Welcome!
Important information
-- Spectre and Meltdown vulnerabilities
-- Change in MX sources

News
-- MX Linux on social media: here
-- Mepis support still here

Current releases
-- MX-17.1 Final release info here
-- antiX-17 release info here

New users
-- Please read this first, and don't forget to add system and hardware information to posts!
-- Here are the Forum Rules

Suggestions for Future Versions

Message
Author
User avatar
Stevo
Forum Veteran
Forum Veteran
Posts: 15981
Joined: Fri Dec 15, 2006 8:07 pm

Re: Suggestions for Future Versions

#11 Post by Stevo » Thu Feb 15, 2018 3:41 pm

I also had thought that OEM UEFI implementations on x86 systems have to have an option to turn off Secure Boot. Otherwise they would leave themselves and MS wide open to a restraint of trade lawsuit or whatever the EFF can come up with.

User avatar
Paul..
Forum Guide
Forum Guide
Posts: 2277
Joined: Sun Mar 18, 2007 6:34 pm

Re: Suggestions for Future Versions

#12 Post by Paul.. » Thu Feb 15, 2018 5:17 pm

Agreed on restraint of trade...I believe you're right. All the implementations have the option to turn it off...just a matter of finding it...the maze to find the switch is different on every durned implementation.

Daily: MSI 890FXA-GD70 | AMD Phenom II X6 1055T | GeForce GTX 750 Ti | 8G
Test: Thinkpad T431s | Intel i5-3437U | Intel 3rd gen Graphics | 4G

lhb1142
Forum Novice
Forum  Novice
Posts: 49
Joined: Sat Feb 04, 2017 10:53 am

Re: Suggestions for Future Versions

#13 Post by lhb1142 » Fri Feb 16, 2018 3:35 pm

Well, I have read the latest responses to my original post and I must say to those who do not like Calamares that I DO like it. I find it to be very logical and easy to use, and, at least for me, it works perfectly in all situations (including UEFI and Secure Boot enabled, just UEFI enabled, and, of course, Legacy).

The MX Linux installer is fine EXCEPT when it isn't (at least for me, as described in my post above). I agree that Gnome Disks is hopeless; I use it only for mounting and unmounting external drives. But GParted, which I do use to format external drives, is not as logical as it ought to be and, at least when trying to use it when installing MX Linux to a two-hard-drive computer with UEFI enabled and Secure Boot disabled, it just doesn't "do it" for me, whereas Calamares does. I truly wish that that weren't the case!

I have used quite a few installers, those for Ubuntu and its derivatives, the ones for Fedora and Mageia, plus a few others, as well as the one for Antergos. Antergos's installer is very similar to Calamares (could it be a clone?) and it allowed me to easily install Antergos to one of those gaming computers with two separate hard drives (the Alienware) as well as having UEFI and Secure Boot active.

I believe that there are already some computers on which Secure Boot cannot be disabled. (My Asus gaming computer appears to be one of them.) Restraint of trade? Sure - but who's going to do anything about it? Remember - most, if not all, lawyers use Microsoft Windows computers so do you think they would truly be amenable to a lawsuit against Microsoft? And what about the judges who also use Windows, not even to mention the jurors (if any). It is my opinion (my opinion only) that we will see, in the not too distant future, the situation in which both UEFI and Secure Boot cannot be defeated.

I fully agree with the person who suggested that we purchase ONLY from companies that support Linux. Five (5) of my computers are from ZaReason; three of those run MX Linux. It is as "easy as pie" to install ANY GNU/Linux OS to ANY of them. Whenever I need to BUY a new computer in the future, it will be from ZaReason (at least as long as they are in business). I have had nothing but excellent experiences with that company (and I recommend them to everyone). It is somewhat of an unfortunate situation, Linux-wise, that I obtained two brand-new gaming computers free of charge (and boy, are they fast!!!). I certainly could not turn down free! (I don't use them for gaming; they are used for audio and video manipulation programs which require a lot of processing power and speed.) It is on both of those computers that I cannot install MX Linux (and have it function properly).

Anyway, I do thank all who have written here. Your replies to me are all valuable and helpful, even if I do not agree with all of them.

And even though I was unable to install/run MX Linux on those two gaming computers, I have been able to install other satisfactory distributions to them so they are fully usable for the purposes I require. My wife and I have been using various GNU/Linux distributions for the past ten years and, each year, it seems that they get better and better. We, at least, shall not ever use, as our primary computers, any Windows- or Mac-equipped ones.

And, of all the GNU/Linux distributions I have tried over the years, MX Linux is my favorite!

Thank you all again.

Lawrence H. Bulk

P.S. Can someone address the suggestion, in my original post, that the developers look to see if some way can be found to add newer, later Debian repositories when new Debian versions are introduced such that MX Linux could be turned into a quasi-rolling release type of operating system? If that could be done, we would never need to effect a total reinstallation (which can be a pain-in-the-neck!). I realize that MX Linux adds certain changes to the Debian repositories and that would need to be taken into account. But could it be done? Thanks!

rickc
Forum Novice
Forum  Novice
Posts: 38
Joined: Tue Jan 23, 2018 5:01 pm

Re: Suggestions for Future Versions

#14 Post by rickc » Sat Feb 17, 2018 12:18 pm

1. I installed MX onto my laptop which has W7 on it. The installer sorted it all out for me no problem, dual booting works great.
2. I cannot get the live USB to boot on my desktop uefi w8 system. Even with secure boot off, or with legacy OS selected, in won't boot. On the other hand, my "snapshot" DOES boot on the uefi PC! I don't understand this, but nevermind!

User avatar
Stevo
Forum Veteran
Forum Veteran
Posts: 15981
Joined: Fri Dec 15, 2006 8:07 pm

Re: Suggestions for Future Versions

#15 Post by Stevo » Sat Feb 17, 2018 2:17 pm

P.S. Can someone address the suggestion, in my original post, that the developers look to see if some way can be found to add newer, later Debian repositories when new Debian versions are introduced such that MX Linux could be turned into a quasi-rolling release type of operating system? If that could be done, we would never need to effect a total reinstallation (which can be a pain-in-the-neck!). I realize that MX Linux adds certain changes to the Debian repositories and that would need to be taken into account. But could it be done? Thanks!
Some testers were able to upgrade an MX 16 Jessie-based version to Stretch -based MX 17, but with a few hitches due to our package versioning scheme. We have since started using a scheme that should let us upgrade to a Buster-based version in the future. This is done by making sure all Debian Buster and MX 19 packages will be seen as higher versions, the same as Debian does with their backports. So we hope in the future, we will be able to offer a smooth upgrade path.

I see that some backports might also be showing up in the antiX repo that we use, and hope that those also start following the same scheme.
Last edited by Stevo on Sun Feb 18, 2018 5:59 pm, edited 1 time in total.

skidoo
Forum Regular
Forum Regular
Posts: 842
Joined: Tue Sep 22, 2015 6:56 pm

Re: Suggestions for Future Versions

#16 Post by skidoo » Sat Feb 17, 2018 3:07 pm

P.S. [...] could it be done? (rolling release)
That's an unfair question. As you/we know, OF COURSE the answer is yes.
The next step (if you wish to do so) is to make your case, enumerate the benefits of changing the status quo.

P.S.
mama sez: Be careful what ya wish for

User avatar
duane
Forum Regular
Forum Regular
Posts: 303
Joined: Sun May 20, 2007 3:08 pm

Re: Suggestions for Future Versions

#17 Post by duane » Sat Feb 17, 2018 5:18 pm

I believe you that if you want to install MX on your gaming computers you can easily install a distro that has a MS signing key and then install MX and add it to the grub menu of the other distro. Then it should see the key from the other distro and boot MX.
Not sure if that solves your problem for sure or not. I don't have any experience with UEFI yet myself but I have heard of this.
It might be worth a try.
I think you should stick with Gparted, the more you use it the more it will grow on you, that has been my experience.
Lenovo M92p Quad Core i5 3470 3.2Ghz

User avatar
Raymzap
Forum Regular
Forum Regular
Posts: 104
Joined: Mon Aug 25, 2014 9:40 am

Re: Suggestions for Future Versions

#18 Post by Raymzap » Sun Feb 18, 2018 3:09 pm

* Release an MX MATE version. Or release an ISO that lets you choose which DE to install at the installation stage like the way the Antergos live iso does it.

* Use Firefox ESR instead or regular Firefox - or give a choice during installation.
GNU/Linux User #470660

Linus Torvalds: "Microsoft isn't evil, they just make really crappy operating systems."

User avatar
Paul..
Forum Guide
Forum Guide
Posts: 2277
Joined: Sun Mar 18, 2007 6:34 pm

Re: Suggestions for Future Versions

#19 Post by Paul.. » Sun Feb 18, 2018 3:46 pm

Raymzap wrote:* Release an MX MATE version. Or release an ISO that lets you choose which DE to install at the installation stage like the way the Antergos live iso does it.
You can install MATE and other DEs or WMs from MX Tools->Package Installer->Window Managers.

We have no plans to release an MX MATE version...as with KDE, some community members make modified snapshots available...

Daily: MSI 890FXA-GD70 | AMD Phenom II X6 1055T | GeForce GTX 750 Ti | 8G
Test: Thinkpad T431s | Intel i5-3437U | Intel 3rd gen Graphics | 4G

User avatar
Raymzap
Forum Regular
Forum Regular
Posts: 104
Joined: Mon Aug 25, 2014 9:40 am

Re: Suggestions for Future Versions

#20 Post by Raymzap » Sun Feb 18, 2018 5:33 pm

Ditch GNOME PPP.
GNU/Linux User #470660

Linus Torvalds: "Microsoft isn't evil, they just make really crappy operating systems."

Post Reply

Return to “General”