[SOLVED] Difference between antiX and MX

[beardedragon]

I like to mix and match. I started with MX preferring xfce to fluxbox, currently running Kernel: 4.20.12-antix.1-amd64-smp x86_64 bits so I can use GeForce GT 720/PCIe/SSE2 v: 4.6.0 NVIDIA 418.56
Sort of like Manjaro users using things straight from Arch Repos.

[Klaas Vaak]

Thanks to everyone for your input. I had used both antiX and MX in Windows-hosted VM for a short time only, had a slight preference for MX without really being able to put my finger on it. Currently I have antiX installed on a 2 GB RAM/32 GB HDD 64-bit Lenovo tablet/PC hybrid. No big complaints. Switching to MX? Probably not.

[bigbenaugust]

Openbox antiX? That would be great! antiXbang? crunchX?

I did once run the BunsenLabs (bunsenlabs.org) install atop an antiX install. Everything worked except the custom exit dialog, which depends on systemd. That would just be a matter of rewriting the openbox config to use its own exit command.

[PPC]

As you may have noted... I am building an OpenBox version of MX (re-spin). OpenBox is a windows manager not a Desktop Environment. I will try to port the OpenBox, I build over to antiX. I think with a similar UI on both OSes, you'll get a much better idea of the 'under the hood' differences. Besides, it's just a fun exercise.

Hi! I already have the experience of using MX and antiX with a very similar "envrironment" to MX- I'm running Fluxbox "DE", Skidoo's version, with several "icons" and "scripts" to make it run almost like MX linux with a horizontal bar. I have the same windows decorations as MX on my antiX box, and the same icon theme, so, unless I click the "start" menu, there is almost no difference.
I threw out the idea, on the forum, to have similar UI on both MX and antiX, but it didn't have a very good reception :-(

According to my limited experience: (not a apples to apples experience, since I use 2 differents PC's and MX runs XFCE and my antiX runs a heavily customized Fluxbox)- antiX runs with a much smaller memory footprint (some 130 mb of RAM on idle). If you install and run the same browser and office suit, on both systems, like I did, you don't notice any real difference.
In my case the main differences are: different "start" menu (that would not happen, I guess, if using Openbox on both OS's), different "tools" - antiX favors CLI apps, different File Manager (even after configuring antiX's to look almost like MX's)
I like running Appimages, those run about at the same speed on both systems.
My MX box has a single core, 3 gig of ram, a nvidia card, my antiX is on a atom netbook, single core, 1 gig of shared ram.
On my antiX box MX does not run very well simply because it runs out of ram when using Firefox and starts digging into SWAP space, slowing it to a crawl, that's why I stuck with antiX! But if I find a new usb pendrive, i'll try MX openbox on it

P.

[manyroads]

Hi! I already have the experience of using MX and antiX with a very similar "envrironment" to MX- I'm running Fluxbox "DE", Skidoo's version, with several "icons" and "scripts" to make it run almost like MX linux with a horizontal bar. I have the same windows decorations as MX on my antiX box, and the same icon theme, so, unless I click the "start" menu, there is almost no difference.
I threw out the idea, on the forum, to have similar UI on both MX and antiX, but it didn't have a very good reception :-(

According to my limited experience: (not a apples to apples experience, since I use 2 differents PC's and MX runs XFCE and my antiX runs a heavily customized Fluxbox)- antiX runs with a much smaller memory footprint (some 130 mb of RAM on idle). If you install and run the same browser and office suit, on both systems, like I did, you don't notice any real difference.
In my case the main differences are: different "start" menu (that would not happen, I guess, if using Openbox on both OS's), different "tools" - antiX favors CLI apps, different File Manager (even after configuring antiX's to look almost like MX's)
I like running Appimages, those run about at the same speed on both systems.
My MX box has a single core, 3 gig of ram, a nvidia card, my antiX is on a atom netbook, single core, 1 gig of shared ram.
On my antiX box MX does not run very well simply because it runs out of ram when using Firefox and starts digging into SWAP space, slowing it to a crawl, that's why I stuck with antiX! But if I find a new usb pendrive, i'll try MX openbox on it

P.

Not to worry. I "DO" like your idea of putting the same UI on both antiX & MX. I have and am doing that. Want to help?

[seaken64]

PSA:
iceWM, fluxbox, JWM are stacking window managers

antiX currently provides only one tiling window manager, the funnily-named (to my ear) herbstluftwm
archwiki::Comparison_of_tiling_window_managers

If you don't count dvtm, tmux, and screen from the repos, (for you folks who like text interfaces, like me). These are all tiling window managers, or screen multiplexers.

[seaken64]

missed the MX package installer - which allows you to install packages from "testing" repo without having to add that repo.

antiX full edition includes a similar application (but no "testing" tab) ~~ /usr/bin/packageinstaller , aka
antiX Control Center }}} System }}} Package Installer

if you like editing text, like I do, then antiX has a nice Control Center that has some icons that link you to the config files. You then don't have to remember where these files are located in the file system.

Just click on the icon link, make your edit and save. Easy peasy.

This takes me a couple of seconds. If I use the MX tools it takes me minutes to wait for the gui to do it's thing. And I don't get to see what is happening. The MX tools keep the secrets of the OS. antiX makes it easier to probe into the guts and expose some of the secrets.

Seaken64

[seaken64]

if you like editing text, like I do, then antiX has a nice Control Center that has some icons that link you to the config files. You then don't have to remember where these files are located in the file system.

Just click on the icon link, make your edit and save. Easy peasy.

This takes me a couple of seconds. If I use the MX tools it takes me minutes to wait for the gui to do it's thing. And I don't get to see what is happening. The MX tools keep the secrets of the OS. antiX makes it easier to probe into the guts and expose some of the secrets.

Seaken64

So, one of the differences between the two systems is that antiX caters more to the advanced user or geek, MX tries to do more hand-holding for those who are uncomfortable with the more esoteric features of computing.

Both are appropriate. But since I skew a little toward the geek I prefer the antiX approach. And I'm always amazed at how antiX can restore an old computer back into a useful tool. But playing with old computers is my hobby. I would never suggest a regular computer user to stay with their old Pentium 4 and run antix if they have the resources to buy into a Quad Core i7 with 16 GB running MX. Two different experiences, to be sure.

Seaken64

[PPC]

Not to worry. I "DO" like your idea of putting the same UI on both antiX & MX. I have and am doing that. Want to help?

sorry for the delay, manyroads: I don't really have much free time now a days... But if you want I can send you my "antix Fluxbox transformation pack", so you can have some more ideas and resources to work on... PM me if you are interested, ok?
A small part of having almost the same tools as MX on antiX is my gui updater script. I use it with a very similar icon to MX's updater (note: It does not scan for new updates)- I have it here in the forum... You can have a look at that too!

P.

[beardedragon]

Well, I managed to duo-boot AntiX-19 and MX-18.2, now all I have to do is learn how to use AntiX. LOL
Any good suggestions?

I should have posted this here instead of [antiX-19-a1-full (64 bit) available]. Anyway I am using antix now with xfce desktop running, (My preference) and it took some changes but managed to get it up and running. The best of both worlds? Let me tell you, it is challenging and I am up for it. I use both the GUI and the terminal often enough to get around things. The fact that this option is available if you search for it is awesome. Still get a message when antix starts telling me this is not one of their preferred Window Managers, even when I check the xfce box. Like to get rid of that somehow.