why does my MX-17's grub say it is MX-18?

[Stevo]

At least one user (rasat) has been testing in-place upgrades to Buster, and they say that they've been going fine.

"Quick System Info" also adds the -r flag, which reports your repositories.

You do know that you can pick and choose which updates you want if you somehow want to stick with MX 17, right? Just disable the MX repos and you'll stick there on 17, but still get Debian security updates. You won't get our updates to Firefox*, Pale Moon, or the like semi-automatically, but you can still do those manually.

*Some people would argue that's a good thing with Firefox lately.

[lonesomepoint]

Noted: I should not use "bleeding edge" to vaguely describe the latest version, if I want to avoid getting mired in discussions about terminology.

[Eadwine Rose]

Basically.. it is based on stable, just got a new name :) We hackled over whether it should become 17.2 or 18, that is how small the difference was


Where bleeding edge is the frontrunner, MX18 is the kid getting pulled along on a rope, and at the very end of it.

[dreamer]

You do know that you can pick and choose which updates you want if you somehow want to stick with MX 17, right? Just disable the MX repos and you'll stick there on 17, but still get Debian security updates. You won't get our updates to Firefox*, Pale Moon, or the like semi-automatically, but you can still do those manually.

Actually if you keep the antiX repo you'll get both Firefox and Pale Moon updates which I discovered yesterday (MX packages I think). I'm sure there are a few more browsers in the antiX repo. Then you get Firefox-ESR from Debian Stable. Then Chrome, Opera etc. have their own repos. So browsers are pretty much taken care of even without the MX repo enabled.

antiX seems much more conservative than MX. No xorg, mesa, firmware, Gimp upgrades for example. Probably no DE upgrades either. So from that perspective it's better for a conservative user (think Debian Stable or Ubuntu LTS).

I like Xfce and the MX Tools, but those are pretty feature complete as I see it - I don't miss any functionality. I'm now going to test MX 17 without MX repo enabled and see how it goes - basically MX 17 November status. The MX repo is still there and can be enabled should I need something. With the antiX repo enabled everything related to SysV should receive normal updates so I don't feel I'm gambling with the base system. I also have one PC with MX 17 (18) with MX repo enabled for reference.

Why do this? I don't like updates/upgrades (I have changed many config files system-wide outside /home that may be reset by upgrades - the package manager should probably ask about that but I don't feel like taking the chance). Why do people use Debian Stable or Ubuntu LTS? Same thing. It's easier to become familiar with a system that doesn't change. Here's how I see the distro landscape:

Category 1: "Stable and Conservative": Debian Stable, Ubuntu LTS, antiX?
Category 2: "Stable and Progressive": MX Linux
Category 3: "Rolling and Conservative": PCLinuxOS
Category 4: "Rolling and Progressive": Arch

[m_pav]

Category 1: "Stable and Conservative": Debian Stable, Ubuntu LTS, Antix?
Category 2: "Stable and Progressive": MX Linux
Category 3: "Rolling and Conservative": PCLinuxOS
Category 4: "Rolling and Progressive": Arch

Love it !

[asqwerth]

AntiX - stable and conservative only if you use Stable repo.

You can choose Debian unstable as part of the installation process, in which case you've got yourself a rolling distro.

[anticapitalista]

Please note the spelling of antiX - thanks.

[GuiGuy]

Please note the spelling of antiX - thanks.

Is the capitalization important?

[anticapitalista]

Please note the spelling of antiX - thanks.

Is the capitalization important?

Of the X? Yes.

[male]

Please note the spelling of antiX - thanks.

+1