- This topic has 13 replies, 4 voices, and was last updated Jul 2-2:37 pm by Brian Masinick.
-
Posts
-
AA BB
FWIW: my current antiX 19 core-FluxBox build (with browser closed) uses 150M RAM, which is less than half of what my current MX 19 FluxBox builds use.
Many would argue this is not an apples-to-apples comparison, but my antiX FBox builds are very functional relative my MXFBox
builds.On low RAM PC and tablets with Intel CPUs, antiX core builds can be very powerful and IMHO, the only way to go.
PPC
You are right: I tested extensively MXFB vs antiX. antiX always has lower idle RAM use, by far. antiX core even lower, I guess…
But, if you turn off stuff you don’t use (system updater. the clipboard app and the dock (the default dock uses about 22 Mb of RAM) you do get MXFB to idle on about 200Mb of RAM, which is not too bad, considering it’s running MX background services.
I think of MXFB as a middle-ground, something that has lower system requirements that the default MX XFCE, but still has stuff like MX-tools available to the user.
MXFB developer, Jerry, is very minimalist and has very particular design ideas – for example: MXFB does not list all available applications, but instead allows users to start xfce4-appfinder (that is great, but stays resident in RAM after it runs for the first time).
For most common tasks, like using the Web/e-mail or accessing files, the current MXFB menu is sufficient. I also have MXFB and use a menu generator to have an “applications” menu- making it more suitable for my needs. Also, I wrote a tiny GUI script that allows the user to pin/unpin apps to the start of the menu (it has MXFB and antiX versions), to allow for faster access to the user’s preferred apps.On devices with less than 2Gb of RAM, I would always run antiX (the default IceWM desktop has comparable RAM usage to Fluxbox and does look more “main stream”)
P.
Brian Masinick
I agree with you. The Fluxbox edition of MX Linux is another useful way to get an efficient system. Stock MX Linux, especially if you add several plugins to the taskbar, adds up memory usage. On my laptop with 8GB of memory that’s not a problem, but you can reduce the memory footprint considerably by reducing the number of processes that run by default. This is a balance between convenient operations and efficient system utilization. If you don’t use something, turn it off as long as you know what service it offers (and it doesn’t impact a viral service).
antiX starts with a very reasonable set of software and services that consume moderate resources.
Learning what you want, need and use and what those things require to function is an excellent way to learn how to make an efficient system for your needs. antiX certainly makes sense as a helpful start for building a personal system well suited for your specific purposes.
--
Brian MasinickBrian Masinick
FWIW: my current antiX 19 core-FluxBox build (with browser closed) uses 150M RAM, which is less than half of what my current MX 19 FluxBox builds use.
Many would argue this is not an apples-to-apples comparison, but my antiX FBox builds are very functional relative my MXFBox
builds.On low RAM PC and tablets with Intel CPUs, antiX core builds can be very powerful and IMHO, the only way to go.
Sounds like this is perfect for you.
Excellent!
Notice that it’s fairly easy for you to build this from the tools that are provided. Congratulations on your efforts and I am very happy that you are able to build precisely what you want from the kits the team provides!
--
Brian Masinick@masinick IMHO AntiX is a greatly under-rated distro given AntiX-core`s ability to build a highly customized desktop environment on any PC (with low or high resources). I really learned alot by building my desktop, and very much thank Xecure for the help he provided me.
I’ve gone back several times, to re-examine all the build steps which I find improves my understanding of not only AntiX, but Linux as well.
Long live AntiX core !
Brian Masinick
@AA BB: I am TOTALLY in agreement with you. I have been a longtime Debian Linux user (dating back to 2001). Before that, I used Mandrake and Red Hat (as far back as 1998), and Slackware, (all the way back to November 1995, when I purchased my first home computer). Prior to that, I did use personal computers and workstations, occasionally bringing them home, and I have been using computers at school and work since 1973 (when I had a very nice introduction to computers through a high school Algebra-Trigonometry class – the teacher took us on a field trip to the General Motors Research Laboratories at the Tech. Center in Warren, Michigan, and I instantly figured out what technology center I wanted to work in – computers and software – which I DID from June 1979 until January 2018, a nice career.
As far as systems go, when the first test releases of MEPIS came out in 2003, I was there, and I followed Simply MEPIS and the other releases too, continuing with MX Linux once Warren Woodford abandoned MEPIS for some great jobs (I think it was working with legal and intellectual property, very good professions, no wonder he moved on!) Paul, a.k.a. anticapitalista, appeared about two years after the early MEPIS came around – I’m not sure if our history is out there or not, but anti can confirm the exact time and date. Anyway, my hardware was always a bit older than the latest and greatest stuff. The desktop I had back then, a Dell Dimension 4100, was a good model when new, and it provided me with a very usable lifespan very close to a decade long – ending up being STOLEN just before I was moving – the thieves were local and had a pretty good idea when I was coming and going.
So Debian, MEPIS, MX Linux, and antiX have been a big part of my computing. I used them next with a Gateway 2000 and a Lenovo 3000, both laptops. These were quite a few years old when I finally disposed of them. Like the Dell Dimension, all of them still worked well, but antiX was among the few that still supported their aging 32-bit hardware.
Now I have a nicely aging Dell Inspiron 5558, 64-bit, 8 GB memory, 8 TB disk drive, 4-CPU Intel processors and again it runs antiX and MX Linux, along with Debian very well. As before, the more the unit ages, the more I stick with minimal configurations of one of these three distributions. Note that I definitely support this community – it’s my favorite of all, but I am able to run the SystemD stuff on Debian too, so I exercise BOTH of these choices from time to time, but I spend the majority of my time in either MX Linux or one of TWO instances of antiX (a Full Edition and a runit edition). Yesterday I spent the majority of my time on MX. Today I spent some time with a distro I reinstalled after a few years away, Mageia 7 (former Mandrake/Mandriva derivative). I still have a “soft spot” for it because it was one of the early “friendly” distributions, but I can also tell you that the quality and the repo download speeds can’t begin to compare to what we have – it’s on my TODO list to find FASTER repos, otherwise Mageia won’t last very long for me! Once I killed the software changes, I rebooted to my two antiX instances and I’ve been on them since – using antiX 19.2.1 “runit” now.
Why do I like it? 1) Debian-based packaging; this packaging style has been my favorite since 2001. 2) Tools: both MX Linux and antiX have some of the best tools for installing, configuring, and maintaining systems. They are both effective and efficient, a GREAT combination! 3) Flexibility: not only is this family of software effective to use and maintain, it is EASY to modify appearance, window managers, desktop environments, applications and utilities. 4) Speed: I’ve seen some comparisons on the Phoronix site over the years comparing various distributions. Though it has been a while since I checked them out, I’ve seen Debian-derived systems, even including Ubuntu, beating out the supposedly FAST Arch Linux in certain workloads. I suspect, based on my own informal usage (and some empirical tests (that means “unofficial timings” and visual feel of response) that antiX easily beats Arch Linux, plus it is FAR easier to install. Arch Linux is actually a COOL project, so I don’t want to discourage anyone who is interested in it or totally loves it; all I am saying is that in my experience, to end up with a system that didn’t perform noticeably faster than the other systems I used, yet took considerable time to build unless you grabbed someone’s pre-configured derivative, it just didn’t match my interests – though I WILL say that both Arch Linux and Linux From Scratch are VERY COOL projects if your aim is deep learning of Linux skills. (I learn PLENTY using what we have here, just the same).
Oh yeah, while mentioning learning, I want to thank macondo again for some of his recent sharing, and after this “discourse” I am going to try out a few of the latest ideas recently shared by macondo. Who says that learning stops at a certain age (or after retirement)? Not here; antiX is still a great hobby for me and I still tweak this or that from time to time.
Enjoy! Plenty to learn, try, and use here! 🙂
- This reply was modified 2 years, 10 months ago by Brian Masinick.
--
Brian MasinickVery interesting history, thanks for sharing.
I’m a relative newbie to the Linux world…prior to Nov 2019, I exclusively used Windows. But decided to gave up on it in Nov 2019, and haven’t looked back since. I first tried Linux Mint it was OK, but my next try was MX which I thought was great, but unfortunately it was ‘bloated’ with lots of pkgs I personally had no use for. After poking around, I found an MX user who created a “minimal version” which I tried out and was very impressed with.
Unfortunately, there is no better way to get your ‘head wacked’ on the MX forum than to ask questions related to an “un-bloated” or “minimal” versions of MX.
Like you, I use MX quite a bit, but I’m convinced MX has no interest in ever releasing an “minimal version” that allows users to add whatever packages the need
..So that’s why I now use both AntiX and MX.
The AntiX “spectrum” of choices i.e. ‘core’, ‘base’, ‘Full’ makes more sense to me than the MX “everything you’ll ever need and more” single version.From what I gathered on MX forum, it appears to me that MX has as its “core” AntiX.
I’m interested getting a deeper understanding of the relationship between MX and AntiX than I currently have, assuming of course that I can avoid any “sensitive” issues, given the obvious philosophical differences between the two.Brian Masinick
@AA BB: I’m glad that you found some of that history very interesting. Without a doubt I have “geeky” tendencies, so I’m glad that someone found my comments interesting.
With regard to MX Linux compared to antiX, perhaps the history itself explains some of the differences between MX Linux and antiX.
First, around 2003-2004, there really were not very many Linux distributions that could consider themselves “friendly”, at least not to NEWCOMERS to a completely different kind of computer system software. Let’s be honest for a few moments. To the vast majority of people there are really only two types and brands of computer systems – those made to run Microsoft Operating Systems (Windows) and those that run versions of Apple Computer software – (Mac, iOS). People “in the know” who are software or hardware professionals know that there are many kinds of operating systems for many different purposes, but the comments above pertain to “consumer” knowledge and preference.
MEPIS was one of the few relatively early Linux-based distributions that made a definite effort to make their systems straightforward, something that a “typical consumer”, possibly one who is frustrated with the usual offerings, may search for. So though it was a very competent technical system, it really was created with a reasonably nice user interface and a similarly sensible choice of applications.
When there was no NEW version of MEPIS in 2012, the MEPIS Lovers Community began to wonder if they could build their own. In the immediately preceding years, there were already several simple remastering efforts created to provide different desktop and application alternatives. At least six or more years earlier, anticapitalista had (politely) requested permission to create his own, much lighter version of a system called antiX, and it was introduced in the MEPIS forums at that time.
The audiences for the two types of systems had a few things in common, so some people (like me for instance) ran both MEPIS and antiX. The primary MEPIS Lovers Community wanted to have that MEPIS-like easy to use system, but some people did want a “lighter” version, so when MEPIS development ceased in 2012, anticapitalista provided some of his expertise and mastered a version re-branded as MX Linux, using the Xfce desktop environment instead of the KDE environment, a good choice at the time because KDE had (at least temporarily) become a bit of a mess as it took on what was pretty new – KDE-Plasma, and therefore the move from KDE to the stable Xfce made sense.
The primary use case and purpose for MX Linux is therefore different than antiX. MX Linux is intended to be a stable, reasonably efficient, middle of the road compromise system, aimed primarily at two things: stability and applications that appeal to the same user community that previously ran MEPIS.
Mind you, there are plenty of “technically astute” MEPIS and MX Linux users, but what most people are seeking is a stable environment with applications that just work.
antiX, on the other hand, has a very clear priority to be “lean and mean” – replace “mean” to be as efficient as possible, with the primary aim of supporting systems in the age range of three years old to potentially over a decade old. That’s why efficiency takes a much higher priority.
Both MX and antiX are more “efficient” in my opinion than at least 75% of the other distributions available; for antiX, that number is much higher – antiX is in the top 5% of all distributions in efficiency, but I personally think it ranks #1 in being able to support one of the broadest ranges of hardware possible, from relatively new hardware to stuff that’s very close to “end of usable life”.
Therefore, the reason that MX isn’t as much into the “minimal version” is that antiX covers it well already, and it’s in the “same family”, that is, anticapitalista is a primary developer in both communities.
However, if you ARE interested in something “lighter” with MX Linux, one of the long-time MEPIS/MX members named Jerry has been behind a remastering effort to provide an MX alternative with Fluxbox instead of the Xfce Desktop Environment, though I believe it has “hooks” to allow you to run any Xfce apps (optionally), at which time (of course) it then loads in the Xfce libraries to support the additional apps.
Maybe that would be of interest to you. I have not tried out their Fluxbox variation, but I’m sure that it has the stuff that probably comes straight from our antiX setups that are able to run Fluxbox; maybe it would be of interest to you.
If not, may I suggest a bit of reading and learning. You may be surprised to learn that without a software engineering degree, you may still be able to remaster either an MX Linux or an antiX instance to contain precisely the software that you want. What it takes is to first add the different software that you want, then remove what you want to replace, test it out, and if it works, either take a SNAPSHOT build of the effort, put it on a USB device, and then you can boot it live or install it on one of your systems. You can also create a new image of the resulting work and either use it on your own or share it with others too.
On MX Linux, the tools are called Snapshot and Live USB Maker. (I’m logged into MX Linux now). AntiX has very similar tools available, so browse around to find them, and if you have trouble, write back and one of us can give you precise directions. It’ll be a GREAT exercise (and a satisfying experience) if you do a bit of searching, then you’ll realize, “Hey, this isn’t too difficult, *I* can DO THIS”!
Hope it goes very well for you! Look around, save all of your work in case something goes wrong, and try things out until you actually create something of your very own. If you are anything like quite a few people, you may feel a great sense of accomplishment once you build your own unique, customized distribution!
--
Brian Masinick@masinick – The Fluxbox desktop is now officially part of MX Linux. If you want to take it for a spin, you can fire up MX in a virtual machine (even on-line, using the distrotest.net), log out and click the button in the middle of the top line of the log in screen, choose Fluxbox, and log on!
MXFB’s developer, Jerry, started up with a pure Fluxbox build- as far as I know he used nothing we use here at antiX- there are no automatically updated menus, it uses idesk to manage desktop icons and a “dock” that the developer himself adapted to run better in MXFB! The default icon set is the brilliant (in my humble opinion) “Moka”, and the toolbar positioning and configuration is completely different from antiX’s Fluxbox.
It even has it’s own desktop images, and now, an new exit menu (just came out in the latest update)! It has it’s own “power apps” to manage the dock and the desktop icons.
If you didn’t know it’s the same desktop as antiX Fluxbox, you would not believe it…
I felt attacked to having a lighter version of MX and made countless suggestions to Jerry (some he followed, some he didn’t). I even made a script (that I published in MX-fluxbox forum) that makes it look almost like MX-XFCE with the bar on the bottom. It’s Fluxbox, after all, and easy configured via a script!P.
EDIT: I just realized that my script can run in antiX Fluxbox, as long as idesk is installed, for those weirdos like me that like to “have” start menus and icons on Fluxbox’s toolbar 🙂
- This reply was modified 2 years, 10 months ago by PPC.
Brian Masinick
@masinick – The Fluxbox desktop is now officially part of MX Linux. If you want to take it for a spin, you can fire up MX in a virtual machine (even on-line, using the distrotest.net), log out and click the button in the middle of the top line of the log in screen, choose Fluxbox, and log on!
MXFB’s developer, Jerry, started up with a pure Fluxbox build- as far as I know he used nothing we use here at antiX- there are no automatically updated menus, it uses idesk to manage desktop icons and a “dock” that the developer himself adapted to run better in MXFB! The default icon set is the brilliant (in my humble opinion) “Moka”, and the toolbar positioning and configuration is completely different from antiX’s Fluxbox.
It even has it’s own desktop images, and now, an new exit menu (just came out in the latest update)! It has it’s own “power apps” to manage the dock and the desktop icons.
If you didn’t know it’s the same desktop as antiX Fluxbox, you would not believe it…
I felt attacked to having a lighter version of MX and made countless suggestions to Jerry (some he followed, some he didn’t). I even made a script (that I published in MX-fluxbox forum) that makes it look almost like MX-XFCE with the bar on the bottom. It’s Fluxbox, after all, and easy configured via a script!P.
EDIT: I just realized that my script can run in antiX Fluxbox, as long as idesk is installed, for those weirdos like me that like to “have” start menus and icons on Fluxbox’s toolbar
I should have known that your creative scripting efforts would be involved in YET another creative work — I am happy that we have people like you with the energy and creativity to try different things.
I just saw a clip on the bulletin board where I live that had a quote from Thomas Edison about trying 10,000 different things that failed. He didn’t view them as failures whatsoever. Instead they were work and experiments on ideas, 10,000 tries later (in some cases) he found stuff that worked. I think you’ve done a LOT better than 1 in 10,000 in your efforts and I encourage you to continue experimenting.
I do think that we are getting close to a point in time where computing is going to make some major shifts in direction. Nevertheless, for those of us with ancient equipment, especially those of us who are either poor, getting OLD, or both, we need creativity to continue to make new, cool stuff out of old relics. To me, guys like you, Dave, Bitjam, anticapitalista, Xecure (and many others), this is reality. Thanks to everyone I’ve mentioned and certainly hundreds, probably thousands, of others who have also contributed the technology of the stuff we take for granted today. Again, my sincere thanks!
--
Brian MasinickAhhh ha.. AntiX and MX both evolved from the same egg ( MEPIS ).. very interesting history …
FWIW : my antiX build uses FluxBox, and I routinely use MXFB as well.
In fact, after finishing my antiX Floxbox build, I copied the contents of the MXFB menu file I created ( ~/.fluxbox/mx-menu ) over to my Antix FB menu file and it worked perfectly. I’m not sure that will still work given the recent changes /updates made to MXFB.I don’t know if my antiX FBox with spaceFM file manager is the “leanest and meanest” antiX build out there, but I can tell you my antiX-FB snapshots are half the size of my MXFB snapshots, and I’ve yet to come across anything I that I do in MXFB, that I cant do in AntixFB.
vs AntiiX, MX offers lots of ‘bells and whistles’, excellent art work, and fancy GUIs, but for me, the bottom line functionally is the same.
seaken64
@AA BB: I’m glad that you found some of that history very interesting. Without a doubt I have “geeky” tendencies, so I’m glad that someone found my comments interesting.
Count me among those who always finds your comments interesting. I also have a geeky streak.
Seaken64
@AA BB,
When MXFB first came out I spent some time with it and was able to modify it to get the initial memory well under 200MB. Of course, that was never the goal of the MX developers. But it does show the possibilities. And I toyed with the idea of creating an MXPF spin. But I decided against it since it was pretty easy to just make a few modifications and get the memory use under control. Not as efficient as antiX, but I can say I have comfortably run MXFB on an old P-III in 512M RAM. And more comfortably on a P4HT with 3GB RAM.
I’ll have to spend some time with Fluxbox on antiX. To date I have mainly been using IceWM, but I don’t make many modifications generally. It runs great the way it comes OOTB!
Thanks for sharing your experience with FB on antiX.
Seaken64
Brian Masinick
Count me among those who always finds your comments interesting. I also have a geeky streak.
Seaken64
Cool, that means at LEAST three of us are acknowledged geeks, or at least we have a geeky streak in us.
I’m sure that we also appreciate efficiency, lean, yet stable, well engineered software too.Anticapitalista, and everyone who has designed, developed, or contributed in any number of ways, we are truly thankful and grateful for your efforts. I think that Dolphin Oracle, not only with his development, but also with his excellent video tutorials and release announcements has done a great deal to bring additional visibility to both the MX and the antiX projects. I’ve already thanked many of the regular forum participant for their helpful explanations, answers, work promoting our community and its software, and for those who have been coming up with creative scripts to add optional capabilities and tools to the overall effort.
All of this is well appreciated; thanks!
--
Brian Masinick
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
