MX Linux Forum

And he didn't even change his hdd (if I'm correct).

Thanks Bluesguy.
You can tell Dedo that we appreciate his appreciation .

Good to see he's waking up a bit from his Ubuntu (and flavors) obsession.

Wish we could see more of his latest reviews listed here:-

DW has the RSS feed so I imagine it will show up one of these days:

https://mxlinux.org/feed/?post_type=reviews

Please move this post to its own thread, since it doesn't fit here and any answer(s) will just get lost.

TIA

The title of this thread "More from Dedo" will never be consulted by users looking for answers to your last question: "how long does a Stable MX Distro last?"

BTW: have you consulted the Users Manual for a "straight-forward answer"? Section 1.4, "Support":

What kind of support is available for MX Linux? The answer to this question depends on the type of support you mean:
• User-based problems. A raft of support mechanisms exists for MX Linux, from documents and videos to forums and search engines. See the Community Support page for details.
• Hardware. Hardware is supported in the kernel, where continuous development goes on. Very new hardware may not yet be supported, and very old hardware, though still supported, may no longer be sufficient for the demands of the desktop and applications.
• Desktop. Xfce4 is a mature desktop that remains under development. The version shipped with MX Linux is considered stable; important updates will be applied as they become available.
• Applications. Applications continue to be developed after the release of any version of MX Linux, meaning that the shipped versions will get older as time passes. This problem is addressed through a combination of sources: Debian (including Debian Backports), individual Developers including MX Devs, and the Community Packaging Team, which accepts users’ upgrade requests as much as possible.
• Security. Security updates from Debian will cover MX Linux users well into the foreseeable future.

If I what I explained about users trying to find an answer to the question of long-term support didn't make sense to you...then I don't care where you put the question.

At the moment, MX Linux does not have an LTS version. As a small group of devs and supporters, we provide support past the time that the base Debian release is supported.

I suppose there is a commercial opportunity for some group to offer paid support like Redhat, Canonical, SuSE, etc. To my knowledge that doesn't exist currently.

IMHO, MX is not really aimed at Corporate Users who desire contracts, insurance, 24/7 on-call service.

Calm down a bit and take a deep breath.

This question has been asked and answered before, though perhaps not completely. And probably does need stating somewhere else in big letters. To be pointed to when asked again.

Many are using Debian who do not, to my knowledge, offer an LTS version, though they do provide LTS kernels, backports and security updates which we also pass on.

@Bluesguy,

I'm neither dev nor mod, my statements are not official --just an MX user since the first week of the first release.

The one thing that's really missing is a guaranteed LTS edition for me to be able to commit it to production

Bluesguy wrote: Sun Apr 14, 2019 6:31 pm An unofficial response about MX regarding LTS (abridged from Richard's comments) ...

At the moment, MX Linux does not have an LTS version ... we provide support past the time that the base Debian release is supported ... Debian do not ... offer an LTS version, though they do provide LTS kernels, backports and security updates which we also pass on.

Good to know, but unlike Dedoimedo, I like LTS versions for my spare computers, the older ones that I don't use as often. For my main/primary machine, whatever you wanna call it, I like to get the newer release when it comes out.

Bluesguy wrote: Mon Apr 15, 2019 9:26 pm

MX is an ESR (Extended Support Release) Distro based on Debian Stable with 3 years of Debian standard version-support plus 2 more years of Debian LTS. Add to this MX's extended support for its own packages, and you have an OS that can easily accommodate users needing long-term productivity features.

I kinda like it as it sets MX apart from Rolling or LTS Distros and all the rest ... a great "branding" if you will. Whaddya think folks? If I get a green-light i will send this little nut-shell to Dedo as my spin on his (and others) concern(s).

I don't think that's helpful. The noise adds to the confusion. It's OK if you believe those things about ESR and LTS, but at its core those comments about ESR and five years are misleading.

Bluesguy wrote: Mon Apr 15, 2019 10:22 am One of my initial questions regarding MX's version(s) longevity took into account my understanding of Debian's position regarding LTS:
https://wiki.debian.org/LTS

Debian do not have an "LTS release" at all.

Debian have a stable release, for which their official Security Team provide support until the next stable release, any security-related updates after that are provided by the LTS team.

Non-security-related updates do occasionally happen in the stable release but they are rare (except for Firefox & Chromium, which are special cases).

As MX Linux is based on the stable release then that will also receive security-related updates from Debian's Security Team until the next Debian stable version is out, at which point their security-related updates will come from the volunteers on the LTS team.

Disclaimer: I have nothing to do with MX development.

An example might suffice - MX-15, released 24 Dec 2015, is based on Debian jessie and is still receiving updates from both Debian (LTS) and MX repos.

To add to my example.

Debian LTS team for jessie offers support from 17th June 2018 to June 30, 2020.
After that date, they might just shut own the repo, or they might continue it. No-one really knows.
MX team offers support for MX-15 jessie to June 30, 2020 at least.
The MX package team may continue to add updates after this date, I don't know.

The definition of "support" will change after EOL though.

1. Debian repo packages - after the Debian LTS team closes shop, no more patches/updates will come from them.

2. but some packages like Firefox might still be rebuilt by MX team for a short time after the EOL date of the Debian release. Example: Mepis12/MX14 is based on Debian Wheezy, and EOL was on 31 May 2018. See https://www.debian.org/News/2018/20180601

But MX's packaging team still built Firefox 62.0.2 for MX14 on 25 Sep 2018.

viewtopic.php?p=461821#p461821

3. However, apart from a few such packages still receiving short-lived additional updates, I think you will find that "support" after Debian EOL just means receiving continued help and problem-solving suggestions on the forum. It won't be a case of software updates/patches. And at some point, the forum members will probably suggest that you install a newer MX release.

MX team offers support for MX-15 jessie to June 30, 2020 at least.
The MX package team may continue to add updates after this date, I don't know.

MX-15 was released in 2015, in the meantime we released MX-16, MX-16.1, MX-17, MX-17.1, MX-18, MX-18.1, MX-18.2. It's going to be 5 years next year, I doubt there's any interest to provide any updates to MX-15 past that date especially if Debian stops supporting Jessie.

We try to make installing as fast and easy to do, you can preserve /home, installation takes 5-10 min. on a SSD. If after 5 years you cannot set aside 5-10 minutes to do an installation and do an apt-get install for the rest of packages you want... too bad. You can still use it, but you won't receive updates.

asqwerth wrote: Tue Apr 16, 2019 8:30 am And at some point, the forum members will probably suggest that you install a newer MX release.

And as long as it doesn't require to buy new hardware, I think it's the least worst solution

cyrilus31 wrote: Tue Apr 16, 2019 9:07 am

asqwerth wrote: Tue Apr 16, 2019 8:30 am And at some point, the forum members will probably suggest that you install a newer MX release.

And as long as it doesn't require to buy new hardware, I think it's the least worst solution

I think latest MX (even the 64bit) runs on hardware people trashed 3 years ago...

Adrian wrote: Tue Apr 16, 2019 9:17 am

cyrilus31 wrote: Tue Apr 16, 2019 9:07 am

asqwerth wrote: Tue Apr 16, 2019 8:30 am And at some point, the forum members will probably suggest that you install a newer MX release.

And as long as it doesn't require to buy new hardware, I think it's the least worst solution

I think latest MX (even the 64bit) runs or hardware people trashed 3 years ago...

My MX 64 bits runs on a single core with 3 gig of RAM that makes Windows 10 crawl (which came pre installed when I got this machine some 6 months ago). The only other distro I tested on this rig was antiX Live usb , that made it even a tiny bit faster.... 3 years ago my computer would already be an "antique" (get it? antiX ) !

P.

Adrian wrote: Tue Apr 16, 2019 9:17 am if after 5 years you cannot set aside 5-10 minutes to do an installation and do an apt-get install for the rest of packages you want... too bad

This says it all. (and I run MX on 16 years old - although I prefer using antiX on this one - and 12 years old laptops)

asqwerth wrote: Tue Apr 16, 2019 8:30 am The definition of "support" will change after EOL though.

1. Debian repo packages - after the Debian LTS team closes shop, no more patches/updates will come from them.

2. but some packages like Firefox might still be rebuilt by MX team for a short time after the EOL date of the Debian release. Example: Mepis12/MX14 is based on Debian Wheezy, and EOL was on 31 May 2018. See https://www.debian.org/News/2018/20180601

But MX's packaging team still built Firefox 62.0.2 for MX14 on 25 Sep 2018.

viewtopic.php?p=461821#p461821

3. However, apart from a few such packages still receiving short-lived additional updates, I think you will find that "support" after Debian EOL just means receiving continued help and problem-solving suggestions on the forum. It won't be a case of software updates/patches. And at some point, the forum members will probably suggest that you install a newer MX release.

Something I've been wondering lately is how hard is it to dist-upgrade MX to the next release? I can imagine some things might need fixing, but I've never tried it and and wonder if it would seriously break the OS.

Something I've been wondering lately is how hard is it to dist-upgrade MX to the next release? I can imagine some things might need fixing, but I've never tried it and and wonder if it would seriously break the OS.

Some have done this and there are posts on the Forum with their experiences. They may chime in. But the way to find out is to try it yourself. This is in no way a recommendation.

I suggest that the best practice is to stay up-to-date with MX's update manager, and, if one's hardware supports it (which is likely and easily tested with a live usb), reinstall, if necessary or strongly recommended, with MX's major releases (when the base changes, more or less every two years), or find yourself become slowly left behind and increasingly vulnerable as the active developer community looses interest, over time, with older versions.

richb wrote: Tue Apr 16, 2019 12:30 pm
Some have done this and there are posts on the Forum with their experiences. They may chime in. But the way to find out is to try it yourself. This is in no way a recommendation.

Yeah, I'm just thinking for down the road when the next MX release based on Buster comes out. I'll probably do a fresh install, but might be interesting to try an upgrade then and see what happens :)

Thanks Bluesguy for hanging on to this topic.
I think it is an important point; however, after reading through the threads it seems to me, that Dedoimedo would like to have his cake and eat it with ice cream.
He loves the distro created by this small group of dedicated devs, mods and testers
--none of whom get paid--
and in order that he feel safe for his own use
they should declare for how many years
it will be supported, LTS.

I believe the declaration you have put together
is honest and foreseeable. More than that
is conjecture.

Adrian wrote: Tue Apr 16, 2019 9:17 am

cyrilus31 wrote: Tue Apr 16, 2019 9:07 am

asqwerth wrote: Tue Apr 16, 2019 8:30 am And at some point, the forum members will probably suggest that you install a newer MX release.

And as long as it doesn't require to buy new hardware, I think it's the least worst solution

I think latest MX (even the 64bit) runs on hardware people trashed 3 years ago...

I just installed MX-18.2 on a ten year old, very low-end netbook (that I was close to throwing in the garbage) yesterday afternoon. Unlike other distros I've encountered MX doesn't seem to drop support for older hardware in upgrades/updates. (Even Linux Lite no longer offers a 32-bit version, for example. Another distro I was using dropped the driver for my onboard GPU on a computer I had at the time from its nvidia drivers package (or perhaps that was a decision made by nvidia and passed along by the distro) and the solution offered to me was to go buy a newer video card.) The only "go buy a new..." advice I've seen in the MX forums related to USB sticks that were suspected of being bad.

Richard wrote: Tue Apr 16, 2019 5:25 pm Thanks Bluesguy for hanging on to this topic.
I think it is an important point; however, after reading through the threads it seems to me, that Dedoimedo would like to have his cake and eat it with ice cream.
He loves the distro created by this small group of dedicated devs, mods and testers
--none of whom get paid--
and in order that he feel safe for his own use
they should declare for how many years
it will be supported, LTS.

I believe the declaration you have put together
is honest and foreseeable. More than that
is conjecture.

Why not just tell Dedo that

MX is based on Debian's stable branch, which follows this LTS schedule. Additional support is provided by MX's development and packaging teams of volunteers for at least the same period of time as Debian, and often longer, making MX Linux a good choice for those concerned about long-term stability and security.

I think what he's concerned about may be that MX's release history has been a major release about once a year and that he'd have to do an annual full reinstallation with all the backing up and restoring of data and reinstalling apps that would entail, and he didn't see anything on the website that told him specifically how many years his installation would be good for before he had to do it again.

I agree, but this bugs me a bit.

and often longer

Even that was true in the past I don't like to over-promise things.

Fellow users, I suggest that we refrain from making claims about the longevity about any particular distro installation where such claims are not officially made by the developers themselves. Without sufficient disclaimers, what we write here may possibly be read by others as claims, or even promises. And that poor Debian wiki LTS page seems terribly misleading, though the FAQ is trying to convey that it's not official support. Based on past performance, a Debian stable release remains stable for about two years. Once the old Debian stable base passes into LTS support, YMMV (Your Mileage May Vary). Enterprise-class and LTS distros get mighty stale in their waning years and that's not what most desktop users are looking for.

Debian has a good track record. MX has a good track record. We should respect the developers' desire to not over-promise.

Adrian wrote: Tue Apr 16, 2019 10:09 pm I agree, but this bugs me a bit.

and often longer

Even that was true in the past I don't like to over-promise things.

OK, strike that bit.

MX is based on Debian's stable branch, which follows this LTS schedule. Additional support is provided by MX's development and packaging teams of volunteers for at least the same period of time as Debian, making MX Linux a good choice for those concerned about long-term stability and security.

@Bluesguy, Adrian who is a developer just said he does not like to over-promise and does not like the "and often longer" bit.

So that passage you quoted above cannot be said to "sound just right".

The thing is, Dedo is not a newbie. He should know the support life of a Debian Stable release. Therefore distros who use Debian stable repos should at least have security support on packages from said repos for the duration of Debian's own LTS Team's support, even if the distro's devs did nothing else.

What he has actually stated in more detail in the past** is that he is worried that promising distros run by a small team of (or single) developer(s) might just close shop and stop development on their project (happened with Mepis, crunchbang, SolusOS the original, Fuduntu, Apricity, Korora). That would leave him in the lurch and is one reason he has been using Ubuntu and CentOS for some of his production machines.

He regularly reviews Fedora and OpenSUSE as well and I suspect he keeps in touch with them because they are backed by large organisations.

So it seems to me that his concern has always been that one day a particular distro he likes will not be there anymore. That particular concern cannot be fully dispelled by MX Devs no matter what. It's not backed by any organisation. All it has is the track record and history of the Mepis community and antiX. But it's not something anyone should over-promise on.

[ADDED]
** read his earlier reviews of MX15 or MX16, or find his older reviews for so-called "indie" distros with a small team or single dev. He quite often ended his review by stating his concern about the distro's longevity.

There are no guarantees that even Debian, CentOS, Arch, *buntu or Slackware won't go belly-up at any time. Same for, I suppose, Microsoft or Apple. Companies do go bankrupt, or get bought out, or are destroyed by vulture capitalists. Volunteer devs of Linux distros do get burned out sometimes, get their dream-come-true day job and don't have time to support their distro anymore, or decide to move to Bali and join a Buddhist monastery. Whatever. Life is uncertain, which is why you should always eat dessert first.

It's the one-person distros like PCLOS that kind of worry me. What if something happened to Texstar, God forbid? He's pretty much the lone developer, package manager and support lead for that distro. People might end up PCLOSless. I'm not too worried that MX is going away within my lifetime, and I'm not even that concerned that it will change in a direction I can't live with (dropping 32-bit system support, changing to systemd init, scrapping Xfce in favor of Unity or whatever that awful Ubuntu touchscreen-centric DE was called, dropping support for computers with <Core i5 CPUs. Ain't happening.) Some devs may go, new faces may come to replace them, but the fact that y'all operate as teams is heartening.

Maybe MX needs a corporate sponsor? I suggest Volkswagen: then you can promise people the moon and just fudge the numbers to make it look as though you're meeting your goals.

MX and its folks aren't going anywhere. They stuck together even after SimplyMEPIS died. How many groups do that? Then they started their own distro built with help from AntiX. This is not a "fly by night" group :)

JayM wrote: Wed Apr 17, 2019 2:36 am ...
It's the one-person distros like PCLOS that kind of worry me. What if something happened to Texstar, God forbid? He's pretty much the lone developer, package manager and support lead for that distro. People might end up PCLOSless.
...

Woah...I guess you haven't kept up with the PCLOS news, then.
My personal prediction is that their community will step up and continue the distro.

Even Crunchbang survives under a new name and different devs, but it had such a faithful and loyal following it just couldn't be allowed to disappear. Some distros are like that: Immortal no matter what because a "fan base" will do all kinds of stuff to keep a great thing going.

Artim wrote: Wed Apr 17, 2019 6:44 pm Even Crunchbang survives under a new name and different devs

Not really, the #! repositories died some time ago and both BunsenLabs and #!++ use their own repositories.

Users of #! were always advised to perform a fresh install at the BL forums and BL has moved on quite a bit compared to #!, or at least it had when I was still involved.

Stevo wrote: Wed Apr 17, 2019 3:37 pm

JayM wrote: Wed Apr 17, 2019 2:36 am ...
It's the one-person distros like PCLOS that kind of worry me. What if something happened to Texstar, God forbid? He's pretty much the lone developer, package manager and support lead for that distro. People might end up PCLOSless.
...

Woah...I guess you haven't kept up with the PCLOS news, then.
My personal prediction is that their community will step up and continue the distro.

No, I haven't been.
https://pclosmag.com/html/Issues/201807/page01.html
I'll miss him even though I'm not using that distro any more. I remember one time where I had some issues after a large update and I posted that the update broke my computer. He replied something like, "No, I think your computer broke my update!" I had to laugh out loud at that. (Edit: I found the very topic and his reply: https://www.pclinuxos.com/forum/index.p ... 09057.html)

Per the article I cited he's hand-picked a team of successors, so hopefully they'll continue to maintain and improve PCLOS. It's still among my favorite distros and I'd probably still be using it today if it supported full-disk encryption on installation better: never being able to make that work is what prompted me to start distro-hopping again after several years with PCLOS and ended up with me choosing Mint as the least-bad alternative (I wish I'd discovered MX at that time though.)

Since this is solved can this thread be put to rest and concentrate on other things?