sorting out release-change problems, legacy problems, hardware problems (all the printers wouldn't work after the upgrade?) ... in short: how much of a headache will an upgrade cause, how much will it cost.
I think it has too many variables to say: one solution fits all! But Google has gone gLinux on rolling release Debian-Testing for its own reasons. The wise might say "Oh hey - let's keep an eye on that and see how THAT works out!" Whether the rolling release is Arch or Debian based ... well isn't that a different question altogether?
As with all human endeavours anything can be made to work but the bean counters will always invoke cost comparisons in different scenarios.
Linux is too broad to have a simple single way of doing things otherwise Linux would really be Unix and there would only be one operating system in the world?

Too old means often too stable for some people.
When I want something less stable but with new softwares, I use an .appimage, or, a virtual machine, or a dual boot with a rolling distrib.
So no problem.

And again (at risk of being overly repetitive) if one is worried about a rolling release or another update type "borking" one's system then one should a) use MX with its native backup tools and b) use those two primary tools Timeshift and Snapshot/LiveUSB. Then if the aforementioned "borking" occurs, just restore easily enough. I have found in all my years of using Linux that whilst some other distros do now have effective backup tools, none IMO, are as easy to implement and manage as those provided in MX. Windows System Restore was IMO, never as easy and uncomplicated as these Linux (MX) tools.

Arnox wrote: Thu Dec 16, 2021 2:34 am ...
What would be your guys' answer to these issues though? Or seeming issues.

Interesting topic - with some strong responses so I suppose there are emotional depth of feelings on these topics.

After a bit of reflection on the original post, responses to it, revisiting the history of Linux my interim conclusion is: the Linux system is huge and responds to many factors.
Aspirations of developers, aspirations of users and potential for conflicts therein seem to be the emotional ones.

But above all Linux evolves and good/bad judgements can only be determined with hindsight.
Add that to the respin options and a corollary to the interim conclusion is: why not try it and see?
If it survives the Linux evolutionary curve it must have some strong points however illogical or improper those might seem to be.
Thus spake moi!

Often that relies heavily on specific applications and specific feature updates rather than a blanket "shiny vs stable" mindset.

Sometimes also you have an application that NEEDS to be bleeding edge due to bugfixes never making it into security updates nvm needed features being kept back for years.

Other times you have an application that actually is unstable in the stable branch staying there for years because it's simply older than later releases branded as unstable.

Age and stability is not always the same thing. And I keep being reminded of a truly stupid Audacity bug that even in Ubuntu probably still isnt fixed in the previous base where all exports automatically had aaif added to it I think it was. Yes it's stable, great.... annoyingly almost semi-unusable too.

Another example is KDE.... it often has known bugs fixed in later releases that are perfectly stable in comparison to the version in the stable branch but are stuck in the unstable branch because there is not anything newer to replace it in unstable. Especially true given that KDE in any version due to feature creep is not particularly stable.... but much more stable than it once was.



It just all can get so silly and create extra unnecessary legwork to function. A lot of the time due to the scope the Debian folks just do not have the resources to sanely test everything so they rely on excuses instead and simply declaring what is stable and unstable. People tell themselves all sorts of fairy tales, in the end it's really all about practicality rather than safety.

rambo919 wrote: Mon Oct 17, 2022 9:29 am ... abridged
It just all can get so silly and create extra unnecessary legwork to function. A lot of the time due to the scope the Debian folks just do not have the resources to sanely test everything so they rely on excuses instead and simply declaring what is stable and unstable. People tell themselves all sorts of fairy tales, in the end it's really all about practicality rather than safety.

Damn! I knew there was something so beautifully attractive about linux