Main difference between DEBIAN and MX  [Solved]

Message
Author
User avatar
hkjz
Posts: 345
Joined: Thu Apr 11, 2019 4:38 pm

Main difference between DEBIAN and MX

#1 Post by hkjz »

Hello Everyone,
what is the main difference between DEBIAN and MX?

Sometimes MX is not an option and you have a choice between DEBIAN and UBUNTU. Let's leave out the second one.
What should I expect and be ready for when approaching a clean, raw DEBIAN distro?

Thanks

Long live MX!
Last edited by hkjz on Sun Jan 31, 2021 1:54 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Huckleberry Finn

Re: Main difference between DEBIAN and MX

#2 Post by Huckleberry Finn »

viewtopic.php?f=40&t=62824
dolphin_oracle wrote: Mon Jan 25, 2021 8:46 am ... we don't start with a base debian system when we build MX and antiX. and what is a basic debian system anyway?

we build them up from scratch using the debian repos.

a few highlights:

use of the antiX live-usb system instead of debians
sysVinit by default (mx uses systemd-shim, antiX uses elogind/eudev)
there are a few changes to default grub configurations (/etc/default/grub)
use of our own updater (apt-notifier/mx-updater) which brings in some of those auto-update configs
tweaks to /etc/sysctl.d
modified sysVinit init scripts in some cases (lightdm, sddm, virtualbox, udev)
we do not install "recommends" as dependencies by default (apt configuration under /etc/apt)

User avatar
andyprough
MX Packager
Posts: 918
Joined: Tue Jul 23, 2019 10:16 pm

Re: Main difference between DEBIAN and MX

#3 Post by andyprough »

hkjz wrote: Wed Jan 27, 2021 3:41 pmWhat should I expect and be ready for when approaching a clean, raw DEBIAN distro?
An ugly default desktop that looks like it's from 1997 and a hostile user forum when you try to ask questions. And systemd being forced on you whether you like it or not. And you'll be referred to "how-to" pages that haven't been updated since Bill Clinton was the US President.

Otherwise, most of what you do on the command line with MX will be the same with Debian, and most packages should work on either one.
Primary Computer - Commodore 64: Processor - MOS 6510/8500, 1.023MHz; Memory - 64kb RAM, 20kB ROM - 8k BASIC V2, 8k Kernel, 4k Character ROM; Display output - 320x200, 16 colours; OS - BASIC V2.0; Weight: 1.8kg

User avatar
BitJam
Developer
Posts: 2303
Joined: Sat Aug 22, 2009 11:36 pm

Re: Main difference between DEBIAN and MX

#4 Post by BitJam »

hkjz wrote: Wed Jan 27, 2021 3:41 pmwhat is the main difference between DEBIAN and MX?
In addition to the antiX live system and being able to choose between systemd and sysvinit, one of the big differences between Debian and MX is the MX community repos where software packages are ported and backported to the MX stable system. This gives you the stability of Debian stable while having newer versions of important programs.
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself -- and you are the easiest person to fool."

-- Richard Feynman

User avatar
sunrat
Posts: 665
Joined: Mon Mar 28, 2016 9:54 pm

Re: Main difference between DEBIAN and MX

#5 Post by sunrat »

andyprough wrote: Wed Jan 27, 2021 4:07 pm
hkjz wrote: Wed Jan 27, 2021 3:41 pmWhat should I expect and be ready for when approaching a clean, raw DEBIAN distro?
An ugly default desktop that looks like it's from 1997 and a hostile user forum when you try to ask questions.
Please don't spread rubbish like this. I'm on the admin team at Debian user forums and while it's not as n00b-friendly as here, if one asks smart questions one will get smart answers. Users are expected to help themselves and do a little research into their problem before asking on the forums. It's definitely less hostile now than in the past. Help vampires are more likely to be greeted with tumbleweeds than negativity.
Default desktop is conservative definitely not ugly and easily modified. The default KDE looks quite nice. I'm no fan of Gnome so no comment there.
As for systemd, it works well. I mean, MX offers it, right?

Both distros are good and both have their place.

redhot
Posts: 24
Joined: Fri Sep 18, 2020 1:16 pm

Re: Main difference between DEBIAN and MX

#6 Post by redhot »

andyprough wrote: Wed Jan 27, 2021 4:07 pm An ugly default desktop that looks like it's from 1997...
My MX desktop looks as my Debian desktop did: xfce and a nice wallpaper! ;)

Image

User avatar
asqwerth
Developer
Posts: 7998
Joined: Sun May 27, 2007 5:37 am

Re: Main difference between DEBIAN and MX

#7 Post by asqwerth »

sunrat wrote: Thu Jan 28, 2021 3:12 am ... I'm on the admin team at Debian user forums and while it's not as n00b-friendly as here, if one asks smart questions one will get smart answers. Users are expected to help themselves and do a little research into their problem before asking on the forums. It's definitely less hostile now than in the past. Help vampires are more likely to be greeted with tumbleweeds than negativity.
Default desktop is conservative definitely not ugly and easily modified. The default KDE looks quite nice. I'm no fan of Gnome so no comment there.
As for systemd, it works well. I mean, MX offers it, right?

Both distros are good and both have their place.
In the same way that I don't agree with Manjaro or Arch-based distros slamming the parent Arch or the Arch forums, I totally agree with sunrat's sentiment above. It is expected of users asking for help on those forums to do their homework first and set out what solutions they've tried already (with relevant text or log output). And frankly, often one can probably find existing answers with a forum search without actually needing to post oneself for help anyway.

And don't forget, Stevo is also an active member in the Debian forums.

As for vanilla Debian, the DEs are not so much "ugly" as unadorned/default look. People criticise MX (XFCE) purely for being "ugly" all the time, so I'm sympathetic when other distros get slammed for superficial aesthetic reasons.

That said, MX and other Debian-based distros will have done a lot of the heavy lifting for the user in terms of configuration, graphical tools, having newer/more drivers etc, so things are more likely to work OOTB.

FOr instance, when I tested Debian stretch previously (it was the iso with MATE preinstalled), the sound didn't work OOTB on my PC and I could not get it to work even with some fiddling (YMMV). I'm sure if I spent a bit more time on it, did some research, I could have gotten it to work, but ultimately I was too lazy. I already have more than 10 distros on my PC and I decided I didn't need vanilla Debian in my collection as well.
Desktop: Intel i5-4460, 16GB RAM, Intel integrated graphics
Clevo N130WU-based Ultrabook: Intel i7-8550U (Kaby Lake R), 16GB RAM, Intel integrated graphics (UEFI)
ASUS X42D laptop: AMD Phenom II, 6GB RAM, Mobility Radeon HD 5400

User avatar
thomasl
Posts: 485
Joined: Sun Feb 04, 2018 9:26 am

Re: Main difference between DEBIAN and MX

#8 Post by thomasl »

sunrat wrote: Thu Jan 28, 2021 3:12 amI'm on the admin team at Debian user forums and while it's not as n00b-friendly as here, if one asks smart questions one will get smart answers. Users are expected to help themselves and do a little research into their problem before asking on the forums. It's definitely less hostile now than in the past. Help vampires are more likely to be greeted with tumbleweeds than negativity.
While I greatly admire the patience of the regulars I have to say that I wholeheartedly agree with that. There's a danger that if you're TOO user-friendly and welcoming you actually train people to turn into lazy "help vampires". IMO of course.
Frugal installs on Lenovo ThinkPad L14 Ryzen 5 4650U/24GB * HP Pavilion Ryzen 3 3300U/16GB * Toshiba R950 i5-3340M/12GB
I have a reservation... What do you mean it's not in the COMPUTER!

SwampRabbit
Posts: 3602
Joined: Tue Jun 14, 2016 2:02 pm

Re: Main difference between DEBIAN and MX

#9 Post by SwampRabbit »

I believe the OP was asking for technical differences, not differences in the community, but....

Now these are my opinions as a human being, nothing more.

Dealing with online forums is kinda hard to determine (let alone assume) what people are asking help for or what they need help with, calling someone a "lazy" "help vampire" is just wrong, rude, and ignorant. I tend to thing we here on the MX forums tend to treat people as human beings first, users second, and without judgement (most of the time, obviously its not all black and white). Sure everyone can be a big harsh, rude, and ignorant sometimes (its even easier to do when you can hide behind a computer).

- First off no one is perfect, no one knows every darn thing under the sun, no one rides a tall golden horse.
Users come in all shapes, sizes, education levels, experience levels, blah blah blah.... you think you didn't start out not knowing a darn thing about GNU/Linux to being a self-appointed Pro over night and with no help?

- There are language barriers, I wouldn't call someone lazy if they are attempting to think/type/speak in a language they are not fluent in just to get some assistance, I tend to think that is the opposite of lazy.

- Asking for help in the first place is not lazy, in some cultures asking for help is a sign of weakness, so there is that too.

- Look how much junk "online help" there is to sift through, you want people to research and look for answers, but then possibly chastise them for using bad info?
"what do you mean you can't figure out how to do this regular expression? what kind of "regular user" are you?"

- Lastly people desire to be treated the way you would want to be treated (within reason of course), not judged right off the bat. Go back to the first item here.

Online we don't know each other from Adam and Eve, that "lazy help vampire" could be brain surgeon in a country on the other side of the world from you touching Linux for the first time.


You can have all kinds of diversity, code of conduct, happy unicorn charters, etc, etc for a distro.... don't mean nothing if deep down you're all highfalutin on your supreme Emacs and Vim skills to help every and any user. You should be helping to help, not stroke your own ego, or get some sort of credit and distinction on a silly forum.

Rant over... sorry... going back to do something for our "noob" "lazy" "help vampire" users
NEW USERS START HERE FAQS, MX Manual, and How to Break Your System - Don't use Ubuntu PPAs! Always post your Quick System Info (QSI) when asking for help.

User avatar
mowest
Posts: 119
Joined: Mon Jul 06, 2020 4:08 pm

Re: Main difference between DEBIAN and MX  [Solved]

#10 Post by mowest »

What sets MX and Debian apart are the custom configuration and inclusion of wireless drivers and other hardware drivers that Debian may not include by default because they are not drivers that are FOSS. Personally, I enjoy MX Fluxbox, but in the past I have set up Fluxbox on a base Debian install, but it took weeks to get an experience that MX Fluxbox gives out of the box because of the number of configurations the team has done and the number of packages/tools they have assembled, installed, and set up to make MX Fluxbox almost equal in functionality to MX XFCE.

Having the vast repos of Debian is a wonderful bonus for MX and something I make use of regularly. Also, I'm setting up an old laptop as a server that I mostly use as a headless server. I chose to install Debian on that machine since I'm not planning to have a full desktop environment on it. So far that has been a fun, exciting, and at times frustrating learning experience as I run up again the limits of my Linux knowledge, but those hiccups have helped me learn even more about how Debian and Linux OS's function.
https://discoverfoss.com
Home Desktop = HP Envy - i7 with 16GB - Fedora 38
Home Laptop = HP Pavilion dv4 - AMD Turion II M520 with 4GB - MX-21 Fluxbox
Work Desktop = Acer M11AA - i5-3340s with 8GB - MX-21 Fluxbox

Post Reply

Return to “General”