MX Linux Forum

I'll offer a few points:

1. The Deodo reviewer is confused. Why?

He is trying to review MX Linux from 3 different perspectives:
A newbie - (which he is not)
A techie - (comparing his experience older MX versions )
A designer - with very subjective preferences.

NEWBIE:
If you want to know what a newbie thinks, ask a newbie. Ask me and the many others who have identified themselves as new posters to MX Linux on the forum.
You'll get a completely different response. He doesn't represent my views (nor should he). He is tainted by his bias of 'thinking to know what new users want'.

When I installed MX Linux I was looking for 1/: Stability, 2/: helpful forum for assistance 3/: some customization (but not much).

I just want a system that works and is stable. I remember an MX Linux poster (an older person I think) mentioned this well when he said 'most users don't want something they have to constantly deal with the technical". He's right. If you're targeting the new users, then this should be MX's focus.

other examples:
On Thunar:
'You get single-click in Thunar by default, and this can be confusing and annoying". (to whom?? to a newbie? I am a new user and accept this as a feature, something to learn, pretty simple.')

_> it simply isn't flexible enough for everyday use. You can't reorder the sidebar, and those Devices at the very top are useless." (again, to whom? I didn't want to re-order the sidebar and the device names help me when a USB is plugged in.)

'more accessible to people outside the circle of diehard penguin-loving geeks' (which he was using it as in the past)
but then says: " some polish that can be done here, as we don't want newbs failing themselves with a nerdy Web interface."

So he is saying: MX has better clean up some points or there is danger for newbies. This can't be further from my experience.
I enjoy the interface but more importantly if I can't figure something out - I have the resource of the forum to help. (see my points above).


Techie:
Then there are some hard-wired technical people on this board who want to get down to the kernel with changes. If you're targeting the deep level techie, then this should be your focus.

From a technie perspective he is contradictory and mentions ridiculous points without recognizing the trade-off:

First: '550 MB of RAM, which is 150 MB more than MX-18'
Then: 'I do like MX Linux, and it is improving in many aspects.'

More features and improvements required more MB. It is a circular statement ' add more features (good) but the size has increased (bad), yet they are interdependent.


Designer:
I almost laughed when he said: " the device serial in some cases, which feels ugly." Ugly to whom? to a new user? to a former mac user? to a graphic designer?
Certainly not to me. This is the most subjective area which 10 different people will have 12 different opinions.

If you're taregting complete aesthetics, this will require focus on design.

Here is the problem:
Reading the over-blown reaction to the review, the problem is MX is reacting, versus acting. This is exemplified by BitJam's own words;

[i....]our very small dev team is, in some ways, struggling to keep up with all the new input from our greatly expanded user base. In addition, there could be a psychological factor that more perfection and polish is expected from us without being overwhelmed by user input. ....[/i]

Any organization cannot be all things to all people. That means every feature that every single person wants does NOT have to be considered as each person has finite resources, time, energy, opportunities, etc.

If you try this approach of everything, you'll be scattered and running from one fire to the next trying to appease everyone. That is what BitJam is saying.

By association, if you read AntiX, it's focus is on one thing: being a light distro requiring low resources. (at least that was my take). Mr. Dolphin Oracle excludes features based on this, not adding every item that every user asks for because he knows his vision for AntiX.

I'm not saying MX Linux doesn't, but I believe a bit more focus is required on what the developers want MX Linux to be.
Reading BitJam's point then, I believe MX Linux has to ask themselves 'who and what is the priority right now'?

So when someone says it doesn't have this feature or that, you can say ' that's not our focus".
example: Elementary mimics a mac user's experience, and the focus is on a design experience.


My Point:
Perhaps the developers can have a powwow and determine what the priorities are and for whom.
Once that is finalized, one-off reviews that are inconsistent and subjective will not drive the next decision phase - that should come from within.

Again, I appreciate the stability of MX Linux and the developers' time and effort.
However, developers that are overwhelmed and racing to catch up to please everyone is not sustainable.

One thing Dedeo's review might have caused is a pause to evaluate what's important, and that's not a bad thing.

Thanks for your efforts.

p.s.
.... and I would be remiss if I didn't point out the rich irony of his seeking to make money from reviews from 'free and open software', from which thousands of hours of volunteer time are committed.

https://www.dedoimedo.com/advertise-new.html

Says more about the person that any review ever could.

man that is very nice!!!!

And very wrong:

--Mr Dolphin Oracle is not the lead developer of antiX, that would be anticapitalista
--the MX Devs are not confused about concept and audience, still following founding principles laid down in 2014
--the overreactions in this thread are by users, not developers

Yeri wrote: Fri Dec 06, 2019 3:14 pm Here is the problem:
Reading the over-blown reaction to the review, the problem is MX is reacting, versus acting. This is exemplified by BitJam's own words;

[i....]our very small dev team is, in some ways, struggling to keep up with all the new input from our greatly expanded user base. In addition, there could be a psychological factor that more perfection and polish is expected from us without being overwhelmed by user input. ....[/i]

Any organization cannot be all things to all people. That means every feature that every single person wants does NOT have to be considered as each person has finite resources, time, energy, opportunities, etc.

If you try this approach of everything, you'll be scattered and running from one fire to the next trying to appease everyone. That is what BitJam is saying.

No, I'm saying we are a small dev team, and we (or some of us) are struggling to keep up with all of the new input and higher expectations due to our new-found success. The changes I was discussing will probably affect me more than most of the other developers. We are like a gangly teenager who has had a sudden growth spurt. We have a history of quickly responding to input from users and reviewers. IMO this quick response to complaints is one of our great strengths. I hope we can keep it up despite the enlarged user-base.

The unfriendliness that erupted in this thread is a good example of gangly growth. We've been known for having kind, friendly, useful forums. Eadwine Rose suggests we ask ourselves before posting: is it KNIT?

Is it Kind?
Is it Necessary?
Is it Informative?
Is it True?

If the ratio of devs to users in the forums is dropping then we may need to make some extra effort to keep the forums as friendly as they've been in the past. This would not be a change in focus but rather a response to maintain our focus in changing circumstances. I completely agree with Jerry, we are certainly not trying to be all things to all people. Our focus has not changed even though our challenge has. Despite the addition of some fantastic devs over the past few years, our ratio of devs to users is falling. This is the new challenge we face.

Hi
I re-read my post. Don't see anything 'unkind', if the reference by Bitjam was that.
It was fact-based and using the reviewer's own words. Not sure if there is an issue with calling out inconsistencies. Debate is healthy.
I found his review muddled and without focus, that opinion is as valid (and possibly erroneous) as his I suppose.

Jerry3904 wrote: Fri Dec 06, 2019 4:08 pm -the MX Devs are not confused about concept and audience, still following founding principles laid down in 2014
-

I'd be interested to know what the precise mission is of MX Linux if you have it. As a newbie you've done a wonderful job selling the vision to me, intended or not. As I said, stability and assistance were key. I could recommend MX Linux to anyone I know.

Jerry3904 wrote: Fri Dec 06, 2019 4:08 pm the overreactions in this thread are by users, not developers
-

Actually, this is now page 7 from one small MX review, reactions from 3 developer's and many users. I never heard of this guy before someone posted his review link, so in the act of publishing it in a forum rather than on the testimonial page is asking for a reaction from the many many users who really like MX Linux.

I just don't get why this guy's review receives so much attention when it's not even a qualified and new users aren't ever contacted. Just doesn't make sense.
That being said, I'd be happy to help out with creating some feedback effort to soliciting options from new users to pass them to the development team.

BitJam wrote: Fri Dec 06, 2019 5:01 pm IMO this quick response to complaints is one of our great strengths.

Didn't mean to misinterpret your words BitJam. No doubt you are able to respond quickly, my point is priorities. The way you phrased it sounded like MX is trying to meet the demand of every nitpicker (of which each one of us is at some point), however, it should not be at the expense of what MX stands for or the focus is on.

Anyway, didn't mean to stir the hive but if something should be called out it should raised.
Thanks again.

Jerry3904 wrote: Fri Dec 06, 2019 4:08 pm And very wrong:
-........ is not the lead developer of antiX, that would be anticapitalista

Never heard of this person, it always Mr. Dolphin Oracle I see on the vides. But thank him as well. AntiX is a great distribution.

Yeri wrote: Fri Dec 06, 2019 5:42 pmI re-read my post. Don't see anything 'unkind', if the reference by Bitjam was that.

I'm sorry I was so unclear that I caused you to re-read your post. I didn't mean to imply your post I replied to was unkind. Again, I meant what I said. I see the unkindness displayed in this thread as an example of our growing pains.

BTW: not only is anticapitalista the lead developer of antiX Linux, he was also the original lead developer of MX Linux. IIRC we had recently completed the automated build system for antiX called Build-iso. The lead Mepis dev had resigned leaving behind a very active and friendly developer community. IIRC, MX Linux was the brainchild of Jerry but anticapitalista stepped up and used the antiX build system and antiX live system to create MX Linux along with all the great devs from Mepis.

Dolphin_oracle was doing antiX videos before MX Linux existed. I believe I had suggested someone start doing videos but I don't know if dolphin even saw that suggestion. Perhaps great minds were thinking alike. It's unusual to have a lead dev also do instructional YouTube videos but I guess we are all a bit unusual here. You don't have to be unusual to work here, but it helps. This is really our core strength. We have a fairly (or extremely) small group of very talented and hard working devs who, for the most part, get along and work well together without a lot of bureaucracy. It's quite an amazing thing. Like an old Mickey Rooney, Judy Garland movie about people banding together to create an amateur backyard musical.