MX Linux Forum

This is just a bit of fun. I'm asking this to all the distro hoppers out there.

What are the distro's that you have tried but for whatever reason you didn't like and quickly replaced (presumably with MX)? What was the reason why you didn't like them?

With me it's not a case of which ones I didn't like so much but rather a case of which ones I didn't like as much as MX.

My first distro, after re-entering the Linux world in 2017, was Fedora. I still think it's a good distro. But I like MX better, and no systemd.

On older machines I've used Devuan and Slackware, which are both excellent, and no systemd. But I find MX easier to use than both.

Not a single distro, but I'm always disappointed with BSD. I really want to like it, but on the same hardware as a Linux distro it is always slower. Couple that with some hardware limitations, and I never dabble with it much.

NomadBSD is interesting, because it is intended to be used as a live USB with persistence by default, although it can be installed.

Chris

Hi everyone,

I struggled with Crux. I tried Exton's spin on it (CruxEx) a while back, but it took an age to update anything and it insisted on updating the whole of Rust just because of one small package that relied on it.

I had the same problem with Gentoo.

I liked the concept of Crux though, but it really isn't a beginner's distro.

I have a love-hate relationship with Arch; I keep trying it, and then giving up when something breaks after updating. I've got Endeavour on a partition though, which works very well.

I've tried quite a few. I'm no Linux expert so my bias is towards an OS that's easy to use and hard to screw up.

Sparky was OK, but had some usability quirks. I love the look of KDE but the only KDE distro that worked will for me was Mepis. I've had little luck with Plasma based distros: typically too much memory hogging going on.

I do like what Mint has to offer. It ticked my two biggest boxes and then some. I used Ubuntu Studio for quite a while as a music server, and it worked well.

My problem with the other distros that I've tried is that they're not MX Linux. The Mepis "it just works" DNA is still prevalent here, and the community is second to none.

I liked Kubuntu because of KDE. I used it before MX had a KDE version. That is I did use MX XFCE version along with Kubuntu. I could not administer an MX Forum without using it.

LU344928 wrote: Sat Jun 21, 2025 1:26 pm ...I like MX better, and no systemd.

That's not true. MX does have systemd but by default it is not used as an init system.

NickStone wrote: Sat Jun 21, 2025 4:15 pm

LU344928 wrote: Sat Jun 21, 2025 1:26 pm ...I like MX better, and no systemd.

That's not true. MX does have systemd but by default it is not used as an init system.

Ah yes, but default is the key word.

Until you enable it, there's no systemd.

Lununtu drove me to MX during the time they were changing from LXDE to LXQt desktop. They did it over two releases.

It was a mosh pit of breakage! Doing anything with Wine was a constant struggle, too.

I kind of disliked how Ubuntu is forcing people to use snaps. But otherwise I think I can't say I disliked any distro (even if I don't like their choices, like pushing GNOME on their users)

I dual booted Windows 7 and different distros starting about 12 or so years ago. Then about 2016 I couldn't upgrade Win 7 to 10 on the computer I had then so I permanently switched to Linux. I think I used Xubuntu at first and distro hopped between Xubuntu, Lubuntu, Linux Mint Xfce, Linux Mint Cinnamon, Debian and MX Xfce several times.

I have tried a bunch of other distros in VirtualBox but never actually used them for anything.

Lubuntu was too stripped down. That was before they changed to LXQT or whatever it is now.

Xubuntu was OK but 10 years ago Xfce sucked way more back then than now.

Linux Mint Cinnamon was OK but I thought it used way too much memory and it wasn't customizable enough. Too many things they never addressed or care about like you can't even change the panel color let alone use an image for the panel background and you can use a custom start menu icon but the icon must be perfectly square or it zooms/stretches. That's just stupid.

I think I had the best luck and fewest problems with Linux Mint Xfce. The main thing I didn't like was not having current version of Xfce.

I had a lot of problems with Debian about 8-10 years ago but back then I didn't know anything about Linux and I could probably fix things and live with it now. It will be interesting to see Debian 13. That might be good for a few months until a new Xfce version is released.

I stuck with MX Xfce for about 3 years now because it sucks less than most other distros and I like the installer and MX Tools. I destroyed it about 3 times so far and reinstalled it instead of distro hopping.

I tried Manjaro Xfce, Sparky Xfce and Siduction Xfce in VirtualBox. They mostly worked but I was afraid to install them because I couldn't tell if the freezing and other problems were real or because of VirtualBox.

Started with these: Chronologically: From What I can Remember

Red Hat
Suse
Mandrake
Vector
Gentoo
Debian
Mepis
PC Linux OS
Ubuntu
Kubuntu
Mandriva
Mageia
Sabayon
Mint
LXLE
Lite
Netrunner
Q4OS
Peppermint
Neptune
Feren
Anti-X
Mx_Linux

All of these have spent time on the ole HDD. Majority of them were installed, then installed another distro, then re-installed previous distros due to enhancements / eye candy.
Finally settled on MX-Linux and been with it for several years.
But I always burn an iso to see what someone else has got, but always kept MX-Linux. Can't beat it. ( IMHO )

Never really so-called distro hopped. I read about Linux from a Windows magazine (of all places) and started with Caldera OpenLinux ('97). Switched to RedHat ('98), then to SUSE Linux ('99) before settling on Slackware ('01).

With the announcement of Win 11, I found out that my computer I was using at the time was not compatible, so I wiped the dual boot Slack/Win10 drive and installed my first Debian based system, MX-19.3 Linux.
Today on the computer I built in 2022, I now dual boot with MX Linux and Slackware -current.

Out of those distro's, only SUSE gave me problems with their whole RPM dependencies from h*ll issues which is how I ended up on Slackware from a recommendation of an old work mate.
I have tried many, many more distro's but only in a VM setting so they never really lasted long to form an opinion.

SalixOS was my first venture into "non-systemd" distros. I loved it for awhile but updates made it glitchy and I went back "home" (at the time) to Xubuntu and Linux Lite, which were great at the time. More recently I looked at OpenMandriva (Xfce spin) but I get the impression that it's a KDE-centric distro and Xfce is an afterthought. A months-long flirtation with GhostBSD has been wonderful, but like Salix, updates have made it glitchy and crashy. MX-Linux is my daily driver again, as it has been for most of the last couple of years. I'm hoping that the next release of GhostBSD fixes the little annoyances, but no matter what I'll probably be keeping MX on for all it's cool tools and stability.

Started with Ubuntu of course. Then Mint. Found Manjaro was bleeding edge then bleeding me. Used it about a year, always having to fix things until the day an updated nixed about 86% of users (I think that's what it was).
Never hears of MX until I searched for STABLE Linux release. It was tops.
Went back to Mint with Debian release. While I like Mint, it wasn't peppy enough. I liked the online accounts app mostly.
But my MX was just snappy, easy to use, good utilities, stable and just easy out of the box.
The only issue which I've not been able to fix is file manager being so dang slow opening my Android, but I just use Dolphin for my android and Thunar the rest of the time.
So Manjaro for excitement and MX for real world daily driver use for me.

I've never really liked Linux Mint.
It has always seemed 'heavy' and clunky on my hardware.
It also seems 'too polished' if you know what I mean.

Based on that I am not very good at working with software and awful with the Command Line, but pretty good at working with hardware that I have built a few Desktop computers along with done some upgrades on Laptops and Desktops.

This is my list. Manjaro Xfce due to more issues than I could shake a stick at. Linux Mint Xfce was really slow like Windows, Zorin because of no full disk encryption at that time and I don't like Gnome even though it seems the Zorin Developers did create the best reiteration Gnome in my opinion. Xubutu Xfce because of the "Slick Greeter" that I didn't know how to change it to have the Login Password box in the center and I broke it trying to install a Startup sound using the Terminal which is why I don't like to use the Terminal. I tried a few other Distros and found MX LINUX Xfce to be the best for me. I recommend use what fits you best.

BV206 wrote: Sat Jun 21, 2025 5:14 pm I dual booted Windows 7 and ...I destroyed it about 3 times so far and reinstalled it instead of distro hopping....

Going forward might I suggest a strategy to avoid reinstalling? Personally, whenever I've had a crash (rare really but it always is a possibility), I've relied on the following:
1. Timeshift
2. Snapshots following liveusb

YMMV however, that's how I have long avoided any real issues.

Dislikes?
Windows 11 24H2

anticapitalista wrote: Sun Jun 22, 2025 6:30 am I've never really liked Linux Mint.
It has always seemed 'heavy' and clunky on my hardware.
It also seems 'too polished' if you know what I mean.

Ditto.

When I was preparing to leave Lubuntu I installed Mint and MX Linux on two PCs. Ran them for a month or so, not sure. It was way more than a week! MX won out.

I like many distros, otherwise I would not be a multibooter.

But here are some distros that I don't like or no longer like:

I really liked Mint 17 Cinnamon, but from version 18 onwards I agree that it got slow and clunky. So I wiped it from my multiboot PC.

I installed Mageia (KDE4) long ago and found it boring. So it didn't last long.

I persevered for maybe 3 or 4 years with OpenSUSE KDE4 [this was the LEAP period] but I never understood why for so many packages you had to choose between various repos for installation. After a while, I decided it was more trouble than it was worth and got rid of it.

I don't dislike Slackware or its derivatives but I don't like how its terminal-based installer has no option for swap partition except to reformat it. Since I have so many other distros, it messes with their fstab. Only Slackel openbox (with Slackware Current and Salix repos) had its own sane installer, and it lasted on my machine for years. I finally removed it, not because I didn't like it, but it was no longer a priority with so many other distros and helping with MX.

Ah, I forgot the original distro that made me use Linux (@richb will know the reference), Xandros. While I enjoyed the distro I was limited to what repos I could use so I broke it a couple of time, so I end up in the MEPIS camp, since I was a beginner I broke it too but the advantage was that MEPIS was a Live CD so I could always reboot/fix or reinstall.

For me, it was never a question of "I like it or not," but rather that it worked robustly in commercial use, requiring little training and maintenance for ongoing operation.
So, when we finally switched, opensUse was the only option left, starting with v13.x up to v42, with XFCE because KDE and Gnome no longer met our expectations (Gnome 2 would have been fine).
The switch to MX (18) was necessary due to hardware issues, as some workstations were being modernized and opensuse was already acting up during installation, while MX worked flawlessly right away.
Apart from some gimmicks in the direction of Frankendebian on test systems, MX has been running smoothly on the work system since v18.

Although the version upgrades to v19, v21, and v23 (as well as the upcoming v25) are generally new installations. It works faster and is absolutely unproblematic compared to the time required for an upgrade. Tools like "user-installed packages" make this trivial today.

The entire Ubuntu branch, including the Mint offshoot, has been tested, but none has run smoothly for several weeks without crashes or problems after updates. Out of the question; that's something you can only afford in private settings.

Arch and its offshoots, of course, but only out of personal curiosity, because systems with rolling releases that ride the very peak of the wave simply weren't (and still aren't) problem-free enough. This is inherent in the system and you usually know it beforehand :-)

PS: I personally liked opemsuse, even though I consider the YaST installation wizard a hurdle for beginners, but I did like the YaST control center quite a bit.

But of course, I like MX better; not just its stability, but the MX tools alone make it the only choice ... and the devs and community :-)

Hello NickStone and Everyone
Adrian and richb
Was in the opposite order for us.. first Mepis, then Xandros.
Mepis cd is still in the kit.

@Adrian Ah yes Xandros, I did like.

I loved Caldera OpenLinux until the company changed up and started suing folks. Kicked 'em to the curb, I did.

Distro-drifted until I woke up on Mepis sands and saw the pyramids. I've been using MX for a good long time now. I stray long enough to get Antix on my netbook when I travel and AVLinux when I feel the need to make noise.

The Tramp

PhantomTramp wrote: Mon Jun 23, 2025 11:17 am I loved Caldera OpenLinux until the company changed up and started suing folks. Kicked 'em to the curb, I did.

@PhantomTramp Wasn't aware of them suing. Was Novell doing the suing?
I only grabbed their disc because they were the cheapest ($24 for the lite version) to buy at the time. I think I saw three or four other distro's but the were $15+ more.

You can download it if you have an old enough computer to run it on. I still have my physical copy stored away. https://archive.org/details/caldera-openlinux-1.1-lite

SCO Group's Wikipedia page will tell you more than you need to know about the courtroom sagas.

I still have my boxed copy of EDesktop 2.4 on the shelf.

Thank you for the link, though.

The Tramp

PhantomTramp wrote: Mon Jun 23, 2025 11:39 am SCO Group's Wikipedia page will tell you more than you need to know about the courtroom sagas.

I still have my boxed copy of EDesktop 2.4 on the shelf.

Thank you for the link, though.

The Tramp

I used to follow the Groklaw site (now defunct) for all the details on this and other legal suits that affected open source software.

asqwerth wrote: Mon Jun 23, 2025 11:57 am

PhantomTramp wrote: Mon Jun 23, 2025 11:39 am SCO Group's Wikipedia page will tell you more than you need to know about the courtroom sagas.

I still have my boxed copy of EDesktop 2.4 on the shelf.

Thank you for the link, though.

The Tramp

I used to follow the Groklaw site (now defunct) for all the details on this and other legal suits that affected open source software.

What I remember most about the late 90's Linux drama was the Halloween documents.

I have to fall into the "wasnt really dislike" ( well.. maybe a few.) I have tried SO MANY distro's over the years. (I literally have a stack of CD's that is 9" high of versions / distro's I tried !)

I may be forgetting one or two, but these were the notable I used / liked:

slackware - my first intro to linux ( 1994? ) , used at work for some "non-windows processing"

Mepis - Found it *right* before the last version, really liked it and was very sad when it was gone.

Knoppix - Used it for a while for repairs, rescues etc. Started trying to use it as a desktop, but too many issues.

Debian - the most stable I have had until MX, but slow on updates and kind of hard to manage.

Puppy - Used it on a few very low end machines for people, Tried to use as my desktop but was too off the beaten path for me.

Fedora - some *very* nice things, but ...

RedHat - Introduced to me and used by manly colleagues, but just didnt fit with me.

Ubuntu - alot of good, but dead weight in many areas imo.

Manjaro - worked well for my desktop and I liked quite a lot of it, but dead deal on my laptops. And I broke it severely more than once ;-/

Pinguy OS - liked it and started to use it, but being ubuntu based it gave me heartburn and then an update crashed out my laptop - never could get it working properly again.

Linux Mint - I liked a lot, actually 'settled' on it and used it for a few years - until I found MX.

MX - All I can say is "ahhh This is how it should work!!"

In all of my searching ( since around 2010? ) I knew two things for sure - it had to be stable, and it had to be "workable". Mepis was the closet thing I found until Mint - but I still had some things I didnt care for and kept looking, but had resigned myself to "Mint was the best I had found".

My goal was to replace windows, and being more than a power user that was a HUGE demand! And, frankly there was a lot about windows that I liked too - and over the years I had crafted my Windows into something amazing. However, Windows privacy, invasive, security and 'climate' had changed and I wanted out. REALLY tough since I support 250 clients, have numerous programs out there, support those programs! and as well as still program. This was all a HUGE ask!

When I heard about MX, being born from Mepis - I had to try it out. And since the very first try ( MX 17 ) I was positive this was it. For me, the tools, the layout of the os, the *thought* that obviously was going into it ... and then the forum. Everything 'felt right', and using as my second rig with Mint on the main rig.. It was around two weeks of use and I realized I was on the MX machine ALL the time and barely gave Mint any other use - Hands down.. MX.

When I turned my attention at replacing "appliances" with MX... things got really fun! With the exception of BSD on firewalls ' routers ... I have replaced ALL of my application boxes with MX running on them. (Again, no small ask!). I have print servers, WiFi Controllers, network management machines, Kiosk's, file and web servers, and application servers. All running MX and all *very stable* and workable. It has been amazing!

By MX 19 I had rebuilt all of my "workforce" - Remote, applications, VM's, programming VM's and methods, and the more I worked at it the more I enjoyed it, stability, smooth, ease of use, being able to fix when there was an issue.. the list just goes on and on. MX has proven to me that it is *by far* the best system I have ever seen / used.

I came to Linux because I need access to software that I couldn't afford on the Windows platform. The first one I tried was Redhat in '96?. It came on 26 or 27 floppies and it was very frustrating to install and use. I then tried Caldera, Corel, Suse which I really liked except for the fact that it refused to recognize my Samsung laser, I tried Ubuntu but its frequent changes to its default software with its biannual releases was a turn off. Somewhere in this time frame I used Mandrake and stayed with it until it merged with a Brazilian distro and started to get flaky, Late 2006 to early 2007 I found Mepis and I have been here ever since. I really liked KDE on Mepis but now with MX I have switched my allegiance to XFCE.

Cannot call it a distro, but DOS on an H89 Heathkit computer. Soldered the components to the circuit board and had a computer. Not a lot you could do with it but it was fun.

Maybe I'm fussy, but I didn't really like distros that didn't use apt, I do occasionally, but my main distro is definately an apt user.

asqwerth wrote: Mon Jun 23, 2025 11:57 am I used to follow the Groklaw site (now defunct) for all the details on this and other legal suits that affected open source software.

The SCO lawsuit era was a wild time in the open source community. SCO sold a couple different UNIX products and through a series of acquisitions and contracts finally decided that they owned the legal rights to call UNIX UNIX. The CEO at the time was a man named Darl McBride (who passed away nine months ago) and he saw the marketshare of Linux as a great opportunity to stay relevant by bullying the nascent corporate Linux ecosystem into paying licensing fees to SCO.

At the time, Linux was still a relatively young project and it was a major fire drill that tested the meaning of what free and open source software was defined to be under U. S. law. In some ways, it tested how free and open source software projects functioned, operated, and what communities were permitted to do with their own code.

It was uncertain times. People were scared. Tech companies sued each other all the time, sure, but this was a not-so-clear-cut challenge as to whether or not Linux was its own independent thing, and it was argued not amongst Linux experts but between lawyers, and refereed by judges who didn't have e-mail, let alone know what a "kernel" or a "virtual memory management subsystem" or an "unsigned character array" is.

Arguing to a normie that Linux is infringing on a UNIX copyright is hard. Proving that Linux is a UNIX-like kernel designed to emulate MINIX, thereby making Linux a clone of a clone, that was built independently by a Finnish college student without reusing any existing UNIX or MINIX software just so he could win an argument with Andrew Tanenbaum, was harder.

Edit: typo

Hi,

My first Distro was Mepis (with a very brief look at Dynebolic as well) and I really liked Mepis but the Debian base at the time was way out of date with multimedia apps and my main interest in trying Linux was to see if I could record Audio and edit Video which were my main Windows activities so I moved to Ubuntu for a short time and I tried a '.10' release completely unaware that it had the shelf life of a fruit fly so that turned me off on Ubuntu. After that I did try an openSUSE based Audio Distro called 'JackLab' and it was pretty cool but the YAST aspect of openSUSE was beastly slow and hammered my very poor rural wireless internet connection and limited bandwidth when updating. From there I switched to pure Debian and more recently to MX and with my side hustle of AV Linux I really don't have any time to try Distros just for fun, all my spare time goes into it. That said I had a look at Ubuntu when it switched to Unity but it didn't stick and I have in past years set up family and friends with Linux Mint before I joined up with MX.

beardedragon wrote: Sun Jun 22, 2025 10:10 pm Dislikes?
Windows 11 24H2

While you are talking about Windows I would add Windows 98se due to it being the most unstable rubbish ever created. Windows Vista as I found out what a disaster for others that I didn't bother with it leaving Windows XP on my computer. Every Windows version after Windows 7 was horrible and it was because of Windows 10 I finally switched to LINUX for good.

Mauser wrote: Mon Jun 23, 2025 10:57 pm While you are talking about Windows I would add Windows 98se due to it being the most unstable rubbish ever created

The highest uptime I ever attained on any machine I've ever owned or administered was a repurposed, network-connected Windows 98SE system that was wired up to a Nortel Meridian PBX system through a serial connection and running some $5000 monitoring software service no one ever used, audited, or mentioned again after I'd been assigned to get it working. Time and money well spent! At least I got a new uptime PR out of it.

793 days.

Mauser wrote: Mon Jun 23, 2025 10:57 pm While you are talking about Windows I would add Windows 98se due to it being the most unstable rubbish ever created.

SE was good too me. Fixed a lot of issues I had with the initial release of 98. The one version I never touched was ME (Millennium).

DukeComposed wrote: Mon Jun 23, 2025 11:39 pm

Mauser wrote: Mon Jun 23, 2025 10:57 pm While you are talking about Windows I would add Windows 98se due to it being the most unstable rubbish ever created

The highest uptime I ever attained on any machine I've ever owned or administered was a repurposed, network-connected Windows 98SE system that was wired up to a Nortel Meridian PBX system through a serial connection and running some $5000 monitoring software service no one ever used, audited, or mentioned again after I'd been assigned to get it working. Time and money well spent! At least I got a new uptime PR out of it.

793 days.

I can't see how that is possible because when my HP Desktop computer came with Windows 98SE it would freeze solid or I would get the Blue Screen Of Death when I went Online with Dail-up in no more than 10 minutes and Ctrl Alt Del was completely ineffective when that happened. I had to press the power button to get the computer to shutdown and start-up again. I even tried using a US Robotics external hardware modem which made no difference. The only way Windows 98SE would work is if I didn't go Online. I even tried Corel, Mandrake, and even Red Hat LINUX back then but there was a lack of drivers back then that the sound wouldn't work and Dial-Up wouldn't work even though I used an external hardware modem that I didn't need any drivers for, but there was an over abundance excuses back then. Thankfully LINUX was eventually fixed. It wasn't till Windows 2000 came out that I installed where I could go Online without all that nonsense.

siamhie wrote: Mon Jun 23, 2025 11:53 pm

Mauser wrote: Mon Jun 23, 2025 10:57 pm While you are talking about Windows I would add Windows 98se due to it being the most unstable rubbish ever created.

SE was good too me. Fixed a lot of issues I had with the initial release of 98. The one version I never touched was ME (Millennium).

One of my friends had Windows ME and I used his computer once and I was surprised I could go Online for more than 10 minutes but it wasn't the most stable Windows but it was much more stable than Windows SE but no way as stable as Windows 2000 which I stuck with until Windows XP came out which was even more stable than Windows 2000 and it was the first Windows distro that had no yellow mark with an exclamation point in the hardware manger which was a shock. Windows 7 was my favorite of all the Windows distros.

Mauser wrote: Tue Jun 24, 2025 1:10 am I can't see how that is possible because when my HP Desktop computer came with Windows 98SE it would freeze solid or I would get the Blue Screen Of Death when I went Online with Dail-up in no more than 10 minutes

Sounds like a kernel problem. To get really solid performance out of your Windows 98SE desktop, make sure it's only connected via Ethernet to your corporate LAN and to the Option 11C PBX over serial. AutoLogin isn't a problem if you conceal the box in a remote corner on the second story of your server room on a janky non-OSHA-compliant elevated loft where no one can reach it without a ladder and, for bonus points, you can remotely admin the box from your desk over an unencrypted VNC connection. Always worked well for me.

Early versions of Windows also carried a litany of remote vulnerabilities, one of the more popular of which was the port 139/tcp WinNuke attack in Windows 95. Easy to set up, easy to execute, impossible to defend against without a packet filter. While the bug was patched in Windows 98, Windows operating systems as a whole didn't include a packet filter enabled by default until Windows XP SP2, so putting a Windows 98SE machine online in any capacity was a risk. A free firewall utility like ZoneAlarm went a long way to keep random people from portscanning you and trying something, anything really, to knock you offline, especially if you had a less than amicable personality. When I was younger and chat rooms were clunky, Java-powered things that shared your username and IP address for all the world to see, I may or may not have WinNuked a particular user repeatedly until they got the hint, gave up, and stopped annoying us for the night.

DukeComposed wrote: Tue Jun 24, 2025 1:40 am

Mauser wrote: Tue Jun 24, 2025 1:10 am I can't see how that is possible because when my HP Desktop computer came with Windows 98SE it would freeze solid or I would get the Blue Screen Of Death when I went Online with Dail-up in no more than 10 minutes

Sounds like a kernel problem. To get really solid performance out of your Windows 98SE desktop, make sure it's only connected via Ethernet to your corporate LAN and to the Option 11C PBX over serial. AutoLogin isn't a problem if you conceal the box in a remote corner on the second story of your server room on a janky non-OSHA-compliant elevated loft where no one can reach it without a ladder and, for bonus points, you can remotely admin the box from your desk over an unencrypted VNC connection. Always worked well for me.

Early versions of Windows also carried a litany of remote vulnerabilities, one of the more popular of which was the port 139/tcp WinNuke attack in Windows 95. Easy to set up, easy to execute, impossible to defend against without a packet filter. While the bug was patched in Windows 98, Windows operating systems as a whole didn't include a packet filter enabled by default until Windows XP SP2, so putting a Windows 98SE machine online in any capacity was a risk. A free firewall utility like ZoneAlarm went a long way to keep random people from portscanning you and trying something, anything really, to knock you offline, especially if you had a less than amicable personality. When I was younger and chat rooms were clunky, Java-powered things that shared your username and IP address for all the world to see, I may or may not have WinNuked a particular user repeatedly until they got the hint, gave up, and stopped annoying us for the night.

That is impossible for me because I use my computer for personal use and not for some corporation. I only had access through Dial-up. I turned off my computer and waited until Windows 2000 came out which I installed and corrected the problem.

Mauser wrote: Tue Jun 24, 2025 2:07 am That is impossible for me because I use my computer for personal use and not for some corporation. I only had access through Dial-up. I turned off my computer and waited until Windows 2000 came out which I installed and corrected the problem.

Well, you do you. I know what I did and I almost got 800 days of uptime. Fun fact: Windows 2000 also didn't have a firewall, but it had a completely different kernel and hardware abstraction layer from the 9x series.

First foray into Linux was Knoppix in the 90's, installed from a bunch of 5¼" diskettes - 1200 baud dialup, CLI only, B&W screen
When Ubuntu came out, distributed on CD I went there. Used Remastersys for backup, until it died circa 2013.
Decided to switch off Ubuntu when Canonical went all systemd and snaps.
Went to MX about two years ago, because mx-snapshot looked like a good Remastersys replacement.
Stayed with MX since, mainly because of the REALLY EXCELLENT level of community and forum support -- Thank you, people!!
Still feel more at home with CLI rather than GUI (I was raised on RSTS(*) and VMS, before it became OpenVMS(**), did support for DEC)

Keep up the good work, and thanks again!!
Mike

(*)https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RSTS/E
(**)https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OpenVMS

@MikeR Regarding this:

First foray into Linux was Knoppix in the 90's, installed from a bunch of 5¼" diskettes - 1200 baud dialup, CLI only, B&W screen

RESPECT

Mauser wrote: Tue Jun 24, 2025 1:26 am
One of my friends had Windows ME and I used his computer once and I was surprised I could go Online for more than 10 minutes but it wasn't the most stable Windows but it was much more stable than Windows SE

I was using AMD/ATI/USR devices, so maybe I just had better luck with SE.

but no way as stable as Windows 2000 which I stuck with until Windows XP came out which was even more stable than Windows 2000 and it was the first Windows distro that had no yellow mark with an exclamation point in the hardware manger which was a shock. Windows 7 was my favorite of all the Windows distros.

Honestly, as much as XP was great (best release in my book), I always loved my NT4/2000 installs.

ReactOS.

https://reactos.org/

To be fair. I tried it in it's release stage when it was buggy.
https://reactos.org/forum/
Might be better now but I moved on.

siamhie wrote: Mon Jun 23, 2025 11:53 pm SE was good too me. Fixed a lot of issues I had with the initial release of 98.

Many users, including me, complained about the chronic hang-at-shutdown issue.

The one version I never touched was ME (Millennium).

You didn't miss much.

ME = Mistake Edition

LU344928 wrote: Tue Jun 24, 2025 12:26 pm

siamhie wrote: Mon Jun 23, 2025 11:53 pm SE was good too me. Fixed a lot of issues I had with the initial release of 98.

Many users, including me, complained about the chronic hang-at-shutdown issue.

At this point, I was building my computers, so I didn't suffer at the hands of the manufacturers (Dell/HP/etc.) crafted BIOS's.

The one version I never touched was ME (Millennium).

You didn't miss much.

ME = Mistake Edition

Just another opinion:

I started with Knoppix and Suse sometime around 2000, but only on rare occasions.
Over the years it was evident that I should switch to Linux. Studying the kinds of distros available, I chose the stable variety.

Linux Mint, Zorin Os and MX Linux are the suitable distros for most users - globally speaking. (I like some others, too.) For most friends I would recommend standard Linux Mint. MX is the best for me, giving me control, flexibilty and a really good environment. It has what I need.

Someone mentioned Puppy in this thread. I used Puppy for many years and built up a considerable post count (over 2000) on their forum

I started with Puppy 2.00, then moved on to 2.14, 3.01, 4.00, and 4.20 through to 4.31. I have particularly good memories of the derivatives of Puppy 2.14 that I tried (PizzaPup, Puppy Classic, Rudy and Teenpup) and also the 3.01 "Fire Hydrant" series.

Puppy was unique back then in that you could use it as a live disk and yet save the session to your hard drive or USB drive.

Unfortunately I lost interest in the later versions of Puppy based on Debian and Ubuntu, but I still appreciate the ones based on Slackware (which I think are still going).

siamhie wrote: Tue Jun 24, 2025 11:52 am

Mauser wrote: Tue Jun 24, 2025 1:26 am
One of my friends had Windows ME and I used his computer once and I was surprised I could go Online for more than 10 minutes but it wasn't the most stable Windows but it was much more stable than Windows SE

I was using AMD/ATI/USR devices, so maybe I just had better luck with SE.

but no way as stable as Windows 2000 which I stuck with until Windows XP came out which was even more stable than Windows 2000 and it was the first Windows distro that had no yellow mark with an exclamation point in the hardware manger which was a shock. Windows 7 was my favorite of all the Windows distros.

Honestly, as much as XP was great (best release in my book), I always loved my NT4/2000 installs.

If NT4 didn't cost so much I would of installed it to correct the Windows98SE issues. I could see Windows 2000 being one of your favorites. No activation nonsense which Microsoft started with Windows XP.

Only one I dislike and that was Elive. Didn't like the default setup or their default applications of choice. I try out 44 Linux distro's in my time. Been using Linux for over 21 years now. I'm stuck with MX and loving it.

Has anyone ever tried Winux? https://winuxos.com/

The first time I read about this project (years ago), I figured it would drop into obscurity but they are still around.

gimcrack wrote: Tue Jun 24, 2025 3:37 pm Only one I dislike and that was Elive. Didn't like the default setup or their default applications of choice. I try out 44 Linux distro's in my time. Been using Linux for over 21 years now. I'm stuck with MX and loving it.

Just curious,

Was it Enlightenment that you didn't like or was it Elive itself (I've never tried it)? Enlightenment is clearly an acquired taste but Elive seems to be in some kind of limbo between ancient E-16 and current Enlightenment..

I like Debian, MX Linux and LMDE. To be more specific: apt, synaptic, mx tools, xfce, cinnamon and lxqt.
I like SysVinit better than systemd, but switched because of DEs and apps.
I like X11 better than Wayland, mostly because of Synaptic and I haven't had any success with Wayland in VBox. I tried both labwc and wayfire on Debian Trixie, but no luck. I'm probably missing config files or something. Maybe I will try Kwin instead some day.

If someone wonders why Synaptic is special, it's because it's more than a package manager or software store. It gives the user a comprehensive overview of apt status and package relationships.
I have used this app since 2008 so I know where to find the info I want.

I don't really dislike anything I don't have to use. The joy (and curse) of Linux is that you can use whatever you like.

I now see SDDM only seems capable of X11 in Debian Trixie. This is weird because I believe KDE uses it for Wayland, but maybe they use some kind of workaround.
https://packages.debian.org/trixie/sddm

AVLinux wrote: Tue Jun 24, 2025 9:10 pm

gimcrack wrote: Tue Jun 24, 2025 3:37 pm Only one I dislike and that was Elive. Didn't like the default setup or their default applications of choice. I try out 44 Linux distro's in my time. Been using Linux for over 21 years now. I'm stuck with MX and loving it.

Just curious,

Was it Enlightenment that you didn't like or was it Elive itself (I've never tried it)? Enlightenment is clearly an acquired taste but Elive seems to be in some kind of limbo between ancient E-16 and current Enlightenment..

Enlightenment is part of it. When I install it icons were big, didn't like the color scheme and that default terminal; Terminology is crazy. Never hear many using Elive, so it must not be to great. I didn't care for it much for sure.

I tried Arch and I gotten to dislike it because it got a bit fiddly especially when having to deal with the AUR for some package I loved on Debian (and not in the main Arch repos) and wanted something similar for Arch. but EndeavourOS distro made it more bearable.

Ubuntu for snaps...yuck. I remembered the older versions of Ubuntu that were quite good without the garbage that crept in in later releases.

My first Linux experiences prior to the turn of the century were with RedHat followed by Mandrake and in 2002, the Knoppix Live CD really took my interest, but I could not get on with its installer laying down a german language instead of English, so it was very short lived.

Like others here, I can't truly say I hated any of the other distros I tried, and I tried so many I simply can not recall them all. There were some I had no love for, (puppy), but that didn't mean I didn't see something of value in each of them, however slight that may have been

Beginning around the end of 2003, I started leading a local Linux Users group which carried on for 5 years. During that time the group grew beyond the capacity of our rooms and we shifted premises twice during my 5-years as the group lead. To this day I still don't know how I became the leader after only attending 3 of their meetings. In my mind I was a total novice with less than a years worth of Linux experience when there were IT Pros in attendance who worked with Linux for their corporate jobs. As providence would have it, SimplyMEPIS featured much as that's what I was running and some of the folk I've kept in touch with from those times are using MX Linux.

During that time, I became the go-to for Linux ISO's and installation/troubleshooting support. I always carried a CD-ROM zipper case with between 30-40 optical media disks containing most of the then current offerings into every meeting and would regularly give them away of let people clone them during meetings. We held monthly meetings in our hired rooms and I added quarterly 12-hour install-fests in a medium sized rented hall, so I got to see and work with many distros because other members were bringing their favourites in too.

Omygosh, Devuan was a train wreck for me. Of the three installation methods available to me,

• The Refracta installer just stalls for hours, no joy.

• Using Peppermint's Calamares to install it was again, no joy, multiple failures.

• The Text installer worked, yay! But I couldn't get etc/apt/sources to work, and

• The username and password I set up during installation didn't work the next day.

GhostBSD is still a favorite (admittedly not a Linux distro), but simple things like adding a printer are arcane and far behind Linux in most respects. I still like it and use it occasionally because some of the software I want is newer than here in Debian-Stable, but it ain't "ready for prime time" yet.

Artim wrote: Sat Jun 28, 2025 7:06 am Omygosh, Devuan was a train wreck for me. Of the three installation methods available to me,

• The Refracta installer just stalls for hours, no joy.

Devuan is an ideal distro on paper, but I've had serious problems with refracta I was never able to easily resolve. Legend has it that refracta could take a system and make a copy of it, but I had trouble with it, even while trying to follow the instructions. Devuan remains a distro I want to support on principle alone, but I find I just don't end up running it in production very often and some of its whiz-bang features aren't quite so whiz, nor do they bang. I maintained debootstrappable copies of jessie, ascii, beowulf, chimaera, and daedalus builds until it occurred to me that all my preparation wasn't resulting in, y'know, functional working Devuan installs. I still keep eyes the project and I'm happy to do so.

"Doesn't run systemd" is worth quite a lot these days and that's not going to change any time soon. But I do wish the project was more put together than it really is. The gopher joke for April Fools Day is one indicator they have a ways to go. The lack of a followup around that stunt is a much bigger problem.

Fairness where fairness is due: I found the minimal daedalus ISO useful as a regular ol' Linux maintenance CD-ROM until I found out about the Debian Admin CD project and in an evening or so of tinkering I got a bespoke, working Devuan ISO that contains all the tools on it I need to be nefarious. It's genuinely hard to find a run of the mill Linux ISO these days that has scp, rsync, tmux, and git and that works solely from a command prompt in 512 MB of DRAM.

siamhie wrote: Tue Jun 24, 2025 5:57 pm Has anyone ever tried Winux? https://winuxos.com/

The first time I read about this project (years ago), I figured it would drop into obscurity but they are still around.

I tried it to see how Winux would do for my windows peeps and was pretty horrified of it. First, it has a $35 price tag to get the "professional version" which supposedly added more functionality. Somethings were very close to windows look feel, but there were some major quirks to it in many areas as I recall - as in didnt work properly or were too different from windows to be of help.

When I got under the covers I discovered it was ubuntu driven and that pretty much killed it for me.

I had to bite my tongue using Edge, Teams and OneDrive (all applications I cannot stand!), but was impressed with OnlyOffice. (My first real use of that application.)

I was struck at how much it all looked / felt / smelt like a rebranded linuxFX, and later learned that it was actually WAS a version of LinxFX and Wubuntu apparently. When I did a look around at reviews and such, many were saying it was under copyright infringement and to stay away. (Validating my feelings of it. )

I did more looking around and looked at Zorin, AnduinOS and BlendOS as distro's "closer to windows" for people, but they all had things I really didnt want to subject my people too, and felt (and still feel ) that MX is FAR better. (And with my typically desktop mods most of my people that have tried it have had no problems changing over either.)

Two more thoughts on this type of thing I feel I need to say though
- First, I think while the interface / desktop might "feel like windows" to people... it isnt, and trying to lead in with 'the same feeling" ... I believe is a bad idea. (Or maybe better said - a poor idea). I think most people easily get the difference in look and feel as MX is already awesome in this fashion.

- Second, I tout 'moving away from windows' as a very good thing for many people - and I explain the why of this to them. The LAST thing I want to do is to drag over windows applications!! I would much rather get people learning new things and then walk them across "the bridge" then attempt TO bridge them.

An example: I attempt to move many of my Windows users to use Firefox, Thunderbird, Libreoffice, and other opensource applications. (PDF viewers, image / video / music editors etc etc). And I do this to not only break the reliance of MS / Adobe / Others bound tools, but eliminate the security and support issues of those applications, and to start moving people in the direction of linux.

It has been my experience that this works! Doing the move "all at the same time" can overwhelm many people that just want to get their work done, and moving slower like this helps to transition them for the move.

I dislike now all distribs with a too heavy system init concept, and distrib not enought stables. (so I like the multi-init concepts but not the full rolling concept)
Linus philosophy is to do only one thing per one thing perfectly, but in a simple way as possible.

Arch is not worth the required investment of time

CharlesV wrote: Sat Jun 28, 2025 11:01 am

siamhie wrote: Tue Jun 24, 2025 5:57 pm Has anyone ever tried Winux? https://winuxos.com/

The first time I read about this project (years ago), I figured it would drop into obscurity but they are still around.

I tried it to see how Winux would do for my windows peeps and was pretty horrified of it. First, it has a $35 price tag to get the "professional version" which supposedly added more functionality. Somethings were very close to windows look feel, but there were some major quirks to it in many areas as I recall - as in didnt work properly or were too different from windows to be of help.

When I got under the covers I discovered it was ubuntu driven and that pretty much killed it for me.

I had to bite my tongue using Edge, Teams and OneDrive (all applications I cannot stand!), but was impressed with OnlyOffice. (My first real use of that application.)

I was struck at how much it all looked / felt / smelt like a rebranded linuxFX, and later learned that it was actually WAS a version of LinxFX and Wubuntu apparently. When I did a look around at reviews and such, many were saying it was under copyright infringement and to stay away. (Validating my feelings of it. )

I did more looking around and looked at Zorin, AnduinOS and BlendOS as distro's "closer to windows" for people, but they all had things I really didnt want to subject my people too, and felt (and still feel ) that MX is FAR better. (And with my typically desktop mods most of my people that have tried it have had no problems changing over either.)

Two more thoughts on this type of thing I feel I need to say though
- First, I think while the interface / desktop might "feel like windows" to people... it isnt, and trying to lead in with 'the same feeling" ... I believe is a bad idea. (Or maybe better said - a poor idea). I think most people easily get the difference in look and feel as MX is already awesome in this fashion.

- Second, I tout 'moving away from windows' as a very good thing for many people - and I explain the why of this to them. The LAST thing I want to do is to drag over windows applications!! I would much rather get people learning new things and then walk them across "the bridge" then attempt TO bridge them.

An example: I attempt to move many of my Windows users to use Firefox, Thunderbird, Libreoffice, and other opensource applications. (PDF viewers, image / video / music editors etc etc). And I do this to not only break the reliance of MS / Adobe / Others bound tools, but eliminate the security and support issues of those applications, and to start moving people in the direction of linux.

It has been my experience that this works! Doing the move "all at the same time" can overwhelm many people that just want to get their work done, and moving slower like this helps to transition them for the move.

These LINUX Distros that are Windows lookalikes usually end up in trouble in court and or with people who try them because they give the false perception they work just like Windows by running all Windows programs. Every time I see these kind of LINUX Distros the first thing comes to mind is "Lindows" which we all know how that worked out.

Mauser wrote: Sat Jun 28, 2025 8:13 pm
These LINUX Distros that are Windows lookalikes usually end up in trouble in court and or with people who try them because they give the false perception they work just like Windows by running all Windows programs. Every time I see these kind of LINUX Distros the first thing comes to mind is "Lindows" which we all know how that worked out.

lol. ayup

rod178 wrote: Sat Jun 28, 2025 1:08 pm Arch is not worth the required investment of time

People who like Arch tend to stick with it and don't want to use anything else. For me, it was the difficulty in upgrading it that ruled it out as a serious proposition.

I used to have an old Pentium 3 computer with just 512MB of RAM. Despite that ArchBang (which is basically a thinly respun version of Arch) ran really well with Fvwm-Crystal as the window manager, until I was unwise enough to carry out an across the board system upgrade (all the packages at once), and the whole thing broke.

Colonel Panic wrote: Sun Jun 29, 2025 3:38 am
People who like Arch tend to stick with it and don't want to use anything else. For me, it was the difficulty in upgrading it that ruled it out as a serious proposition.

.... until I was unwise enough to carry out an across the board system upgrade (all the packages at once), and the whole thing broke.

You are supposed to update the whole system (except AUR packages) in Arch whenever you do an upgrade. Partial updates -- where you only update some selected packages -- is what will mess up your Arch install eventually. And combining the system upgrade with rebuilding AUR packages in the same step is also unwise. Rebuild AUR packages (only where necessary; deprecated packages can be removed) as a second step only after updating the native packages.

But before you upgrade your system, best practice is to check the Arch news page for important update announcements. For instance, the latest news item tells you that you need to run 2 commands (listed on the page for you to copy and paste) as a manual step, before upgrading the system.

I'm no techie expert but I can follow instructions and best practices.

I can also like Arch and also like other distros, in particular, MX.

You are supposed to update the whole system (except AUR packages) in Arch whenever you do an upgrade. Partial updates -- where you only update some selected packages -- is what will mess up your Arch install eventually

Thanks for replying, That's what I did (or thought I was doing, although I cant remember the exact command I used, it was several years ago). I take your point about Arch News though.

There are two types of distros that I don't like:

1) those that are exactly the same as their base with no differences worth the effort to create them... except for the wallpaper and the donation button.

2) those that are released once at the beginning of a year, everyone talks about them enthusiastically... but a second release never comes.

I think I tried all the major KDE distro's.... MX was the only one worth staying with.... atm this is even more true with Kubuntu dropping any xorg availability it looks like.

Funny enough I can make do with systemd if I HAVE to (and with KDE6+ that has now become a reality as I predicted it would) but not with wayland, still to broken for what I need. Options good, forced depreciation not good.

Manjaro is absolutely beautiful but also a beautiful disaster. OpenSUSE seems like a clown in a suit trying to pretend to be stable but failing.... and it gets worse not better with each release with the little info that filters through to me. Mint.... cinnamon has stagnated too much for my taste and seems to be trying to emulate mac without letting on to it.... BSD just does nothing for me regardless of the flavour, too stagnated probably. Fedora is just not for me cant really pin down why other than their obsession with dragons probably.

My rule of thumb still stands though, MX for AMD hardware and Mint for Nvidia hardware.

Tried Devuan, but it couldn't even get my Bluetooth on my laptop to activate. Tried MX, worked immediately from the live ISO, so I just installed it. I'd be willing to try anything that's not SystemD, anything I don't have to compile myself, and anything that doesn't spy on me or sends/sells my data upstream. Not sure if there are any other options out there. Keep fighting MX!

dreamer wrote: Wed Jun 25, 2025 6:42 am If someone wonders why Synaptic is special, it's because it's more than a package manager or software store. It gives the user a comprehensive overview of apt status and package relationships.
I have used this app since 2008 so I know where to find the info I want.

If ever any package just refuses to do what I want... synaptic might actually fix the problem. It's the swiss army knife of apt.

rambo919 wrote: Wed Jul 02, 2025 2:19 pm

dreamer wrote: Wed Jun 25, 2025 6:42 am If someone wonders why Synaptic is special, it's because it's more than a package manager or software store. It gives the user a comprehensive overview of apt status and package relationships.
I have used this app since 2008 so I know where to find the info I want.

If ever any package just refuses to do what I want... synaptic might actually fix the problem. It's the swiss army knife of apt.

I concur with your statement. What I like about Synaptic how it has the options of a basic uninstall and it has a complete uninstall removing everything of the offending program if such program is not running 100% Tip Top or what ever by eliminating the issue or issues.