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 reveiw grumbles

Report Bugs, Issues and non- pacakage Requests
Message
Author
User avatar
Gordon Cooper
Forum Guide
Forum Guide
Posts: 2037
Joined: Mon Nov 21, 2011 5:50 pm

Re: Distrowatch reveiw grumbles

#51 Post by Gordon Cooper » Fri May 25, 2018 12:46 am

Must be me that is confused, I used http://ftp.acc.umu.se/mirror/mxlinux.org/packages/, and got this:
SE.png
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.
Homebrew64 bit Intel duo core 2 GB RAM, 120 GB Kingston SSD, Seagate1TB.
Primary OS : MX-17.1 64bit. Also MX17, Kubuntu14.04 & Puppy 6.3.
Dell9010, MX-17.1, Win7

User avatar
Utopia
Forum Veteran
Forum Veteran
Posts: 3756
Joined: Sun Apr 29, 2007 11:53 am

Re: Distrowatch reveiw grumbles

#52 Post by Utopia » Fri May 25, 2018 1:34 am

The new Swedish repo seems to be working. The latest packages are from 2018-05-24.
Didn't know about this one, thanks for posting.
Henry

karieho
Forum Novice
Forum  Novice
Posts: 5
Joined: Fri Apr 27, 2018 11:25 am

Re: Distrowatch reveiw grumbles

#53 Post by karieho » Fri May 25, 2018 2:04 am

I also noticed the repo problem two weeks ago when I replaced a new motherboard. I reinstalled MX 17.1 and updated the system from Swedish repo. There was only Firefox 58. When I change the repo to Usa I got much more updates and also Firefox 60. After that I downloaded the mounthly iso (March 2018) and burn it to DVD. I installed the system again and now everything went smoothly.

Finland is a very small language area. We have own problems with MX etc. with FeatherPad and Nomacs. They are not yet translated in finnish. I use Leafpad and Ristretto instead of them.

User avatar
colin_b
Forum Regular
Forum Regular
Posts: 339
Joined: Sun Mar 19, 2017 7:21 pm

Re: Distrowatch reveiw grumbles

#54 Post by colin_b » Sat Jun 02, 2018 10:52 pm

Another grumble..
The latest version of of MX (or AntiX) won't install on my HP Stream (issues with the emmc "hard drive") and on my desktop fails to recognize the video card properly ( AMD Radeon RX 550 ); which is staggering in this day and age. This causes unacceptable performance issues and make me feel like it's Linux 1998 with HW support.

I've been using Linux since '96 and could probably resolve these issues with a bit of time, but with a plethora of choice around its easier to install another distro.

I still rate it a 10 out of 10 because over the years it's been a top notch and under recognized distribution that I think is overlooked way to often. It deserves everyone to check it out, and I'm certain that while I'm not happy with the latest version, this is an exception and not the norm.
Is this a minor issue which only affects a few users?

User avatar
dolphin_oracle
Forum Veteran
Forum Veteran
Posts: 9392
Joined: Sun Dec 16, 2007 1:17 pm

Re: Distrowatch reveiw grumbles

#55 Post by dolphin_oracle » Sat Jun 02, 2018 11:28 pm

colin_b wrote:
Sat Jun 02, 2018 10:52 pm
Another grumble..
The latest version of of MX (or AntiX) won't install on my HP Stream (issues with the emmc "hard drive") and on my desktop fails to recognize the video card properly ( AMD Radeon RX 550 ); which is staggering in this day and age. This causes unacceptable performance issues and make me feel like it's Linux 1998 with HW support.

I've been using Linux since '96 and could probably resolve these issues with a bit of time, but with a plethora of choice around its easier to install another distro.

I still rate it a 10 out of 10 because over the years it's been a top notch and under recognized distribution that I think is overlooked way to often. It deserves everyone to check it out, and I'm certain that while I'm not happy with the latest version, this is an exception and not the norm.
Is this a minor issue which only affects a few users?
the mmc thing is fixed in the current installer.

can't say about the desktop video card. we use the open source amd drivers .
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.

User avatar
colin_b
Forum Regular
Forum Regular
Posts: 339
Joined: Sun Mar 19, 2017 7:21 pm

Re: Distrowatch reveiw grumbles

#56 Post by colin_b » Fri Sep 07, 2018 4:14 pm

Deserves 10 points, but

The 2 things that make me return to Fedora (which I also like), are:
- Under Antix kernels (test), firefox does not work; blank page.

- No up-to-date CPU microcode to mitigate CVE-2018-3640 [rogue system register read] aka 'Variant 3a' vulnerability

- And, No update to mitigate CVE-2018-3639 [speculative store bypass] aka 'Variant 4' vulnerability.
Have these points been mentioned in the forum?

User avatar
dolphin_oracle
Forum Veteran
Forum Veteran
Posts: 9392
Joined: Sun Dec 16, 2007 1:17 pm

Re: Distrowatch reveiw grumbles

#57 Post by dolphin_oracle » Fri Sep 07, 2018 4:19 pm

colin_b wrote:
Fri Sep 07, 2018 4:14 pm
Deserves 10 points, but

The 2 things that make me return to Fedora (which I also like), are:
- Under Antix kernels (test), firefox does not work; blank page.

- No up-to-date CPU microcode to mitigate CVE-2018-3640 [rogue system register read] aka 'Variant 3a' vulnerability

- And, No update to mitigate CVE-2018-3639 [speculative store bypass] aka 'Variant 4' vulnerability.
Have these points been mentioned in the forum?

no, but the intel microcode is patched for both I think. the debian 4.9 kernel is patched for the other. our 4.15 likely won't be, but steveo keeps backporting the debian-backports kernels, so they might be patched. the main issue is the moving target on building dkms modules. its the tradeoff of using the non-default debian kernel.

as to the antiX kernels and firefox, the OP can take that up with antiX. personally I don't buy it as I run firefox on antiX all the time.

"Deserves a 10" but gives it a 1. OK, moving on. There are other numbers, like 7, 5 and 3 just to name a few. :p
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.

User avatar
Jerry3904
Forum Veteran
Forum Veteran
Posts: 22465
Joined: Wed Jul 19, 2006 6:13 am

Re: Distrowatch reveiw grumbles

#58 Post by Jerry3904 » Fri Sep 07, 2018 4:44 pm

I agree. I've seen a number of these "it ain't Fedora" and consider them all trolls.
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
Stevo
Forum Veteran
Forum Veteran
Posts: 16300
Joined: Fri Dec 15, 2006 8:07 pm

Re: Distrowatch reveiw grumbles

#59 Post by Stevo » Fri Sep 07, 2018 5:09 pm

We have a slightly newer 20180807 intel-microcode release in our test repo for now, having been burned once before in the last year with a buggy version. It's also in Stretch-backports...Stretch has 20180703. This person didn't take the time to learn much about MX before bashing it, but we can't help that.

What the heck do antiX kernels have to do with MX? We have plenty of our own updated kernels. Really stinks of troll now--adventurers, be wary! But that's what our success leads to: haters.

User avatar
Stevo
Forum Veteran
Forum Veteran
Posts: 16300
Joined: Fri Dec 15, 2006 8:07 pm

Re: Distrowatch reveiw grumbles

#60 Post by Stevo » Fri Sep 07, 2018 5:22 pm

Any thoughts about changing this?
Version: 17.1
Rating: 10
Date: 2018-08-20
Votes: 2


In limited use, I find it one of the best, easy to use distros, in what is a rather small collection.

I would be using it full time, except for one thing: they put their superb collection of helper scripts in /usr/local. I have my own large collection of (perhaps not-so-superb) admin scripts which I keep there as well, and I would prefer not to mix them.

In the past, /usr/local was supposed to be reserved for the local installation. Now I know there is presently a geek slap fight going on as to whether that should matter. which I choose to remain silent on.

I'd be happier if MX would either integrate their scripts into /usr (which they probably don't want to do for the same reason), or maybe move them to /opt, although I realize there is likely no best solution.

/usr/distro, maybe? Don't like that either.

Anyway, MX is one of the best distros around right now.
I'm not absolutely certain, but I think Debian policy says that helper scripts can go into /usr/lib/<packagename>, but if they're talking about the ones in /usr/local/bin, they really should be going into /usr/bin instead.

Post Reply

Return to “Bugs and Non-Package Requests Forum”