MX Distro for "not new" users

[Redacted]

MX, like many other distros, is for new users, old users, expert users, intermediate users, developers, reviewers and distro hoppers. :)

Very well said.

[lonesomepoint]

But I got the feeling that they feel that once new users become more experienced running Linux on MX, they should be moving on to something else.

I want to keep in mind that your suspicion of them may or may not be true; but if it is, such a feeling on their part--that experience demands you should progress to a more challenging distro--is probably (if not definitely) snobbery and elitism on their part. I do not require my distro to challenge me. I require only that it work--and that it not hold certain policies or mannerisms that leave me feeling patronized and/or demeaned. (I thought about also demanding the cushioned luxury of soft Corinthian leather, but I probably can't get it.) As for demanding only that the distro work: that's easy, I grant, because I've never actually seen a Linux distro that didn't work.

[jakenn2008]

Thanks to all that have responded. I got exactly what I had hoped others would say. At times I felt that the experienced users moved on to Arch, but that's too cutting edge for me. Having been a long time Mint user, I was excited when I discovered MX-17 and started following dolphin_oracle's videos and blogs. I need to spend more time with MX-18 by putting it on my main computer so I can learn about all those extras I see in the menus and all the MX-tweaks/programs. Thanks everyone, especially d_o.

[KBD]

Good mix of old timers and newbies here. MX is for everyone :)

[manyroads]

Thanks to all that have responded. I got exactly what I had hoped others would say. At times I felt that the experienced users moved on to Arch, but that's too cutting edge for me. Having been a long time Mint user, I was excited when I discovered MX-17 and started following dolphin_oracle's videos and blogs. I need to spend more time with MX-18 by putting it on my main computer so I can learn about all those extras I see in the menus and all the MX-tweaks/programs. Thanks everyone, especially d_o.

There are number of us who have been to arch and are now here ... by choice. This is a unique, welcoming, and caring community. But that's just one old guy's opinion. :lipsrsealed:

[Richard]

Yes, arch, Manjaro and others of that branch are good learning experiences.

[azrielle]

I use...AntiX when I feel a need to get "down and dirty" with Linux. It never disappoints! There's no need to go to Arch. And, if I get bored with AntiX, there's always Salix, which is based on Slackware. The ORIGINAL distro.

[dphn]

Arch Linux have a really good wiki, but the maintainers are a only a packaging team. They didn't create user friendly tools or own apps provided by the devs but they describe every point of installation-process and the user must read and learn. This is KISS. Of course, it's a hard work to create a bleeding edge system that runs with all the actually stuff.

Arch is a base system, users can do what they want from ground up. Debian itself is also a base system and a new base system is Solus OS. Base systems are built from scratch.

Ubuntu, Manjaro, Mint and MX are "customizers" of an available base and provide userfriendly extra tools. So MX Linux and Arch are not comparable.

[Mauser]

I must be in a different dimension because my experience with a certain distro and forum was the complete opposite of all you. Sometimes I come across people on the Internet that are in my dimension who have had similar experiences with it as I. I guess MX Linux is the same no matter which dimension you are in because we all have similar experiences with it. MX Linux is the interdimensional distro.

[seaken64]

I agree with a lot of this thread. MX is for everyone and I've been hooked on it for a couple of years now. But I see things from a slightly different perspective than many of my fellow MX users. I separate my use of computer operating systems and software into my personal choices and my business choices. I prefer linux for most of my own computers (the only exceptions being the systems I use for watching cable TV). But I have tried to implement Linux on my business computers and so far have failed every time. Even MX Linux is not getting it done.

My users are not computer savvy, at all. If something does not look EXACTLY like they are used to they can't use the computer. That's deadly for me. I need my people to be productive and I can't have them sitting there waiting for me to show them how to use their terminal. Also, we use some windows only software (a database program mainly) and I have not figured out how to use these programs in Linux. So far, i have had the most success with Windows in the business.

I agree that MX is good for new linux users and I suggest it to people who are at least curious about how a computer works. But most of the users that I support cannot grasp it. It doesn't matter if it's MX, antiX, or Ununtu, whatever. The computer screen has to look and act EXACTLY like the windows computers we have been using. Even the upgrade from XP to Windows 10 was a nightmare. We've finally got it sorted out but, man!

People like me are not afraid of digging in and figuring out what the he** is going on. I have found MX and antiX to be much easier to figure out than Slackware and Vector, which I really enjoyed until I could no longer figure out how to install the software I wanted to use. For me, Debian became my savior for finding and installing software, and antiX and MX made it easier for me to implement Debian on my older computers. And I would say it is NOT necessary to move on to anything else, unless you just like learning something new. But even MX will not turn a complete computer illiterate into a linux user unless they had already been using some linux system set up by some IT department at work.

Seaken64