Welcome!

Please read this important information about Spectre and Meltdown vulnerabilities.
Please read this important information about MX sources lists.

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!
  • Read Forum Rules

Distrowatch MX-17 review

Message
Author
fanisatt
Forum Novice
Forum  Novice
Posts: 22
Joined: Sun Dec 24, 2017 8:29 am

Re: Distrowatch MX-17 review

#21 Postby fanisatt » Mon Jan 01, 2018 3:22 pm

@ richb
Thanks for your response !!
I wish things to evolve according to the wishes and the plans of the MX team.
Best regards !

User avatar
calinb
Forum Regular
Forum Regular
Posts: 122
Joined: Tue Jun 27, 2017 1:57 am

Re: Distrowatch MX-17 review

#22 Postby calinb » Mon Jan 01, 2018 3:47 pm

Pierre wrote:"One of the few areas where I think MX loses out to the big, mainstream Linux distributions is in beginner friendliness".
- it's still a fairly beginner / friendliness Linux System - as far as I'm concerned, though.
:happy:

Agreed, but I think the most important feature for a "beginner friendly" distro is everything (at least everything the beginner cares about) must work right out of the box. MX has this feature in spades! GNU/Linux beginners aren't going to be successful searching online bug reports, editing grub or configurations files in terminal, starting and stopping systems processes, etc..

Reviews aside, I like watching MX climb in the Distrowatch user rankings:
https://distrowatch.com/dwres.php?resource=ranking

Not including IPFire (a dedicated firewall rather than a general purpose GNU/Linux distro), MX is now #2 and the latest buzz may give it the boost it needs to reach the top of list.
Last edited by calinb on Mon Jan 01, 2018 7:04 pm, edited 1 time in total.

TJ Hoye
Forum Regular
Forum Regular
Posts: 196
Joined: Thu Dec 18, 2014 11:21 pm

Re: Distrowatch MX-17 review

#23 Postby TJ Hoye » Mon Jan 01, 2018 4:18 pm

This review seems reasonably positive and objective to me; however, I don't recall
any published review that grasps the unique and distinctive features of MX to create
derivative LiveUSBs with selective persistence, making iso-snapshots, iso-remastering
and kernel replacement.

This review only notes these as options on the MX-Tools GUI, without any significant
recognition of the remarkable infrastructure that these options represent.
64-bit MX-17.1 LiveUSB boot/Frugal install with lz4 remastering
on dual-cpu Dell 1545 laptop with 4Gb ram, 200Gb hdd;
Broadcom wifi with wl driver and Intel GM45 Graphics.

User avatar
uncle mark
Forum Veteran
Forum Veteran
Posts: 4920
Age: 2017
Joined: Sat Nov 11, 2006 10:42 pm

Re: Distrowatch MX-17 review

#24 Postby uncle mark » Mon Jan 01, 2018 5:09 pm

TJ Hoye wrote:This review seems reasonably positive and objective to me; however, I don't recall
any published review that grasps the unique and distinctive features of MX to create
derivative LiveUSBs with selective persistence, making iso-snapshots, iso-remastering
and kernel replacement.

Probably because Jessee doesn't know what that stuff is, and/or has no use for it.
Desktop: Custom build Asus/AMD/nVidia -- MEPIS 11
Laptop: Acer Aspire 5250 -- MX-15
Assorted junk: assorted Linuxes

User avatar
anticapitalista
Forum Veteran
Forum Veteran
Posts: 5536
Joined: Sat Jul 15, 2006 10:40 am

Re: Distrowatch MX-17 review

#25 Postby anticapitalista » Mon Jan 01, 2018 6:48 pm

TJ Hoye wrote:This review seems reasonably positive and objective to me; however, I don't recall
any published review that grasps the unique and distinctive features of MX to create
derivative LiveUSBs with selective persistence, making iso-snapshots, iso-remastering
and kernel replacement.


Not quite true. antiX has these features
anticapitalista
Reg. linux user #395339.

Philosophers have interpreted the world in many ways; the point is to change it.

antiX-17 "Heather Heyer" - lean and mean.
https://antixlinux.com

skidoo
Forum Regular
Forum Regular
Posts: 747
Joined: Tue Sep 22, 2015 6:56 pm

Re: Distrowatch MX-17 review

#26 Postby skidoo » Tue Jan 02, 2018 3:57 am

[conveys] the unique and distinctive features of MX to create derivative LiveUSBs with selective persistence... and live-usb-maker
I can't fault a distrohopping reviewer for skimping on the details. Even across the the cumulative d_o tutorial videos, only selective details are covered. Personally, I'm inclined to lobby for a feature freeze until completion of a comprehensive and up-to-date set of relevant documentation is achieved.

One newly-added live-usb-maker feature "Update UUIDs on an existing live-usb"
...I (seriously) have no idea why, or when, one would want/need to utilize that feature.

Developer (and helper/supporter) resources are continually stretched thin, and documentation never catches up because attention is spent chasing and supporting further edge cases.
Why are /home/demo/Live-usb-storage permissions root:root?
I'm dismayed by this scenario wherein we're unable to readily provide a definitive answer to the inquiry. At the same time, I'm wondering "How did we arrive here? How 'valid' is the perceived edge case which inspired Live-usb-Storage in the first place?" Legacy bios + single fixed drive w/ mbr + dualboot... and the machine lacks a second usb port (to host user's choice-of-format extra storage partition)??? Because "speed"? Naw. if a machine has only usb2 support, and its fixed drive is not a SATA1 5400rpm laggard, and user chooses to employ static persistence... well, choices have trade-offs.

A similar point of wonderment:
blab ~= blabel
How did we arrive at (needing to remember, and to document) redundant pairs of persistence-related bootline parameters???
Because once upon a time... total bootline length was to limited to 256 chars? (now is 4096 chars?)
Because... eternal backwards compatibility?

User avatar
bwich12
Forum Regular
Forum Regular
Posts: 182
Joined: Tue Jul 12, 2016 9:14 am

Re: Distrowatch MX-17 review

#27 Postby bwich12 » Tue Jan 02, 2018 6:13 am

skidoo wrote:Personally, I'm inclined to lobby for a feature freeze until completion of a comprehensive and up-to-date set of relevant documentation is achieved.
Agree 100%. I would perhaps add the suggestion to instigate a process to rigorously identify and squash bugs before adding new code with potentially new bugs.

Under Windows (I do not know yet enough about MX to say the same about that) I have since at least 2014 adopted a strategy of version-freezing ALL software I use. There are now only three valid reasons to update an application to a newer version: 1) important security fixes (most often); 2) a bug is removed that is actively annoying me (rare); 3) a newer version has a feature that I definitely need (even rarer). In my experience (YMMV) practically all the applications I use are more than good enough for my purposes (for instance I am still using a couple valid MS Office licenses from 2003 and there is zilch reason for me to change that) and have been that for quite a while. About the only app I regularly updated (other than browser, the Adobe crap etc) was a sandbox utility. And VirtualBox.

Most stuff I use has been around for many years (foobar2000, vlc, IrfanView...) and these programs are mature, stable applications. No need to tinker (again YMMV).

IMHO, updating software (other than for security fixes) is a vastly overrated pleasure.

User avatar
asqwerth
Forum Guide
Forum Guide
Posts: 2664
Joined: Sun May 27, 2007 5:37 am

Re: Distrowatch MX-17 review

#28 Postby asqwerth » Tue Jan 02, 2018 6:58 am

I don't make full use of all the MX live USB tools, but wouldn't the new features have been there to be tested in the alphas and betas of MX17?
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

br1anstorm
Forum Novice
Forum  Novice
Posts: 62
Joined: Sun Nov 05, 2017 2:25 pm

Re: Distrowatch MX-17 review

#29 Postby br1anstorm » Tue Jan 02, 2018 2:15 pm

I'm belatedly catching up with some forum posts. Still a newcomer to MX and using MX-16. But I'd pick up and agree with RichB's comment on the MX-17 review:

richb wrote:Very thorough and positive. I wish he had mentioned the manual where a beginner can learn about the concepts that he indicated made MX somewhat less beginner friendly.


As a definite newbie I have found MX extremely user-friendly. I'd definitely endorse the value of the manual. The best user-guide to any of the half-dozen or so Linux distros I have tried. Clear, comprehensive and easy to navigate and understand. Linux Lite's equivalent is not bad, but the MX one is definitely the best I've seen.

While I'm handing out bouquets, let me add that MX (version 16.1, anyway!) offers the best "out-of-the box" experience I've had. With PCLinuxOS I had problems over Broadcom wifi. With various Ubuntu derivatives (Lite and others) Bluetooth hasn't always played nicely. So far, MX-16 has performed brilliantly. MXTools is helpful for non-experts. And the options (not easy or not available in many other distros) to run from USB or SD card, and to remaster (which I haven't yet tried) are extras which set MX apart. I can't understand why MX isn't a lot higher up the popularity charts.....


Return to “General”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests