antiX plus desktop-environment.

Forum Forums antiX-development Development antiX plus desktop-environment.

  • This topic has 96 replies, 18 voices, and was last updated Jul 13-12:05 pm by Brian Masinick.
Viewing 15 posts - 46 through 60 (of 96 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #37732
    Moderator
    Brian Masinick
    Helpful
    Up
    0
    :D

    When I do run a DE (desktop Environment) I have been using Xfce.

    The original Xfce came out around 1996, about the same time as the KDE, both about a year before GNOME.

    All three of them are quite stable at this point. I’ve never experienced memory leaks on any distributions I have used. It’s not impossible, but most Linux software (unless in Alpha testing) is very good and stable.

    In all of the years that I have used either MEPIS, MX Linux or antiX, even the very first builds have been of good quality and the release versions have been outstanding. What I mean by that is the number of defects during the entire time I have used them has been very low. At least for me, I have never experienced a “show stopper” with any of them!

    High recommend this family of systems!

    Brian Masinick

    #37757
    Moderator
    Brian Masinick
    Helpful
    Up
    0
    :D

    We don’t all have great new hardware though, and so we DO try to keep some of the antiX variations as lean and efficient as possible.

    Yes. And I hope antiX will continue to be lean (as much as practical) even with the new DE edition. Whichever DE it will be chosen however, it should not be leaking memory in addition to modest resource requirements.
    I am not sure if such responsibility of cleaning up memory used by application such as DE relies solely on DE, however. Perhaps this responsibility is partly on the OS. Excellent results of no leaks for Gnome and KDE was from tests performed on Intel’s Clear Linux, which has reputation of being rock solid. I am curious of such results performed on other (much less solid) distros, such as Ubuntu…[/quote

    I don’t know about all of the various distributions, but a very recent distribution review literally ripped Lubuntu 20.04 to shreds, only having precious few words of praise and overwhelmingly great criticisms, one of the lowest rated Linux distro reviews I have seen in a long time. They tore into the LXQT desktop environment, saying that it’s a terrible DM and that very few, if any, of the defects found (and reported?) were fixed in this latest release and many more defects were found. While I don’t have quite as horrible a review as that, I can say that the menu arrangement doesn’t even work right; for instance, if you use mouse clicks to bring up the LXQT menu and attempt to select from it, none of them appear to work; that’s pretty poor, something I have never seen in any version of antiX, not even an early Alpha test build. Lubuntu is relatively nimble, but that’s one of the few “assets” it has. I have to agree; antiX in ANY form is much better, superior in every possible way, and we have a very small team. Don’t know how many people work on Lubuntu, but they need a LOT of testing and bug fixing help!

    If you’re not into that, stay here! If you have resources to help, your decision! 😉

    Brian Masinick

    #37773
    Member
    olsztyn
    Helpful
    Up
    0
    :D

    I have to agree; antiX in ANY form is much better, superior in every possible way, and we have a very small team.

    Thanks masinick for the info on Lubuntu… I just want to mention that whether it is Lubuntu or Xubuntu or Kubuntu or Ubuntu, they are not my cup of tea…
    When I finally put together my ultimate antiX Live configuration, that supports SMB to NAS servers, host for virtualization software, Bluetooth, bit fidelity audio matching sound quality of that under Windows, and having that burned into USB Cruzer Fit that can be stuck in my wallet to be just plugged into any laptop, nothing like these *Buntus impress me…
    This is the strength of the antiX – quite capable Live, that having configured to my requirements I will continue to use for years to come. Probably long after many antiX desktop users will move on…
    If antiX does eventually come up with DE edition of antiX, I will be quite interested too though, and I will not be surprised that it may turn out better that all those *Buntus…
    Just my two cents…

    #37879
    Member
    mroot
    Helpful
    Up
    0
    :D

    I think I should clarify what I said earlier.

    I don’t think we have had a DE edition in the past but I don’t see a problem with having a separate iso with a DE rather than a Window Manager. I think I will probably stick with fluxbox but I can see how others might want something heavier. It may also attract users that we don’t currently have who wouldn’t have any exposure to antiX or to window managers in general.

    I think the the separate DE iso should also have all of the window managers that are included in a normal release in addition to the DE for two reasons.

    One-

    Most distros provide fluxbox, icewm, etc. as just a package. For example, if you install the fluxbox package in Debian what do you get? You the get the package with an auto generated menu, no theme, no customization, no polish. Your average person is going to see this as being a window manager that doesn’t work well and is vastly inferior to a regular DE. That’s because they have never seen the DE in it’s raw form. They’ve only seen the finished product in a pretty polished form. I think including the window managers with the DE would let them see what a window manager could and should be. It might open people up to using window managers more.

    Two-

    As hardware ages it gets slower and you start looking for lighter solutions. Generally, people want something similar to what they currently have. A person that starts with a DE version of antiX is more likely to move to the window manager version of antiX when there hardware starts having trouble supporting the DE version. At least I think so. It could be that they just buy newer hardware 🙂 .

    • This reply was modified 12 months ago by mroot.
    #37886
    Member
    Xecure
    Helpful
    Up
    0
    :D

    I think the the separate DE iso should also have all of the window managers that are included in a normal release in addition to the DE

    I understand what you mean, mroot, but I believe that will not work.
    First, people don’t care about the old. “The old is bad, only the new stuff is good”. You can see this for every and any thing ever created. Old people like to live remembering the good old times, but young people reject the past and are only centered on “what’s new right now”. A visit to any social media, be it twitter, reddit, facebook… People love all that is new, they live sharing and discussing the new stuff, and the things that are a month old are already no good, already forgotten. Your mobile phone is 6 months old? Ha! I just got the aphone SWX pro! Applo releases a new machine? My 2 years old machine is obsolete. I better sell it and get a new one. Tradition has become “stupid customs”, and new science and technology “is the future”.
    Second, people will not care about the window managers comming with it. Look at MX Linux. How many people who use it know that it also includes MX fluxbox? How many care? How many call it bloat? They are already killing MX for being “uggly”, if they discover it also has a “very old, non tiling WM”, they will make it even more of a joke.

    I agree that a barebone DE edition will be rejected if the look and feel isn’t a bit customized. Including a wellcome screen explaining that it is a “DE ready but no apps for you to make it your own, from the package installer” would be the best idea, and let people add their favourite software. It’s main purpose is being a showcase for people who want the live-USB tools, that makes antiX (and MX) stand out from the rest. “Use linux without installing, directly from your USB stick”. “Don’t worry about your Windows system; you can test linux without changing your working computer. No risks!”. “Bring linux wherever, whenever”. Stuff like that.

    Before the DE edition, I would like to know if it is possible to unify the Boot menu, so that Legacy (syslinux) and UEFI (grub)r have the same appearance, functionality and options. If we can get good menus on grub2, could it boot from both? I have been looking at what is possible with grub2, but I barely understand anything. For example, easy2boot now includes a1ive grub2-filemanager, that boots in UEFI and Legacy. This is used to boot ISOs, but I would guess we could learn something about how to use it to create grub2 menus. One can change Language, keyboard layout… Why not be able to select parameters instead of them cascading in the current UEFI menus?

    Anyway, the last paragraphs are off-topic. I believe it is better to have separate ISOs for WMs and DE editions.

    #37889
    Moderator
    Brian Masinick
    Helpful
    Up
    0
    :D

    My personal opinion is that there is plenty of room for both the old and the new.

    Most of the reality of this particular community with antiX is that we created it (and sustain it) because we primarily want to be able to effectively use OLD hardware (and to the extent that it remains secure) old software too.

    I’m not suggesting or recommending anything in particular EXCEPT that I think that the primary mission of the main distribution has been to be “lean and mean”, keeping systems that would otherwise go straight to the dumpster, but are electronically functional, able to continue to work in excellent form.

    IF we want to ALSO make current generation software for current generation hardware and the young crowd, I have no objection whatsoever, though I do NOT personally promise to test features that I may not be able to use – I may, but I also may not.

    What I do feel strongly about is that anticapitalista has, and ought to ultimately retain, the rights to choose and do whatever he pleases.
    Also, if anyone else wants to LEVERAGE what we’ve done, yet move in a completely DIFFERENT direction, that’s one of the beautiful things about free and open software. The only requirements are to acknowledge, recognize, and properly cite any work that is based on the previous work of others, according to either GNU, MIT, BSD, or whatever licensing arrangements are utilized in the collection of software forming the complete works.

    With that said, feel free to share and contribute to this effort or to any other efforts, providing ideas, suggestions, designs, code, testing, documentation, promotion, review, use, in short, whatever you do best and whatever is helpful to the continuation of software freedom.

    Brian Masinick

    #37892
    Member
    seaken64
    Helpful
    Up
    0
    :D

    “If you were to add a desktop-environment to antiX, which would you choose and why?”

    I would choose KDE-Plasma because I have always liked KDE. Now, I know that Plasma is not the same as what we had with KDE 3.5 but I think that KDE-Plasma is the modern implimentation and it has returned to the usability of what I remember in KDE 3.5. And from what I hear it is as efficient as XFCE, which is my current favorite. I have tried it on an MX spin, Tumbleweed and Q4OS. It’s nice.

    “If antiX were to ship a separate iso built with only one desktop-environment, which would you choose and why?”

    I would choose KDE-Plasma. I think it is modern and usable. And I think in the hands of a good developer it can be shown to be “lean” as compared to some other offerings out there (such as Cinnamon or Gnome). I don’t understand all the implications of using the QT environment versus the GTK+ environment and that may be an issue for antiX. But I do know that KDE is offered as a package in Debian and antiX and MX. So I think it may be do-able.

    If I had a second choice it would be XFCE. I know MX already has XFCE. But as MX has shown the XFCE look and feel can be modified quite a bit to suit any taste. I think antiX could have it’s own “flavor” of XFCE and be distinct from the look of MX. I like XFCE a lot and it has been my desktop of choice since KDE went off the rails for awhile.

    From what I have been able to learn so far as to how DE’s work, it will take the skills of a professional to really setup the desktop to be “special” and stand out as unique. I have tried to just “install” a DE from the packages and it never looks good on it’s own. I hate the default XFCE look when I just install it from Debian. But I love it in MX. The same can be said for a window manager like IceWM or Fluxbox. In the hands of a rookie, like myself, it looks terrible out of the box. But anticapitalista has IceWM looking great in antiX and MX Fluxbox looks great also from the MX team.

    Maybe I am projecting here, but I think a “default” Desktop Environment in the pattern of how the default Window Managers are built is what anti is thinking about. antiX as it is is just fantastic and it does not NEED a DE. But some users may want to have a more modern aesthetic and DE and it’s too hard for them to do it on their own. Just as IceWM may be too hard to script on one’s own. If KDE or XFCE is setup by anti in the “antiX way”, still lean and paying attention to memory use and avoiding bloat, it can be a useful tool for the not-so-geeky to get into Debian without having to learn how to set everything up themselves.

    I’ve always put antiX in the “geeky” camp, especially when compared to MX or Xubuntu. And I hope it stays there. I would hate to lose the power and flexibility of antiX just for eye candy. But if we have two “tracks” – antiX classic for the geekier types and antiX modern for the less geeky crowd, than that will be fine.

    Seaken64

    #37894
    Member
    seaken64
    Helpful
    Up
    0
    :D

    @Xecure

    First, people don’t care about the old. “The old is bad, only the new stuff is good”.

    You’re not wrong, entirely. I would only change this to say “most people”. There are some people who do care to maintain the old and useful tools from the past. Many of them are here. I still drive an old truck from 2003! It does NOT have SAT nav! only AM/FM radio and a CD player! and the A/C is broken!

    antiX has always been attractive to people interested in keeping older computers alive and usable. I don’t think we want to ignore that crowd entirely just to become more modern. There is room for being more attractive to the youngsters and still making the old folks happy with some good old classic computing.

    Seaken64

    • This reply was modified 12 months ago by seaken64.
    #37896
    Member
    seaken64
    Helpful
    Up
    0
    :D

    Yes, what Brian said. 🙂

    #37901
    Moderator
    Brian Masinick
    Helpful
    Up
    0
    :D

    Yes, what Brian said. 🙂

    Yes! Having MORE than ONE mission and objective is OK with me – AS LONG AS the original mission of this distribution is maintained.

    I do have the sense, however, that there are PLENTY of the new fangled types of systems and distributions out there. Let the communities that build and support them continue to do so – they are valid works, and many of them are very good.

    At the same time there is considerable value in what we have done here and continue to do here. While I don’t mind if we do other things, my personal bias is that in this context such other efforts are of a lower emphasis and priority, while for other distributions they may be the number one priority. I’ll be sticking with the ones that work with old gear because I have old gear. My newer stuff is mobile phone stuff; my older stuff is computer stuff.

    Brian Masinick

    #37984
    Member
    marcelocripe
    Helpful
    Up
    0
    :D

    Hello anti-capitalist, how are you?

    About your post:

    Just to get some feedback.

    If you were to add a desktop-environment to antiX, which would you choose and why?
    If antiX were to ship a separate iso built with only one desktop-environment, which would you choose and why?

    Just to get some feedback.

    If you were to add a desktop-environment to antiX, which would you choose and why?
    If antiX were to ship a separate iso built with only one desktop-environment, which would you choose and why?

    Suggested desktop-environments in random order.

    1. cinnamon
    2. KDE Plasma
    3. Gnome
    4. Budgie
    5. LXQT
    6. XFCE
    7. MATTER
    8. enlightenment (if considered a desktop environment
    9. LXDE
    10. Trinity
    11. Other

    Philosophers have interpreted the world in many ways; the point is to change it.

    antiX with runit – leaner and meaner.

    My suggestions are:

    I would choose the Desktop or Window Manager that consumes less processing and RAM resources without losing antiX functionality – “the antiX Desktop”.

    Desktops that reduce antiX functionality do not believe they are necessary or important.

    Beautiful desktops that consume more processing resources and more RAM could be inserted as optional by the user.

    Another suggestion, when installing antiX Linux, the user could choose which Desktop to install, at this point in the installation a summary would be needed informing the name of the Desktop and the processing and RAM resources that are consumed, if the user does not be satisfied after the end of the installation of antiX, you could have an option to reinsert the media (DVD, or CD, or pendrive) and perform the local installation of another environment, or even if the user wishes to install all the Work Environment it would be necessary to check the desired options during the installation process.

    I would like you to take into account an excerpt from my post on the link: https://www.antixforum.com/forums/topic/antix-the-best-operating-system-for-my-p-iii/#post-37983 and so as not to lead antiX into the path of programmed obsolescence:

    “… We live in times where programmed or forced obsolescence exponentially increases the amount of waste on the planet, most of which go to third world or underdeveloped countries, as if they were donations to needy people.

    When they are not electronic waste (referring to the previous paragraph, those that are no longer repaired), technologies in full operation are discarded due to the increasing requirements of hardware requirements (Processor and RAM) of MS Windows and various Linux distributions that follow o the same way, the programmed obsolescence.

    In rich countries, where economic power must be greater and conditions, I believe, are better for the population, it may even be relatively easy to acquire new hardware in Brazil, with an equivalent US $ 1.00 (US dollar) R $ 5.24 (reais) quotation on 06/24-2020, excluding taxes, we will have to reuse and repair hardware with more than 15 or 20 years of manufacture, for a few more years, or as long as it is possible to keep them running. ”

    I hope I collaborated.

    marcelocripe

    Original text in Brazilian Portuguese, translated into English by Google translator.

    ———–

    Olá anticapitalista, tudo bem?

    Sobre sua postagem:

    Just to get some feedback.

    If you were to add a desktop-environment to antiX, which would you choose and why?
    If antiX were to ship a separate iso built with only one desktop-environment, which would you choose and why?

    Just to get some feedback.

    If you were to add a desktop-environment to antiX, which would you choose and why?
    If antiX were to ship a separate iso built with only one desktop-environment, which would you choose and why?

    Suggested desktop-environments in random order.

    1. cinnamon
    2. KDE Plasma
    3. Gnome
    4. Budgie
    5. LXQT
    6. XFCE
    7. MATE
    8. enlightenment (if considered a desktop environment
    9. LXDE
    10. Trinity
    11. Other

    Philosophers have interpreted the world in many ways; the point is to change it.

    antiX with runit – leaner and meaner.

    As minhas sugestões são:

    Eu escolheria o Ambiente de Trabalho ou Gerenciador de Janelas que consumisse menos recursos de processamento e de memória RAM sem perder as funcionalidades do antiX – “o Ambiente de Trabalho do antiX”.

    Os Ambientes de Trabalho que reduzem as funcionalidades do antiX não acredito serem necessários ou importantes.

    Os Ambientes de Trabalho bonitos que consumem mais recursos de processamento e mais memória RAM poderiam ser inseridos como opcionais pelo usuário.

    Outra sugestão, na instalação do antiX Linux o usuário poderia escolher qual Ambiente de Trabalho deseja instalar, neste momento da instalação seria necessário um resumo informando o nome do Ambiente de Trabalho e os recursos de processamento e memória RAM que são consumidos, caso o usuário não fique satisfeito após o final da instalação do antiX, poderia ter uma opção para inserir novamente a mídia (DVD, ou CD, ou pendrive) e realizar a instalação local de outro ambiente, ou ainda se o usuário desejar instalar todos os Ambiente de Trabalho seria necessário marcar as opções desejadas durante o processo de instalação.

    Eu gostaria que levassem em consideração trecho da minha postagem do link: https://www.antixforum.com/forums/topic/antix-the-best-operating-system-for-my-p-iii/#post-37983 e para não conduzirem o antiX para o caminho da obsolência programada:

    “…Vivemos tempos onde a obsolência programada ou forçada aumentam exponencialmente a quantidade de lixo no planeta, a maioria vão para os países de terceiro mundo ou subdesenvolvidos, como se fossem doações as pessoas carentes.

    Quando não são lixo eletrônico (referente parágrafo anterior, os que não possuem mais conserto), tecnologias em pleno funcionamento são descartadas devido as exigências de requisitos de hardware (Processador e memória RAM) cada vez maiores do MS Windows e de várias distribuições Linux que seguem o o mesmo caminho, o obsolência programada.

    Nos países ricos, onde o poder econômico deve ser maior e as condições, acredito eu, sejam melhores para a população, pode até ser relativamente fácil a aquisição de novos hardwares, no Brasil, com um US$ 1,00 (dólar americano) equivalendo R$ 5,24 (reais) cotação do dia 24-06-2020, sem contar com os impostos, nós teremos que reutilizar e consertar hardwares com mais de 15 ou 20 anos de fabricação, por mais alguns anos, ou o quanto tempo for possível mantê-los funcionando.”

    Espero ter colaborado.

    marcelocripe

    Texto original em idioma português do Brasil, traduzido para o inglês por Google tradutor.

    • This reply was modified 12 months ago by marcelocripe.
    • This reply was modified 12 months ago by marcelocripe.
    #37988
    Member
    marcelocripe
    Helpful
    Up
    0
    :D

    Hello anti-capitalist, how are you?

    About your post:

    Just to get some feedback.

    If you were to add a desktop-environment to antiX, which would you choose and why?
    If antiX were to ship a separate iso built with only one desktop-environment, which would you choose and why?

    Just to get some feedback.

    If you were to add a desktop-environment to antiX, which would you choose and why?
    If antiX were to ship a separate iso built with only one desktop-environment, which would you choose and why?

    Suggested desktop-environments in random order.

    1. cinnamon
    2. KDE Plasma
    3. Gnome
    4. Budgie
    5. LXQT
    6. XFCE
    7. MATTER
    8. enlightenment (if considered a desktop environment
    9. LXDE
    10. Trinity
    11. Other

    Philosophers have interpreted the world in many ways; the point is to change it.

    antiX with runit – leaner and meaner.

    My suggestions are:

    I would choose the Desktop or Window Manager that consumes less processing and RAM resources without losing antiX functionality – “the antiX Desktop”.

    Desktops that reduce antiX functionality do not believe they are necessary or important.

    Beautiful desktops that consume more processing resources and more RAM could be inserted as optional by the user.

    Another suggestion, when installing antiX Linux, the user could choose which Desktop to install, at this point in the installation a summary would be needed informing the name of the Desktop and the processing and RAM resources that are consumed, if the user does not be satisfied after the end of the installation of antiX, you could have an option to reinsert the media (DVD, or CD, or pendrive) and perform the local installation of another environment, or even if the user wishes to install all the Work Environment it would be necessary to check the desired options during the installation process.

    I would like you to take into account an excerpt from my post on the link: https://www.antixforum.com/forums/topic/antix-the-best-operating-system-for-my-p-iii/#post-37983 and so as not to lead antiX into the path of programmed obsolescence:

    “… We live in times where programmed or forced obsolescence exponentially increases the amount of waste on the planet, most of which go to third world or underdeveloped countries, as if they were donations to needy people.

    When they are not electronic waste (referring to the previous paragraph, those that are no longer repaired), technologies in full operation are discarded due to the increasing requirements of hardware requirements (Processor and RAM) of MS Windows and various Linux distributions that follow o the same way, the programmed obsolescence.

    In rich countries, where economic power must be greater and conditions, I believe, are better for the population, it may even be relatively easy to acquire new hardware in Brazil, with an equivalent US $ 1.00 (US dollar) R $ 5.24 (reais) quotation on 06/24-2020, excluding taxes, we will have to reuse and repair hardware with more than 15 or 20 years of manufacture, for a few more years, or as long as it is possible to keep them running. ”

    I hope I collaborated.

    marcelocripe

    Original text in Brazilian Portuguese, translated into English by Google translator.

    ————-

    Olá anticapitalista, tudo bem?

    Sobre sua postagem:

    Just to get some feedback.

    If you were to add a desktop-environment to antiX, which would you choose and why?
    If antiX were to ship a separate iso built with only one desktop-environment, which would you choose and why?

    Just to get some feedback.

    If you were to add a desktop-environment to antiX, which would you choose and why?
    If antiX were to ship a separate iso built with only one desktop-environment, which would you choose and why?

    Suggested desktop-environments in random order.

    1. cinnamon
    2. KDE Plasma
    3. Gnome
    4. Budgie
    5. LXQT
    6. XFCE
    7. MATE
    8. enlightenment (if considered a desktop environment
    9. LXDE
    10. Trinity
    11. Other

    Philosophers have interpreted the world in many ways; the point is to change it.

    antiX with runit – leaner and meaner.

    As minhas sugestões são:

    Eu escolheria o Ambiente de Trabalho ou Gerenciador de Janelas que consumisse menos recursos de processamento e de memória RAM sem perder as funcionalidades do antiX – “o Ambiente de Trabalho do antiX”.

    Os Ambientes de Trabalho que reduzem as funcionalidades do antiX não acredito serem necessários ou importantes.

    Os Ambientes de Trabalho bonitos que consumem mais recursos de processamento e mais memória RAM poderiam ser inseridos como opcionais pelo usuário.

    Outra sugestão, na instalação do antiX Linux o usuário poderia escolher qual Ambiente de Trabalho deseja instalar, neste momento da instalação seria necessário um resumo informando o nome do Ambiente de Trabalho e os recursos de processamento e memória RAM que são consumidos, caso o usuário não fique satisfeito após o final da instalação do antiX, poderia ter uma opção para inserir novamente a mídia (DVD, ou CD, ou pendrive) e realizar a instalação local de outro ambiente, ou ainda se o usuário desejar instalar todos os Ambiente de Trabalho seria necessário marcar as opções desejadas durante o processo de instalação.

    Eu gostaria que levassem em consideração trecho da minha postagem do link: https://www.antixforum.com/forums/topic/antix-the-best-operating-system-for-my-p-iii/#post-37983 e para não conduzirem o antiX para o caminho da obsolência programada:

    “…Vivemos tempos onde a obsolência programada ou forçada aumentam exponencialmente a quantidade de lixo no planeta, a maioria vão para os países de terceiro mundo ou subdesenvolvidos, como se fossem doações as pessoas carentes.

    Quando não são lixo eletrônico (referente parágrafo anterior, os que não possuem mais conserto), tecnologias em pleno funcionamento são descartadas devido as exigências de requisitos de hardware (Processador e memória RAM) cada vez maiores do MS Windows e de várias distribuições Linux que seguem o o mesmo caminho, o obsolência programada.

    Nos países ricos, onde o poder econômico deve ser maior e as condições, acredito eu, sejam melhores para a população, pode até ser relativamente fácil a aquisição de novos hardwares, no Brasil, com um US$ 1,00 (dólar americano) equivalendo R$ 5,24 (reais) cotação do dia 24-06-2020, sem contar com os impostos, nós teremos que reutilizar e consertar hardwares com mais de 15 ou 20 anos de fabricação, por mais alguns anos, ou o quanto tempo for possível mantê-los funcionando.”

    Espero ter colaborado.

    marcelocripe

    Texto original em idioma português do Brasil, traduzido para o inglês por Google tradutor.

    #37992
    Member
    marcelocripe
    Helpful
    Up
    0
    :D

    Hello anti-capitalist, how are you?

    About your post:

    Just to get some feedback.

    If you were to add a desktop-environment to antiX, which would you choose and why?
    If antiX were to ship a separate iso built with only one desktop-environment, which would you choose and why?

    Just to get some feedback.

    If you were to add a desktop-environment to antiX, which would you choose and why?
    If antiX were to ship a separate iso built with only one desktop-environment, which would you choose and why?

    Suggested desktop-environments in random order.

    1. cinnamon
    2. KDE Plasma
    3. Gnome
    4. Budgie
    5. LXQT
    6. XFCE
    7. MATTER
    8. enlightenment (if considered a desktop environment
    9. LXDE
    10. Trinity
    11. Other

    Philosophers have interpreted the world in many ways; the point is to change it.

    antiX with runit – leaner and meaner.

    My suggestions are:

    I would choose the Desktop or Window Manager that consumes less processing and RAM resources without losing antiX functionality – “the antiX Desktop”.

    Desktops that reduce antiX functionality do not believe they are necessary or important.

    Beautiful desktops that consume more processing resources and more RAM could be inserted as optional by the user.

    Another suggestion, when installing antiX Linux, the user could choose which Desktop to install, at this point in the installation a summary would be needed informing the name of the Desktop and the processing and RAM resources that are consumed, if the user does not be satisfied after the end of the installation of antiX, you could have an option to reinsert the media (DVD, or CD, or pendrive) and perform the local installation of another environment, or even if the user wishes to install all the Work Environment it would be necessary to check the desired options during the installation process.

    I would like you to take into account an excerpt from my post on the link: https://www.antixforum.com/forums/topic/antix-the-best-operating-system-for-my-p-iii/#post-37983 and so as not to lead antiX into the path of programmed obsolescence:

    “… We live in times where programmed or forced obsolescence exponentially increases the amount of waste on the planet, most of which go to third world or underdeveloped countries, as if they were donations to needy people.

    When they are not electronic waste (referring to the previous paragraph, those that are no longer repaired), technologies in full operation are discarded due to the increasing requirements of hardware requirements (Processor and RAM) of MS Windows and various Linux distributions that follow o the same way, the programmed obsolescence.

    In rich countries, where economic power must be greater and conditions, I believe, are better for the population, it may even be relatively easy to acquire new hardware in Brazil, with an equivalent US $ 1.00 (US dollar) R $ 5.24 (reais) quotation on 06/24-2020, excluding taxes, we will have to reuse and repair hardware with more than 15 or 20 years of manufacture, for a few more years, or as long as it is possible to keep them running. ”

    I hope I collaborated.

    marcelocripe

    Original text in Brazilian Portuguese, translated into English by Google translator.

    ————–

    Olá anticapitalista, tudo bem?

    Sobre sua postagem:

    Just to get some feedback.

    If you were to add a desktop-environment to antiX, which would you choose and why?
    If antiX were to ship a separate iso built with only one desktop-environment, which would you choose and why?

    Just to get some feedback.

    If you were to add a desktop-environment to antiX, which would you choose and why?
    If antiX were to ship a separate iso built with only one desktop-environment, which would you choose and why?

    Suggested desktop-environments in random order.

    1. cinnamon
    2. KDE Plasma
    3. Gnome
    4. Budgie
    5. LXQT
    6. XFCE
    7. MATE
    8. enlightenment (if considered a desktop environment
    9. LXDE
    10. Trinity
    11. Other

    Philosophers have interpreted the world in many ways; the point is to change it.

    antiX with runit – leaner and meaner.

    As minhas sugestões são:

    Eu escolheria o Ambiente de Trabalho ou Gerenciador de Janelas que consumisse menos recursos de processamento e de memória RAM sem perder as funcionalidades do antiX – “o Ambiente de Trabalho do antiX”.

    Os Ambientes de Trabalho que reduzem as funcionalidades do antiX não acredito serem necessários ou importantes.

    Os Ambientes de Trabalho bonitos que consumem mais recursos de processamento e mais memória RAM poderiam ser inseridos como opcionais pelo usuário.

    Outra sugestão, na instalação do antiX Linux o usuário poderia escolher qual Ambiente de Trabalho deseja instalar, neste momento da instalação seria necessário um resumo informando o nome do Ambiente de Trabalho e os recursos de processamento e memória RAM que são consumidos, caso o usuário não fique satisfeito após o final da instalação do antiX, poderia ter uma opção para inserir novamente a mídia (DVD, ou CD, ou pendrive) e realizar a instalação local de outro ambiente, ou ainda se o usuário desejar instalar todos os Ambiente de Trabalho seria necessário marcar as opções desejadas durante o processo de instalação.

    Eu gostaria que levassem em consideração trecho da minha postagem do link: https://www.antixforum.com/forums/topic/antix-the-best-operating-system-for-my-p-iii/#post-37983 e para não conduzirem o antiX para o caminho da obsolência programada:

    “…Vivemos tempos onde a obsolência programada ou forçada aumentam exponencialmente a quantidade de lixo no planeta, a maioria vão para os países de terceiro mundo ou subdesenvolvidos, como se fossem doações as pessoas carentes.

    Quando não são lixo eletrônico (referente parágrafo anterior, os que não possuem mais conserto), tecnologias em pleno funcionamento são descartadas devido as exigências de requisitos de hardware (Processador e memória RAM) cada vez maiores do MS Windows e de várias distribuições Linux que seguem o o mesmo caminho, o obsolência programada.

    Nos países ricos, onde o poder econômico deve ser maior e as condições, acredito eu, sejam melhores para a população, pode até ser relativamente fácil a aquisição de novos hardwares, no Brasil, com um US$ 1,00 (dólar americano) equivalendo R$ 5,24 (reais) cotação do dia 24-06-2020, sem contar com os impostos, nós teremos que reutilizar e consertar hardwares com mais de 15 ou 20 anos de fabricação, por mais alguns anos, ou o quanto tempo for possível mantê-los funcionando.”

    Espero ter colaborado.

    marcelocripe

    Texto original em idioma português do Brasil, traduzido para o inglês por Google tradutor.

    #37994
    Member
    mroot
    Helpful
    Up
    0
    :D

    marcelocripe-

    If you still use cd-rom for installs you may want to look at this thread since there is discussion of what cd-rom releases will look like in the future.

    https://www.antixforum.com/forums/topic/iso-on-cd/

    #38001
    Member
    olsztyn
    Helpful
    Up
    0
    :D

    I still drive an old truck from 2003!

    And you call it old? My car is 38 years old – 1982 Mercedes 300SD…

Viewing 15 posts - 46 through 60 (of 96 total)
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.