antiX 19.1 core kde/plasma build series

Forum Forums General Tips and Tricks antiX 19.1 core kde/plasma build series

  • This topic has 18 replies, 7 voices, and was last updated Jul 24-9:31 am by masinick.
Viewing 4 posts - 16 through 19 (of 19 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #39317
    Member
    AvatarAtlanelan

    Thanks @dolphin_oracle. kde version from 19.1-sid is older than the one you showed in your video. I forget to note the version. I moved to antix-core_19.2-buster. Installed kde-5.14 and ‘stays’ with ceni. On 19.1-sid+mate after removing networkmanager I strugled a lot to get ceni work again. Antix+kde is faster than Mx+kde 🙂

    #39318
    Moderator
    masinickmasinick

    Thanks @dolphin_oracle. kde version from 19.1-sid is older than the one you showed in your video. I forget to note the version. I moved to antix-core_19.2-buster. Installed kde-5.14 and stays with ceni. Antix+kde is faster than Mx+kde 🙂

    This actually makes sense to me. Even though most of our software is “stable”, being “derived” software, we can – and do – use the most effective software for our purposes. For example, while the majority of our software is “Debian-based”, the development team of antiX chooses to use alternative system initialization (scheduler) processing. Debian, several years ago, moved to a system scheduler known as “SystemD”, which is NOT a Debian creation, it was created primarily by a Red Hat developer. The main reasons that some people dislike it are that:

    1) It does MORE than just provide process and job scheduling; it’s a pretty large selection of processes.
    2) It is NOT managed by text editable configuration files; it has binary routines that provide much of its capability.

    These things don’t necessarily make SystemD terrible; on systems with many processors, it does allow the workload to split out into different processors. The objections generally are concerned about a lot of “magic” going on it binary routines, where you really can only see what’s happening by going deeply into the original source code, instead of simply changing things with a text readable configuration file. Also the tendency to do too much with one monolithic tool is another common objection.

    with that said, antiX completely stays away from SystemD. MX, like antiX, does offer traditional Linux scheduling but it also allows for the use of SystemD. Moreover, MX Linux has a convenient desktop environment layer. While relatively “efficient” compared to many desktop environment “layers”, the conveniences this provides DO also have OVERHEAD not found in antiX, which is why you see antiX considerably more memory and resource efficient, hence the primary differences between MX Linux and antiX. Both have excellent software; MX Linux aims to be a drop in easy user environment; antiX aims to be “a lean and mean”, efficient system, aimed to work on aging hardware.

    Does that provide a reasonable explanation of where antiX and MX Linux have similarities and differences?

    (They are my two favorite distributions, CLEARLY for DIFFERENT reasons).

    Brian Masinick

    #39319
    Member
    AvatarAtlanelan

    @masinick
    Does that provide a reasonable explanation of where antiX and MX Linux have similarities and differences?

    (They are my two favorite distributions, CLEARLY for DIFFERENT reasons).

    Totally agreed.

    #39323
    Moderator
    masinickmasinick

    Glad you found it helpful.

    If anyone has any corrections or further clarification on this, I’ll be grateful for the clarification and corrections!

    Two EXCELLENT distributions in the same family (and lots of various ways to customize ANY of them to suit your specific purposes.

    Case in point:

    Back in the time between 2006-2012 both Simply MEPIS and antiX existed.

    I routinely used Simply MEPIS as a daily desktop, antiX Full with Debian Testing enabled for fast and efficient use, still fairly stable, and then I created my own custom antiX Core distro with Xfce (desktop). Ironically I used Debian Sid repos to run it, and for several years it worked flawlessly, even with Sid. The only precaution I used was to avoid updates just before and after a Debian release and I probably used it for 4-6 years!

    My antiX Core Xfce was quite similar to what MX Linux is today. The only differences were Sid vs. Buster and cosmetic and packaging changes from then to now.

    Interesting: since resources have been increasing over the years my old antiX Core with Xfce is similar to our current antiX in resource consumption and MX Linux is similar to what MEPIS with KDE consumed in days past! 🙂

    Brian Masinick

Viewing 4 posts - 16 through 19 (of 19 total)
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.