Booting MX-19 with runit

[andyprough]

I wish a distro "systemd free", but still simple to install (sorry, Gentoo!) and configure (sorry, Void!...) and with a good portfolio of applications!

You're talking about antiX - completely systemd free. On MX we still have systemd, we just have the option to not enable it at boot time which is the default.

[aldQueiroz]

I wish a distro "systemd free", but still simple to install (sorry, Gentoo!) and configure (sorry, Void!...) and with a good portfolio of applications!

You're talking about antiX - completely systemd free. On MX we still have systemd, we just have the option to not enable it at boot time which is the default.

I know, andyprough. And I do think it is a clever approach: having systemd installed (then solving the troubles about systemd dependency of a lot of applications!) but disabled by default! And if people prefer to use it, it's up to them! I prefer not!!

[fehlix]

In MX Linux we can get a later version of it using flatpack (from default flathub repository),

In MX Linux you can get latest LibreOffice version (currently 7.0.1) from MX Package Installer Populare Apps:
LO7-POP-APPS.png
EDIT: precised the comment to be applicable in MX Linux

That was a recent update of LibreOffice package at MX Linux, wasn't it? The last time I saw it, the version available from Backports repo was still 6.4.5 (while the version from flatpack was 7.0.3; but the version available there now is 7.0.1-2, I don't know why...)

Within MX Package Installer (MXPI) -> Populare Apps, we have a "special" LibreOffice installer for both the stable buster version and the buster backports version. The idea was, you can switch between those versions back and forth. Whatever version becomes available within buster-backports shall be installable with this "special" MXPI-PopApps installer. In addttiion the language packs for LO shall also be available for the installed version.
Note:
We do also have a MX-testrepp version of latest LibreOffice. As this can become difficult to sort all dependency, it's recommended to install/keep first LO-buster-stable version before upgrade to MX-testrepo latest version.

[asqwerth]

I think you should be able to install flatpaks in antiX. It's just that you'll have to install and enable the relevant flatpak programs and repos, and then search for and install the flatpak apps manually without the help of any gui tools.

[aldQueiroz]

I think you should be able to install flatpaks in antiX. It's just that you'll have to install and enable the relevant flatpak programs and repos, and then search for and install the flatpak apps manually without the help of any gui tools.

Thank you, asqwerth! The more I hear from you all, the more excited, anxious to use antiX I get!!

[asqwerth]

Just be aware that:

1. flatpak apps and their corresponding runtime (to run in their own enclosed environment) are huge. 1 runtime can take 1 GB. If you update a flatpak app and the runtime has also been updated, you'll add an additional 1+ GB of disk usage, and the old runtime will remain on your system until you manually delete it (if you're not using it for any other flatpak app)

2. flatpak apps come from third party sources so the quality of their creation will vary. Some flatpak apps might work better than others.

[oops]

... Yes runit is fast and light, I have tried the antix19 standard buster x64 version, added lightdm, xfce, and some other apps ... into a virtualBox VM ... and tried to create a new iso via a snapshot (antixcc.sh) successfully generated ... but after, impossible to boot via this(these) snapshot (lightdm or slim or even a grub single mode I do not have the console) into virtualBox, so is this behavior is normal with the runit versions (or maybe a workaroud exists) ?

[andyprough]

... Yes runit is fast and light, I have tried the antix19 standard buster x64 version, added lightdm, xfce, and some other apps ... into a virtualBox VM ... and tried to create a new iso via a snapshot (antixcc.sh) successfully generated ... but after, impossible to boot via this(these) snapshot (lightdm or slim or even a grub single mode I do not have the console) into virtualBox, so is this behavior is normal with the runit versions (or maybe a workaroud exists) ?

I thought we were supposed to remaster a live usb after making our changes to it, not try to take a snapshot from virtualbox. Do snapshots from virtualbox boot at all?

[asqwerth]

... Yes runit is fast and light, I have tried the antix19 standard buster x64 version, added lightdm, xfce, and some other apps ... into a virtualBox VM ... and tried to create a new iso via a snapshot (antixcc.sh) successfully generated ... but after, impossible to boot via this(these) snapshot (lightdm or slim or even a grub single mode I do not have the console) into virtualBox, so is this behavior is normal with the runit versions (or maybe a workaroud exists) ?

I thought we were supposed to remaster a live usb after making our changes to it, not try to take a snapshot from virtualbox. Do snapshots from virtualbox boot at all?

They should, but I don't know about runit versions.

Few years ago, I set up a VM install of antiX16 (on my desktop PC), installed MATE, customised it the way I wanted, then made a snapshot iso. I made a live USB from within the VM which I then used to install onto my old laptop.

[oops]

...
They should, but I don't know about runit versions.

Few years ago, I set up a VM install of antiX16 (on my desktop PC), installed MATE, customised it the way I wanted, then made a snapshot iso. I made a live USB from within the VM which I then used to install onto my old laptop.

Yes, I do this way usually for my old eepc (worked like a charm for antiX19 classic and MX19).