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

Distrowatch MX-17 review

Message
Author
User avatar
Adrian
Forum Veteran
Forum Veteran
Posts: 8461
Joined: Wed Jul 12, 2006 1:42 am

Re: Distrowatch MX-17 review

#11 Post by Adrian » Mon Jan 01, 2018 11:00 am

This is a great review. A nice present for the new year.

User avatar
asqwerth
Forum Veteran
Forum Veteran
Posts: 3024
Joined: Sun May 27, 2007 5:37 am

Re: Distrowatch MX-17 review

#12 Post by asqwerth » Mon Jan 01, 2018 11:38 am

Jerry3904 wrote:
asqwerth wrote:Also, the review gives the impression that apart from things like browsers and kernels (which he called "key components"), the applications in MX repos are all "old' or rather, Debian Stable packages.
I've gone through his package list and their versions, with these results:

--3 packages with difference in major numbers (13%)
--5 packages with difference in minor numbers, excluding kernel (21%)
--2 significant errors by DW (qt, gtk+)

If the first is correct, then we might want to look at those: python, mesa, gcc
I have to admit I wasn't looking at the DW list of packages. I was just thinking about the programs and apps in the MX repo that can't be found in Debian, or those that are newer than the versions in Debian repos.
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
Jerry3904
Forum Veteran
Forum Veteran
Posts: 21925
Joined: Wed Jul 19, 2006 6:13 am

Re: Distrowatch MX-17 review

#13 Post by Jerry3904 » Mon Jan 01, 2018 11:39 am

I was just trying to see what he was basing his opinion on, and that was the only thing I could come up with. Posted the errors on DW.
Production: 4.15.0-1-amd64, MX-17.1, AMD FX-4130 Quad-Core, GeForce GT 630/PCIe/SSE2, 8 GB, Kingston SSD 120 GB and WesternDigital 1TB
Testing: AAO 722: 4.15.0-1-386. MX-17.1, AMD C-60 APU, 4 GB

User avatar
malspa
Forum Guide
Forum Guide
Posts: 1949
Joined: Thu Jul 13, 2006 7:21 am

Re: Distrowatch MX-17 review

#14 Post by malspa » Mon Jan 01, 2018 11:59 am

I was actually just looking at and comparing the results of the dpkg -l command from my Stretch (Xfce) installation (updated through today) and from the MX-17 live session (downloaded a couple of weeks ago). Not sure if these files would be helpful or informative to anyone here... I got kinda bored with looking through them, myself.
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.

User avatar
malspa
Forum Guide
Forum Guide
Posts: 1949
Joined: Thu Jul 13, 2006 7:21 am

Re: Distrowatch MX-17 review

#15 Post by malspa » Mon Jan 01, 2018 12:07 pm

Anyway, I thought it was a good and fair review.

User avatar
chrispop99
Forum Guide
Forum Guide
Posts: 2277
Joined: Tue Jan 27, 2009 3:07 pm

Re: Distrowatch MX-17 review

#16 Post by chrispop99 » Mon Jan 01, 2018 12:48 pm

A DW reader has just commented that he thought there should be USB images available for download. Perhaps this is something that should be considered?

Chris
Test machines:
32-bit non-PAE - Thinkpad T41, 1.6GHz Pentium M, 1GB RAM.
32-bit PAE - DELL Latitude D610, 1.73GHz Pentium M, 2GB RAM.
64-bit - Lenovo T61, 2GHz Core 2 Duo, 2GB RAM
64-bit - Gigabyte Z77P-D3, Intel i3-3220, GeForce 8400 GS, 4GB PC3-12800.

User avatar
dolphin_oracle
Forum Veteran
Forum Veteran
Posts: 8806
Joined: Sun Dec 16, 2007 1:17 pm

Re: Distrowatch MX-17 review

#17 Post by dolphin_oracle » Mon Jan 01, 2018 12:49 pm

chrispop99 wrote:A DW reader has just commented that he thought there should be USB images available for download. Perhaps this is something that should be considered?

Chris
what's the difference between a usb image and a hybird iso?
http://www.youtube.com/runwiththedolphin
lenovo ThinkPad T530 - MX-17
lenovo s21e & 100s - antiX-17, MX17(live-usb)
FYI: mx "test" repo is not the same thing as debian testing repo.

fanisatt
Forum Novice
Forum  Novice
Posts: 25
Joined: Sun Dec 24, 2017 8:29 am

Re: Distrowatch MX-17 review

#18 Post by fanisatt » Mon Jan 01, 2018 2:42 pm

There is always room for improvement....as long as there is a healthy "distro-mindset" !!
The speed of software developments in Linux today obviously varies from field to field.
Some "things" are running too much and some others are not !
...and somehow comes a big update one day and after that .... no boot...or no cute.....anymore !
This is what I mean with the word "distro-mindset"....
Therefore , I think that a serious and modern distribution should provide (as a matter of priority) strong balances and a general situation of harmony !!
Modernization is good and I like it but .... never at the expense of harmony and security.
I can see these good features here in MX-17 !!
I can't see in the above review any report about the nvidia-settings advanced tab.....
I had seen it (first time) in manjaro linux and after that I read about the 20-nvidia.conf and other details.... Anyway I could see video without screen flickering for first time in my 7-8 years linux life.....!!! (The same here !!)
It is a very serious matter for the everywhere troubled and disappointed nvidia users like me.
Sorry for my poor English....! I heavily use the google translator....
Best Regards !
Last edited by fanisatt on Mon Jan 01, 2018 2:56 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
rokytnji.1
Forum Regular
Forum Regular
Posts: 736
Joined: Sun Apr 13, 2014 9:06 pm

Re: Distrowatch MX-17 review

#19 Post by rokytnji.1 » Mon Jan 01, 2018 2:48 pm

Meh, I put my 2 cents in. Let's see if they publish it. It is the Emachine review/comment.

User avatar
richb
Administrator
Posts: 16915
Joined: Wed Jul 12, 2006 2:17 pm

Re: Distrowatch MX-17 review

#20 Post by richb » Mon Jan 01, 2018 3:01 pm

@fanisatt, Very thoughtful and well written piece. I totally agree with your comments. I would venture say that is the MX philosophy. Nothing is rushed for the sake of novelty. The release cycle has been a point release mid year and a new one at the end of the year. The final release has followed the Debian release cycle as we all know is certainly not rushed. In the interim the developers continue to modestly make improvements and the package team keeps applications up to date responding to requests and with their own initiative. The other key is that the dev team listens to users needs, and issues. I think the end result speaks for itself and most reviewers agree.
Forum Rules
Guide - How to Ask for Help

Rich
SSD Production: MX 17.1
AMD A8 7600 FM2+ CPU R7 Graphics, 16 GIG Mem. Three Samsung EVO SSD's 250 GB, 350 GB HD

Post Reply

Return to “General”