AntiX distro upgrade system

[Anonymous]

Well everybody. Here it is the time for me to leave LMDE 2 distro because the project since the new version becomes now disappointing.

I’m looking for a upgrade-friendly and systemd free distro. I have first found MXlinux interesting but it seems Antix is better about that.

So this is why I wonder which branch of ANtix to install to fit best when there will be a new debian version (next buster) and enjoy easily recent releases of popular packages avoiding also intempestive or some undesirable maintenance on various computers as those of the relatives ? Stable branch is enough ?

Please how will be going the upgrade process from antix stretch to buster? Can we expect almost automatically ?

[Member Jesse]

Helpful

Up

0

::

Stable branch antiX is likely the most compatible with any potential upgrade path. I have had success upgrading from 16 to 17 (jessie to stretch), but I’ve seen it be a hassle for others, so your mileage may vary. If you only use the default sources.list upgrading major versions without a clean istall is probably more likely to work. It is my understanding that a clean install for major version changes is best practice, and that is usually how I upgrade for major version changes. AntiX’s install takes less than 20 minutes (10-15 average) on my older systems, so its pretty painless. Add to that all of the Snapshot utilities and scripts packed into AntiX and clean installs become quite painless and easy to get your customizations, configs, etc. in place on the clean install. The same utilites also make it quite friendly when taking care of multiple systems.

I also use MXLinux, and its about the same as far as upgrades and installs. MX has a pretty robust testing repo, so if newer versions of packages is really important, it may be a better choice.

I am a big fan of both. AntiX is quite a bit lighter in terms of base resource usage, so I use it on my weakest system.

mxlinux.org and antixlinux.com both have upgrade path information that you may want to look into regarding major version changes.

rainydayshirts.bandcamp.com | Audio
rainydayshirts.deviantart.com | Visual

[Moderator caprea]

Helpful

Up

0

::

Hi armka,
IMHO, unless you are a realy linux-beginner , starting with antiX17.1 , it’s an easy-going to choose the testing-repos in antiX. And it’s best to do this right from the start.Then you have a rolling distro with recent packages.Afterwards changing the repos is always a risk.
Only problem is, there are some packages, where a non-systemd version must be written by anti and if changes are going fast, you maybe are doing a dist-upgrade on your system before this is done.
Then the upgrade wants to put in libsystemd or at worst systemd (haven’t seen this until now,systemd should not be possible to install accidentally, because there is a lock built into the antix system, libsystemd can be removed with apt-get autoremove after the non-systemd version is out)
so you have to wait untill the non-systemd version is done.

But that’s just my experience.

Oh, I’ve just seen you are also talking about your relatives, then maybe better stay with stable, it’s rock-solid.Support approx. 2020 (full) / approx. 2022 (LTS)

• This reply was modified 4 years, 8 months ago by caprea.
• This reply was modified 4 years, 8 months ago by caprea.

[Moderator Brian Masinick]

Helpful

Up

0

::

You can’t go wrong with EITHER MX-17 (or any newer updates), and the same is true with antiX 17.1 or anything coming along. Both of them are handy because they can be upgraded fairly easily, but even if you choose to install a newer version, they both have good provisions for:

1. Retaining your home directory, where you can store the typical things you like to keep.
2. Creating snapshots, updates, and backups of whatever features you want to save, preserve, or retain.

There are other distributions that offer some of these features, but antiX and MXLinux both provide:

1. Ease of use and good software choices (MXLinux favors ease of use and moderate resource use with good software, and antiX favors the smallest and most efficient software that gets the job done.

2. MXLinux is a little bit easier (by a small percentage) to the newest Linux users, but antiX can work with even older hardware than MXLinux can, so while both are GREAT choices, MXLinux has a slight edge in ease of use and antiX has a good edge when a minimal resource system is essential.

The fact is, though, that you can BUILD an MXLinux or MXLinux-like system using antiX, and MXLinux represents a REPLACEMENT of the older, easy to use MEPIS desktop system with MX, using the Xfce desktop environment (instead of the somewhat heavier, more complex KDE once used in MEPIS).

An example of a distribution that is fairly small and flexible that antiX has “learned from” at times is Puppy. It’s a good alternative for some people to antiX, though I personally prefer the tools and methods in antiX over the also very good Puppy “family” of distributions.

An example of a distribution that is reasonably light and has easy to use software is Peppermint Linux. The Peppermint software comes from the same software hierarchy because it is derived at the core from Debian-based software like antiX and MX, but it has additional lineage in the Ubuntu and Mint branches. Peppermint is lighter than either Ubuntu or Mint. I think antiX can probably undercut the size of a Peppermint image, but they should be “similar in size”. I’d say that Peppermint probably falls somewhere between antiX and MX in image size. The software it offers is very easy and so is packaging; it offers a front end to software updates that is downright easy. If it works for you, it’s great.

Being a user, administrator, designer, and one who has recommended directions for our choices over the years, I can tell you that MXLinux is more complete than Peppermint, both in application software and in configuration tools. Some would argue that Peppermint is easier in some ways; I wouldn’t argue, but that is like “Splitting hairs”. To me, the differences are NOT major, they are differences in methods and preferences.

When it comes to light, configurable systems, the “balance” between “light” and “configurable” is outstanding in antiX; the only way you could exceed it in any way is to configure it yourself, which is precisely what the antiX tools allow you to do.

While my statements, observations, and opinions are just that, “statements, observations, and opinions”, I believe that they are reasonable statements, and likely to be agreed upon by most people who visit here and use this software, but perhaps not universally accepted by those who prefer other distributions. I’d encourage any reader to try out our software, and to be free to use and examine other software as well, and use whatever suits your personal needs and preferences best.

Free and open software encourages this kind of examination and evaluation.

--
Brian Masinick

[Author]

Posts