What's the "surplus value" of the AntiX component in "MX Linux" ?

[Duliwi]

"MX Linux" is based on Debian and AntiX.


This is a question of interests:

What is the advantage of "MX Linux" based on Debian AND AntiX compared to a "Linux distribution" based only on Debian? Or in other words: What is the advantage or function of the AntiX component of "MX Linux"?

-Does AntiX make "MX Linux" more stable?
-Does AntiX fix bugs?
-Does AntiX make "MX Linux" more resource efficient?
-Does the AntiX component make "MX Linux" easier to maintain?
-Other?
-What gives the AntiX component to "MX Linux", that other Debian based Linux distributions do not have?

Thank you. Very interested in this.

[dolphin_oracle]

antiX provides the live-system (including persistence and remaster capabilities, and the original implementation of snapshot) and also the system we use to build the isos. we share a few other resources, servers and such.

[Duliwi]

OK. This sounds more like a separate feature. And not like a deep integration into the whole system with an impact on every part of the system.

So I guess when we would remove AntiX from MX Linux, then MX Linux would nevertheless work. (Except "MX Live USB maker"; "MX Snapshot tool"; the installation process and when I want to use MX Linux as a server?
(I do not want to remove AntiX. This is just a fictive question to see, if I have understand a bit the role of AntiX in MX Linux.)

[dolphin_oracle]

OK. This sounds more like a separate feature. And not like a deep integration into the whole system with an impact on every part of the system.

So I guess when we would remove AntiX from MX Linux, then MX Linux would nevertheless work. (Except "MX Live USB maker"; "MX Snapshot tool"; the installation process and when I want to use MX Linux as a server?
(I do not want to remove AntiX. This is just a fictive question to see, if I have understand a bit the role of AntiX in MX Linux.)

its a strange thing to wonder. we consider the live features are a core part of the experience. and besides, it would be hard to install MX without a live-system to have bootable live media.

most folks think that when we say "based on ..." that we start with an iso and modify from there. we don't. everything is built up from scratch, or at least from package level.

at this point the live-system is as much a part of MX as antiX, but it originated with antiX.

[Duliwi]

Thank you.

most folks think that when we say "based on ..." that we start with an iso and modify from there.

Yes, this is what I took for granted. You start with a vanilla debian iso, then modify and add things.

everything is built up from scratch ...

This statement reminds me of the linux distribution "kaos".

https://kaosx.us/
Quote: "... distribution for the modern desktop, build from scratch... "
They say: "It's built from scratch, but not debian, not arch, but something new."

[SwampRabbit]

Yes, this is what I took for granted. You start with a vanilla debian iso, then modify and add things.

just to be clear, he said the opposite

...
most folks think that when we say "based on ..." that we start with an iso and modify from there. we don't. everything is built up from scratch, or at least from package level.

[Duliwi]

I know. I just wanted to confirm in #5, that I was thinking the same way before and that Dolphin hit the target with this part of his answer.

Yes, this is what I took for granted.

[SwampRabbit]

@Duliwi coolness, I guess my ability to not take words for granted is lacking this early in the morning