There seemed to be quite a few problems developing version 19 due to Debian going systemd and not exactly accomodating init freedom. One would see some users considering alternatives like Artix or Salix -excellent choices but rather different distros.
Another alternative might be the Russian ALT Linux. This was originally a Mandrake clone, now a modern rock stable distro developed by a large organization. Rpm based of course but uses APT/synaptic. Well localized. Main distro now systemd but as taken a different approach to init freedom, there are Starter kits running SysV and care has been taken to keep all important packages running with these two init systems. Network manager etc etc run no problem. So absolutely no issue running SysV at least.
If MX / antiX would be forced to change base
Re: If MX / antiX would be forced to change base
are you aware of devuan?
Re: If MX / antiX would be forced to change base
We have internal Alpha builds on Bullseye, we think it's going to work great, we (or at least I) never considered switching base.
Re: If MX / antiX would be forced to change base
No, as I recall the main problem was that Debian used to support systemd-shim but dropped that support after Stretch, which MX-18 was based on. They stopped supporting a lot of packages that were no longer being maintained by the apps' devs. Or perhaps it wasn't compatible with Buster, I can't remember. Anyway, the MX devs forked systemd-shim's source and modified it to work in Buster (and also Bullseye.) Another minor problem was that (I think) Debian stopped requiring developers to include SysV init scripts in their .deb packages, so those packages without said scripts which need to talk to the init system have to be repackaged for MX with the SysV script included.
Please read the Forum Rules, How To Ask For Help, How to Break Your System and Don't Break Debian. Always include your full Quick System Info (QSI) with each and every new help request.
Re: If MX / antiX would be forced to change base
Yes, of course, have used it and have beowulf on a machine I don't use much
But that is less of an alternative and the problems more visible - more stuff missing. Great for server admins that cannot go with systemd, like Artix. (have not tried last/upcoming version)Re: If MX / antiX would be forced to change base
Great answers here. I did follow this a bit at the time. First version of 19 was a bit of a disappointment to me - mx18 was one of those releases that turned into the near perfect distro. Mx 18 is blisteringly fast on old machines - I use it still on an old 32 bit netbook, typing on that now. Issues were as much to do with the debian base as anything else. Used Artix for a while, also awesome but rolling is not for me as primary system. I don't know that much about the technical solutions ALT came up with, just interesting to see it solved so painlessly. Also the Russian software scene is interesting now that Russia has banned Windows in administration/public organizations and also companies/business.JayM wrote: ↑Sat May 01, 2021 12:15 amNo, as I recall the main problem was that Debian used to support systemd-shim but dropped that support after Stretch, which MX-18 was based on. They stopped supporting a lot of packages that were no longer being maintained by the apps' devs. Or perhaps it wasn't compatible with Buster, I can't remember. Anyway, the MX devs forked systemd-shim's source and modified it to work in Buster (and also Bullseye.) Another minor problem was that (I think) Debian stopped requiring developers to include SysV init scripts in their .deb packages, so those packages without said scripts which need to talk to the init system have to be repackaged for MX with the SysV script included.
Re: If MX / antiX would be forced to change base
I also have nostalgia for MX-18, but the world moves incessantly forward and to not move forward with it is to be left behind in an insecure, unsupported, and possibly unstable past. In my opinion, MX-19 has mainly seemed less polished because of upstream changes with XFCE have made it seem a little less polished. Changes to XFCE recently completed have made in seem better polished and MX will benefit from the continuous improvement. As a user, I see the stable base with updated software, XFCE on the desktop, and MX tools to be MX-Linux's core competencies. The idea of following the upstream Debian base too closely makes me cringe a little. If the past is a good model for the future, the Debian base always improves with age. Let the other guys suffer the bugs and usability issues. MX-Linux has done well on this in the past balancing most users' desire to have "shiny new things" and the need to keep a stable, reliable, supportable base. I plan to stick around.
-
FraterLinux
- Posts: 272
- Joined: Sun Jun 07, 2020 10:45 am
Re: If MX / antiX would be forced to change base
If the number of packages is greatly increased "...have to be repackaged for MX with the SysV script included..." isn't it better to change the base to Devuan to MX-Systemd-free ???JayM wrote: ↑Sat May 01, 2021 12:15 amNo, as I recall the main problem was that Debian used to support systemd-shim but dropped that support after Stretch, which MX-18 was based on. They stopped supporting a lot of packages that were no longer being maintained by the apps' devs. Or perhaps it wasn't compatible with Buster, I can't remember. Anyway, the MX devs forked systemd-shim's source and modified it to work in Buster (and also Bullseye.) Another minor problem was that (I think) Debian stopped requiring developers to include SysV init scripts in their .deb packages, so those packages without said scripts which need to talk to the init system have to be repackaged for MX with the SysV script included.