MX Linux Forum

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yJzr0qBQ_N0

A heads-up to mods here at the forum, along with other daily contributors to development and maintenance, would be good.

I think there are a few things a little off, but it is a nice, short shout out.

It is a pity he didnt mention the *fantastic* support the devs provide here - I think one of the things that seriously set this distro to the top for me was their integral help in the forum, their invaluable feedback on many many topics, and their *amazing* quick response to requests and mods.

This is a great place, a great distro and I am very happy to be able to participate and help here.

It should be noted that MX was originally conceived for use with low powered netbooks that were reaching Windows EOL and wouldn't run with newer MS versions. Hence the lightweight antiX base and the choice of a midweight DE in Xfce. It also is the reason for the default side panel.

CharlesV wrote: Sat Oct 28, 2023 2:09 pm It is a pity he didnt mention the *fantastic* support the devs provide here - I think one of the things that seriously set this distro to the top for me was their integral help in the forum, their invaluable feedback on many many topics, and their *amazing* quick response to requests and mods.

This is a great place, a great distro and I am very happy to be able to participate and help here.

I couldn't have put it better myself. I absolutely agree.

I also have the impression that especially because the developers here engage with so much helpfulness and patience, it rubs off on the rest of the community here.

I've never come here with a problem or question and left without an answer or help, so to speak. And always in a respectful and friendly manner.

That is really nice :)

I watched the video and thought it to be mostly accurate. It got over the main points of MX history.

I'm not sure about m_pav's comment though. I don't know who he is referring to when he says 'The original product lead moved off to join Ubuntu around 2016-2017'.
Care to enlighten us @m_pav ?

Missed that; no idea what he means...

CharlesV wrote: Sat Oct 28, 2023 2:09 pm I think there are a few things a little off, but it is a nice, short shout out.

It is a pity he didnt mention the *fantastic* support the devs provide here - I think one of the things that seriously set this distro to the top for me was their integral help in the forum, their invaluable feedback on many many topics, and their *amazing* quick response to requests and mods.

This is a great place, a great distro and I am very happy to be able to participate and help here.

+1

Just a smattering of what I have to say about Team MX:

MX ideally summarizes why corporate behemoths are never actually good for the actual people they supposedly serve. Just like food, when farms are so big you need robotic tractors, the quality of the food itself becomes secondary to the profits and/or the political whims of the ceo's. I like the premise of segueing from a low power windows pc straight into debian itself. I would love to be smart enough to be a pc mod just to contribute. Alas, just my typing skills alone would hold me back. MX Linux is #1 for many reasons and the first and foremost is it serves those who run it and not the other way around. Love You Guys!

One of the written comments is not correct:

The only down side is that it is the slowest to boot of the four different flavors of Linux that I run. Manjaro, Gecko Rolling, and Cachy OS are all substantially faster to boot.

I don't think @user-hv9sg5pl8b is using MX Linux boot setting but something else.

amlug wrote: Wed Nov 15, 2023 12:10 pm I don't think @user-hv9sg5pl8b is using MX Linux boot setting but something else.

I am using Arch Linux and tested Manjaro and Cachy (Arch Linux-based). The boot is slower than MX Linux. @user-hv9sg5pl8b is promoting his favorite distros.

Mjaakko wrote: Wed Nov 15, 2023 2:58 pm I am using Arch Linux and tested Manjaro and Cachy (Arch Linux-based). The boot is slower than MX Linux. @user-hv9sg5pl8b is promoting his favorite distros.

The question here is not faster or slower but "How much faster or slower?". On my Intel i5-4300m ThinkPad from 2013, I can boot from the GRUB selection menu to a desktop in about 28 seconds. The machine has an SSD to improve performance, but beyond that saying anything boots "faster" or "slower" is not as objective as a timed evaluation, preferably on the same hardware, and measured even with something as pedestrian as just using the stopwatch feature on one's smartphone.

My real concern is how slowly MX Linux shuts down sometimes.

I never shut my PCs off.......you guys boot???

FullScale4Me wrote: Thu Nov 16, 2023 3:00 am I never shut my PCs off.......you guys boot???

During pandemic lockdowns, even my laptops were getting 30+ days of uptime. But yeah, of course I reboot my MX machines. I have to test out the latest Liquorix kernels.

I never gave a darn about boot times and I don't understand why it's so important to people. Turn it on, go to the kitchen grab a cup of coffee and by the time you get back to the desk, it's ready.

Artim wrote: Thu Nov 16, 2023 6:26 am I never gave a darn about boot times and I don't understand why it's so important to people. Turn it on, go to the kitchen grab a cup of coffee and by the time you get back to the desk, it's ready.

+1 to that!

Back in the late 90s I supported dual floppy MicroVAXs.....you could get coffee and a bathroom break in while it booted up to the (auto-started) single user X-Ray quant analysis application. The really old ones based on the DEC PDP-11/02 CPU were known to take close to 3 minutes.

FullScale4Me wrote: Thu Nov 16, 2023 5:18 pm

Artim wrote: Thu Nov 16, 2023 6:26 am I never gave a darn about boot times and I don't understand why it's so important to people. Turn it on, go to the kitchen grab a cup of coffee and by the time you get back to the desk, it's ready.

+1 to that!

Back in the late 90s I supported dual floppy MicroVAXs.....you could get coffee and a bathroom break in while it booted up to the (auto-started) single user X-Ray quant analysis application. The really old ones based on the DEC PDP-11/02 CPU were known to take close to 3 minutes.

Mine was a Heathkit with a 100K floppy. State of the art at the time.

richb wrote: Thu Nov 16, 2023 5:43 pm

FullScale4Me wrote: Thu Nov 16, 2023 5:18 pm

Artim wrote: Thu Nov 16, 2023 6:26 am I never gave a darn about boot times and I don't understand why it's so important to people. Turn it on, go to the kitchen grab a cup of coffee and by the time you get back to the desk, it's ready.

+1 to that!

Back in the late 90s I supported dual floppy MicroVAXs.....you could get coffee and a bathroom break in while it booted up to the (auto-started) single user X-Ray quant analysis application. The really old ones based on the DEC PDP-11/02 CPU were known to take close to 3 minutes.

Mine was a Heathkit with a 100K floppy. State of the art at the time.

Somewhere in my family's photo collection is a picture of me as a pre-teen standing in Heathkit 'Expansion 1' (late '50s) - my grandfather's plumbing business had the plumbing contract.

Speaking of speed :-) ... did anyone see this article about the "8 cores issue" ... truth or 'fake news' ?

https://thehftguy.com/2023/11/14/the-li ... -20-years/

FullScale4Me wrote: Thu Nov 16, 2023 5:18 pm Back in the late 90s I supported dual floppy MicroVAXs.....you could get coffee and a bathroom break in while it booted up to the (auto-started) single user X-Ray quant analysis application. The really old ones based on the DEC PDP-11/02 CPU were known to take close to 3 minutes.

At work, where you're getting paid? Heck yeah, I don't mind if it takes a while for my work machine to install updates and restart. At home though, where I'm using that system to run something or if it's my dedicated browser box? Any reboot feels like it takes forever.

I'm amazed how, as much as things have changed they've also stayed the same: booting a PDP-11 took 3 minutes way back when, and I have a Windows machine today that, once it goes offline for a restart, will always take 3-4 minutes before I can RDP back into it. Longer if it's updating something.

DukeComposed wrote: Thu Nov 16, 2023 12:54 am The question here is not faster or slower but "How much faster or slower?".

Before I posted, I tested MX, Arch and Fedora using my stopwatch. All on the same live CD. Arch is 8 seconds slower and Fedora 20 seconds. Speed was not the interest but when @user-hv9sg5pl8b made such a show.

About speed, if you get a faster and more responsive machine, we don't usually want to go back to a slower one. The same is true with a distro or Desktop. If the change offers a substantial functional improvement, then a slower machine is not a problem. Arch Linux is one of them where you can configure your own. I don't mind the 8-second slower. But the stability of MX I also don't want to miss when doing my office and publishing work.

Yup. Who cares about boot times if it doesn't do what you need it to to begin with? I do notice the boot time but regard that as stability if anything.

DukeComposed wrote: Thu Nov 16, 2023 12:54 am ... abridged
My real concern is how slowly MX Linux shuts down sometimes.

In MX21 I would heartily agree my friend. The close down scripting was a chore and an embarrassment in front of observers.

MX23 on my system is pleasantly different

EDIT: in my naivety I take slick start and slick finish as a sort of professionalism.
My route to linux and then MX21 was: it is faster and more responsive than what I use at present - and increasingly less invasive on all manners of things - but I guess most of you already experienced and know that yourselves no?