You are most welcome.dreamer wrote: ↑Fri May 24, 2019 6:14 pm [...]
Thanks for your efforts manyroads! Your efforts creating "antiXfce" are not in vain even if MX Linux stays sysvinit. I think you make it slightly harder for yourself by incorporating two sessions. Why not make an Openbox ISO and an Xfce ISO? That way there is less entanglement between the "DEs". Just a thought. You have at least another year to complete your work, because Debian Stretch isn't going anywhere. I usually have two DEs installed myself, but it can make the menu more confusing. I don't mind an ISO with two sessions or more, I just thought it would be more work.
I also hope MX Linux stays with sysvinit. I think it's important for Linux. But I understand if they don't want to fight the app ecosystem and focus on building a great distro. I think whatever they choose MX Linux will become slightly smaller so there is no good choice really. But smaller can also be better, because it's easier to target a more uniform group of users.
I think the application issue argument re: requiring systemd is not horribly relevant... I think apps are 'most likely' going the way of appimages, snaps and flatpaks. Systemd or no systemd ought to be transparent. I have been testing that and not seen a problem or conflict yet.
As for OB and xfce co-existing, they seem to be able to do that without difficulty. I do agree though that the other antiX wms should stay together on/in the traditional antiX. LXQt almost certainly will not go well on the same desktop with the OB/xfce combination. Although it can go together with OB alone.
