Personal impressions on MX-Linux 17

[vince_ita]

It has been a week since I installed Mx and loving it so far. I am a previous Arch user so my experience is probably a little unusual: I used Arch for years and learnt to set it up quite comfortably. While I won’t discuss the reasons to try a new distro I will say that MX-Linux attracted me with their useful tools and quick environment. It is an elegant layout and extremely functional.
The package manager makes sense and the use of a terminal alternative can go full cycle with the upgrade tool.

The usual trend for a distro is to be used it until the user finds out that something is missing. This makes it fail. So far it is not the case for MX. The high votes in Distrowatch and reviews are all well deserved in my opinion.

My previous distro , Arch is a great tool for learning but I found it a little unstable when updating. Further more, it has to be fully set up when installed, but when long hours are spent in vain because of critical errors, frustration sets in. I am grad MX makes me feel steps ahead and with a system solid and stable.

Another point of great appreciation is the forum and the community around it, glued together by the developers that stand strongly around it. I find it rare to be honest.

So I took this opportunity to pass on good impressions and positive signs that hope for a bright future.

I am not an expert in this but I am curious: what pushes developers to create a new distro? Is it mere creative drive ?
The will to collaborate and put together efforts that result in something that people will use and appreciate ?

Again, I am not an expert but how is the revenue generated if not via contributions and donations?

Thanks for reading !

[Jerry3904]

I am not an expert in this but I am curious: what pushes developers to create a new distro? Is it mere creative drive ?
The will to collaborate and put together efforts that result in something that people will use and appreciate ?

Again, I am not an expert but how is the revenue generated if not via contributions and donations?

Two good questions. The second is easier than the first: we get donations (link on top menu bar here).

As to the first: I guess is that we had a "perfect storm" of people with great talent, diverse interests and capabilities,a common vision and the ability to work together. (That will probably make my fellow Devs laugh)

[Adrian]

Thank you very much for the kind words. Beside the technical considerations, I think one of the best feature of MX is that being a small distro with a nice community you can influence its direction and choices by providing feedback and suggestions, so in as sense you can personalize it even before you put it on your computer (many of the devs work on it to make a better distro for themselves, we scratch our itch and if at the same time you make other people happy is a great feeling) That's one reason I came back -- long story, I started using MEPIS in 2004 (wow, it's been 14 years), and when people around here started to talk about customizing antiX to use a full-featured DE I got interested in the project -- at that time by the way I was an Arch user too) Updating Arch day-by-day was fine with me, never really gave me problems, although updating every day gets a bit tedious, but it also satisfies some kind of compulsion I guess...

MX itself came to be because MEPIS was no longer developed, its creator was busy with personal issues, antiX was a fine distro and still is, but not exactly what we envisioned to replace the user-friendliness of MEPIS, so we built on top of antiX something that is meant to replace the functionality of MEPIS. True, MEPIS was based on KDE, but then KDE people decided to go crazy directions and disappointed many people with a buggy 4.0 release (that apparently was not really meant for public, but the harm was already done) Debian Stable always had too old version of KDE and it was a pain to get something newer, in the end I was happy people here decided to go with Xfce.

[vince_ita]

Also, another good impression was given by the package manager. I think the whole idea is very well executed.
I tried many distros and their package manager was one of the main things that made me decide to turn back: for example, Elementary OS is a good distro, not great for many reasons. Personally, I had a hard time making the AppCentre and the APT package manager (Ubuntu iteration) not conflict.

In MX-Linux the main Package Manager (MX), the MX Updater and the terminal based Aptitude work together quite wonderfully. It all helps to make it feel like a solid distribution.

My question to the developers is:
-Are you hoping to expand the distro with more tools in the future? Would your direction point towards a "prettier/ modernized" UI?
-Do you expect MX to get to highest peaks in Distrowatch? (at the moment it is 11th, that brings all respect)
-Do you have a Distro that you really admire for idea and execution?

How are you hoping to expand the project?

Thanks! and good work!

[anticapitalista]

Would your direction point towards a "prettier/ modernized" UI?

What do you mean by this exactly?

[Jerry3904]

1. Are you hoping to expand the distro with more tools in the future?
2. Would your direction point towards a "prettier/ modernized" UI?
3. Do you expect MX to get to highest peaks in Distrowatch? (at the moment it is 11th, that brings all respect)
4. Do you have a Distro that you really admire for idea and execution?

Can't speak for all the Devs, but here are my personal reactions:
1. We are constantly evaluating what we have already and are on the lookout for other needs
2. Subjective question that seems unanswerable. Our reviewers have been very complimentary about the looks of MX-17
3. We have no expectations at all; the giants at the top are pretty settled in with resources that dwarf anything we have
4. We admire a whole bunch--starting with antiX! But we are not aiming to be another version of something that already exists

[richb]

Well said Jerry and I agree totally with your comments.

[vince_ita]

Would your direction point towards a "prettier/ modernized" UI?

What do you mean by this exactly?

Sorry it was a vague question,I admit it.
I ll rephrase:
- Are you considering putting many resources into the look and feel side of the distro?

For example the Elementary Os team have spent most of their time and resources thinking how to improve the UI, what direction to take and they are delivering on that.

Are you thinking the interface need improvements or you are satisfied with the feel the distro gives to the user ?

[richb]

My own thoughts on this. The UI is predominantly dictated by XFCE which is the DE we use. We do not intend to recreate that. I see no need to do so let alone having resources available for such a task. The concentration of the dev team on the UI has been around providing specialized MX Tools and it has been a primary focus of the team since the inception of MX. So that has and will continue to be a primary focus. That includes what tools to create, the look and feel of the tool presentation and what underlying tools are used to create them. Our devs are never fully satisfied and constantly look for improvements.

[cgriffin]

MX Linux is the perfect distribution for me. My hat is off to all those who have dedicated time and energy to it.
My personal impression is that the look & feel is close to perfect. After messing around with kde for a while I realized why xfce is the default and only supported desktop.
For those who are linux enthusiasts, hobbyists, etc, go try out Manjaro. You can get a beautiful KDE desktop there. However, you might pay a price for being on the bleeding edge. Still, it's probably a bit easier ride than Arch.

I'm done with that, I have a computer to get work done, and when I'm not getting work done I'd rather not be looking at it.