{Solved} More from Dedo

[Adrian]

And at some point, the forum members will probably suggest that you install a newer MX release.

And as long as it doesn't require to buy new hardware, I think it's the least worst solution

I think latest MX (even the 64bit) runs on hardware people trashed 3 years ago...

[PPC]

And at some point, the forum members will probably suggest that you install a newer MX release.

And as long as it doesn't require to buy new hardware, I think it's the least worst solution

I think latest MX (even the 64bit) runs or hardware people trashed 3 years ago...

My MX 64 bits runs on a single core with 3 gig of RAM that makes Windows 10 crawl (which came pre installed when I got this machine some 6 months ago). The only other distro I tested on this rig was antiX Live usb , that made it even a tiny bit faster.... 3 years ago my computer would already be an "antique" (get it? antiX ) !

P.

[cyrilus31]

if after 5 years you cannot set aside 5-10 minutes to do an installation and do an apt-get install for the rest of packages you want... too bad

This says it all. (and I run MX on 16 years old - although I prefer using antiX on this one - and 12 years old laptops)

[KBD]

The definition of "support" will change after EOL though.

1. Debian repo packages - after the Debian LTS team closes shop, no more patches/updates will come from them.

2. but some packages like Firefox might still be rebuilt by MX team for a short time after the EOL date of the Debian release. Example: Mepis12/MX14 is based on Debian Wheezy, and EOL was on 31 May 2018. See https://www.debian.org/News/2018/20180601

But MX's packaging team still built Firefox 62.0.2 for MX14 on 25 Sep 2018.

viewtopic.php?p=461821#p461821

3. However, apart from a few such packages still receiving short-lived additional updates, I think you will find that "support" after Debian EOL just means receiving continued help and problem-solving suggestions on the forum. It won't be a case of software updates/patches. And at some point, the forum members will probably suggest that you install a newer MX release.

Something I've been wondering lately is how hard is it to dist-upgrade MX to the next release? I can imagine some things might need fixing, but I've never tried it and and wonder if it would seriously break the OS.

[richb]

Something I've been wondering lately is how hard is it to dist-upgrade MX to the next release? I can imagine some things might need fixing, but I've never tried it and and wonder if it would seriously break the OS.

Some have done this and there are posts on the Forum with their experiences. They may chime in. But the way to find out is to try it yourself. This is in no way a recommendation.

[figueroa]

I suggest that the best practice is to stay up-to-date with MX's update manager, and, if one's hardware supports it (which is likely and easily tested with a live usb), reinstall, if necessary or strongly recommended, with MX's major releases (when the base changes, more or less every two years), or find yourself become slowly left behind and increasingly vulnerable as the active developer community looses interest, over time, with older versions.

[KBD]

Some have done this and there are posts on the Forum with their experiences. They may chime in. But the way to find out is to try it yourself. This is in no way a recommendation.

Yeah, I'm just thinking for down the road when the next MX release based on Buster comes out. I'll probably do a fresh install, but might be interesting to try an upgrade then and see what happens :)

[Richard]

Thanks Bluesguy for hanging on to this topic.
I think it is an important point; however, after reading through the threads it seems to me, that Dedoimedo would like to have his cake and eat it with ice cream.
He loves the distro created by this small group of dedicated devs, mods and testers
--none of whom get paid--
and in order that he feel safe for his own use
they should declare for how many years
it will be supported, LTS.

I believe the declaration you have put together
is honest and foreseeable. More than that
is conjecture.

[JayM]

And at some point, the forum members will probably suggest that you install a newer MX release.

And as long as it doesn't require to buy new hardware, I think it's the least worst solution

I think latest MX (even the 64bit) runs on hardware people trashed 3 years ago...

I just installed MX-18.2 on a ten year old, very low-end netbook (that I was close to throwing in the garbage) yesterday afternoon. Unlike other distros I've encountered MX doesn't seem to drop support for older hardware in upgrades/updates. (Even Linux Lite no longer offers a 32-bit version, for example. Another distro I was using dropped the driver for my onboard GPU on a computer I had at the time from its nvidia drivers package (or perhaps that was a decision made by nvidia and passed along by the distro) and the solution offered to me was to go buy a newer video card.) The only "go buy a new..." advice I've seen in the MX forums related to USB sticks that were suspected of being bad.

[JayM]

Thanks Bluesguy for hanging on to this topic.
I think it is an important point; however, after reading through the threads it seems to me, that Dedoimedo would like to have his cake and eat it with ice cream.
He loves the distro created by this small group of dedicated devs, mods and testers
--none of whom get paid--
and in order that he feel safe for his own use
they should declare for how many years
it will be supported, LTS.

I believe the declaration you have put together
is honest and foreseeable. More than that
is conjecture.

Why not just tell Dedo that

MX is based on Debian's stable branch, which follows this LTS schedule. Additional support is provided by MX's development and packaging teams of volunteers for at least the same period of time as Debian, and often longer, making MX Linux a good choice for those concerned about long-term stability and security.

I think what he's concerned about may be that MX's release history has been a major release about once a year and that he'd have to do an annual full reinstallation with all the backing up and restoring of data and reinstalling apps that would entail, and he didn't see anything on the website that told him specifically how many years his installation would be good for before he had to do it again.