- This topic has 96 replies, 18 voices, and was last updated Jul 13-12:05 pm by masinick.
June 25, 2020 at 11:08 am #38018Moderatormasinick
I still drive an old truck from 2003!
And you call it old? My car is 38 years old – 1982 Mercedes 300SD…
As far as I know my brother has (or had, the last time I checked) a blue 1982 Mercedes Benz 300 TD. I actually drove it, perhaps 10-11 years ago, from Cambridge, Massachusetts to Concord, New Hampshire. The ride and overall behavior was excellent. The nature of the Turbo Diesel on the highway on grades was the only thing that was difficult. Maintaining the same speed wasn’t very easy. The diesel engine was initially slow to respond but if you made more than a slight adjustment the car’s turbo would kick in and you’d get more acceleration than expected. This was undoubtedly due to not being the every day driver and also a response to uneven traffic speed. With cruise on a wide open road even at it’s age it’s a great highway vehicle!
Brian MasinickJune 25, 2020 at 3:58 pm #38036Moderatormasinick
I asked my brother after I wrote earlier and he said that he finally got rid of the ’82 MB Turbo Diesel. He said that it was finally rusting out (with the regular use of salt on the New Hampshire roads where the car lived. He also said that the transmission needed work, so he finally got rid of it. Previously my brother did a lot of the work on the car himself. Gradually getting older himself, I think he got tired of crawling around fixing the cars. Nevertheless his 1982 Mercedes Benz Turbo Diesel was an EXCELLENT vehicle, running tirelessly well after 2000 until perhaps 2016-17.
Brian MasinickJune 25, 2020 at 6:51 pm #38039Memberolsztyn
He said that it was finally rusting out (with the regular use of salt on the New Hampshire roads where the car lived.
I brought mine to New Jersey from Las Vegas, dry climate. Practically no rust yet, but for not much longer in this climate… I am curious how many miles your bother’s car had at the end?June 25, 2020 at 9:16 pm #38042Memberolsztyn
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.
If I may voice my opinion I do agree with Xecure. Whatever DE edition is published it should be decisive and focusing just on the newly adopted desktop. It should be efficient, well done and compelling…
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.
Completely agree as well. Boot menus could be streamlined, whether syslinux or Grub.
To me Grub2 is a mess in itself and forcing this mess on distros.
Perhaps something can be done such as resorting to better way of doing this. This is what Intel’s Clear Linux did. They dropped Grub altogether and are using syslinux…June 28, 2020 at 4:40 pm #38184Memberolsztyn
My quite limited familiarity of MATE comes mostly from antiX MATE implementation through Package Installer, so I do not know if it is representative of other MATE implementations… Having said that, although I kind of like aesthetics, there are two questions that came to my mind:
– Initial memory used, not running anything else, measured 1.16 G using HTop. After starting Chrome memory used was measured about 1.5 G. Is current antiX implementation of MATE highly inefficient because it is kind of initial test, far from final? If so then how much is expected in terms of memory requirements?
In my post on my rudimentary measurement of MATE memory these measurements were on Live system at that time. Since then I had a chance to play with and do the same rudimentary measurements of memory use for MATE on antiX that is fully installed.
I must say that my previous measurements were either way off or such high memory used with MATE desktop was due to being installed on Live instance. When I measure now, on a fully installed antiX I am getting very nice results for MATE edition of antiX:
– Memory used with no applications started – about 380M measured with HTop.
– Memory used with Chrome started – about 700M.
Also I did some rudimentary tests on memory recovery after applications start and shutting down and it behaves very solid. It seems to release memory very nicely.
I just wanted to post these my results in order to correct my previous memory use measurements and therefore emphasize that MATE seems to be very efficient after all…
Again to mention, I have no desktop preference though and I will adopt whatever desktop will be chosen by antiX owner(s)…
I apologize for those results of my original measurements…June 28, 2020 at 5:34 pm #38186Moderatormasinick
Under 400 MB with just a terminal and htop isn’t too bad. It’s similar to a light MX Linux setup.
Xfce does well as long as you don’t like it lot of add-ons and plugins. If you need ’em, fine, use ’em, but each process takes memory. So does a background with an image or backdrop with rotating images, videos or a lot of information. Use what you actually need.
Linux Mint is a nice looking distribution and it runs well, but I’ll tell you right now, it chews 50-100 MB more memory because of the nice appearance and convenient tools.
What we’re doing with the recent antiX tools is nice too. It’s much more efficient than Mint and the tools use modest resources. Just the same, be careful. Each time we add features it costs something. Just understand what it is and decide what is most important to you.
Brian MasinickJune 28, 2020 at 6:46 pm #38188Memberolsztyn
I still do not understand how I got so high memory measurements originally, when it was measured on Live instance. I have just reinstalled MATE on Live and I am getting much lower memory used measurements than before, around 500M. Still higher than on installed though. For comparison my installed Intel’s Clear Linux, which has Gnome desktop, measures about 520M measured with HTop, with no applications running. I am curious which desktop will be adopted for antiX…June 29, 2020 at 4:52 am #38202MemberBobC
I tried Intel’s Clear Linux last night and it would verify, but it gets a kernel panic on boot, so I wasn’t able to run it live or install it. It comes with a Gnome desktop, and the vibe I got from their forum was if it doesn’t run fast enough, you should buy a faster computer.
I tried to boot it on another, newer laptop and it failed on this one as well. Its a Dell M2400 64 bit laptop, and tit says that it can’t boot due to a CPU limitation. It also has an Intel CPU.
June 29, 2020 at 6:22 am #38213Memberolsztyn
- This reply was modified 1 month, 1 week ago by BobC.
I tried Intel’s Clear Linux last night and it would verify, but it gets a kernel panic on boot, so I wasn’t able to run it live or install it.
Yes. It is not like antiX, which runs on all computers. It requires processors that support SSE4 instruction set, such as i* series. So my older laptops with Core2Duo are not able to run it. Kernel panic. antiX is universal – old and new computers.
I still do not understand how I got so high memory measurements originally, when it was measured on Live instance.
Curious about this in MATE I have done more testing with antiX/MATE Live without any persistence – remastered antiX with MATE desktop. So it seems that after fresh reboot antiX/MATE seems to use relatively little memory and seems to reclaim memory after initial applications shutdown, as previously reported. However after more and more such testing memory use seemed to suddenly go up and never reclaimed after closing applications, and soon reaching about high values originally reported. After rebooting memory used was each time about the same – low.
So I intended to keep such one MATE instance of antiX for further playing with but something strange happened:
At some point a notification popped up from MATE desktop urging to upgrade. So thinking it meant updates of system and apps I clicked to proceed. Update took longer than I expected and to my surprise MATE was ‘updated’ to Gnome 3.30. Now having antiX with Gnome 3.30 I did similar use memory tests, which appears to be around 850M upon fresh reboot, before running any apps. after starting either Firefox or Chrome – around 1.3G, after closing these apps it appears to consistently go down to 1G on my test laptop.
I am just an average, far less familiar with these desktops than most participants in this forum, but my impression is the following:
– antiX with MATE seems to use initially relatively low amount of memory. However with use memory used seems to build-up rather quickly under some circumstances.
– antiX with Gnome 3.30 seems to use initially about twice memory than MATE. However so far it seems to reclaim some of this memory after closing apps.
What strange is also that MATE notification urged ‘upgrade’ which resulted in Gnome 3.30 desktop…
Just my observations… Sorry for lengthy post.June 29, 2020 at 8:05 am #38217Moderatormasinick
Preferences: Don’t make too much of this, it’s just one person’s impressions.
When several desktop environments first came out (first on UNIX systems with AT&T alliance with Sun Microsystems to form Sun Solaris and the “Open Software Initiative” OSI, created by other systems vendors who were alarmed by the AT&T alliance with Sun, they formed Motif and then the Common Desktop Environment (CDE).
I worked for Digital Equipment Corporation, so I worked with both Motif and CDE. Frankly Sun Solaris did better. However CDE did have some good ideas.
When Xfce came out in around 1996 it was a free software implementation similar to CDE except free instead of commercial.
KDE was created around the same time and it was a more flexible system than the other systems but it wasn’t completely free in every sense.
Xfce at the time was built with Xforms, so it wasn’t quite as full featured as KDE but it was much more resources conservative.
GNOME rushed out and arrived about a year later. It had a GNU license so some purists liked it for that reason, but I definitely preferred the great flexibility of KDE even though the design wasn’t as consistent as GNOME. It wasn’t THAT inefficient. If you try out the Trinity Desktop Environment (TDE) it’s based on the old KDE 3 and it’s pretty light footprint and fast today.
I tell you this background because even though I like the Gtk+ library for putting up GUI (graphical user interfaces), I’m not keen on either GNOME or descendants of GNOME, such as MATE or Cinnamon, so it’s really just my bias stemming from past experiences.
That said, to me you can build your own custom desktop environment with nothing more than a small, simple window manager like IceWM and your choices of applications or you can use an integrated desktop environment like KDE-Plasma, TDE, MATE, Cinnamon, Enlightenment, XFCE, the retired LXDE or the buggy LXQT.
Each of them do have their value and use cases, so it does come down to features and preferences. Personally I prefer what we have (perhaps because I originally suggested IceWM as our default WM, knowing that Fluxbox is also very fast and easy to change, but IceWM has a more “familiar” default appearance and mouse clicks). I also suggested SeaMonkey back when it was in active development because it offered browsing, Email and messaging in a single app, whereas Firefox, Thunderbird and Lightning had three apps and not as much shared memory. SeaMonkey has only a few remaining developers and it’s lost it’s leadership, so we move on.
Maybe we’ll have to move on with other approaches and environments as time goes by. I’d encourage at least a few of us to hang on to the old stuff so that the old systems can continue to used for a while longer, but I am not opposed to parallel efforts in other directions. The overall interest and direction will take the course of those who do the work and those who provide useful suggestions, testing and feedback.
We have an excellent community and I feel very good about where we are and what we provide.
Brian MasinickJune 29, 2020 at 8:55 am #38225MemberXecure
Very interesting, masinick. It always interesting to see where everything comes from and how it has consolidated to what it is now.
I agree with you. Things are always changing. Maybe at some point, only systemd is still alive and Wayland has made the DEs the only workable environment for new machines (if xserver.xorg is ever dropped). But that doesn’t mean we must discard things right now, as light WMs and tools can be used to replace heavy DEs and tools.
I would like to have some feedback from anticapitalista about what he is planning.
As Brian masinick says, whatever it is, me and many others are ready to help, be it adapting themes, testing, building small tools, etc.June 29, 2020 at 9:45 am #38237Memberolsztyn
I’d encourage at least a few of us to hang on to the old stuff so that the old systems can continue to used for a while longer, but I am not opposed to parallel efforts in other directions.
Myself being an end user of current antiX, having put lots of time and attention to composition of a perfect antiX desktop, I will probably use my current antiX instances long after the official support is dropped, replaced by some other desktop. However I also think that in order to gain wider acceptance antiX needs more mainstream desktop to cater to typical users, so it works for them out of the box. I will gladly use it too if efficient, not heavy and particularly if it runs well as Live, which is not easy to accomplish.
The new antiX must be well thought out, as the old one was. It should not be a typical in Linux world stitch of a desktop environment on top, without good integration and optimization like a typical Linux distro in order to stand out of the crowd.
Just my two cents as an end user…June 29, 2020 at 10:06 am #38242Moderatormasinick
As far as choosing a particular environment for popularity reasons, I think that you will discover that only a modest percentage of free software enthusiasts ever do it for that reason. Overwhelming numbers of people do it to have a different approach that they can’t find in commercial products.
For the sake of freedom of choice, that’s a major motivation.
Brian MasinickJune 29, 2020 at 12:26 pm #38264MemberBobC
So far I have 10 machines that the Intel won’t boot on, and 4 that it should. (I didn’t try either of those, yet, and not sure its worth trying).
Thanks for telling me a bout the CPU limitation.
My hope would be that a new antiX DE would be a separate ISO, based on the same foundation as much as possible (ie same up to Xorg if possible), as the current antiX Full and Base ISO’s, or at least based on the same Core system.
To be honest, for me, I don’t plan to run a DE. I’m happy with the WM setup and adding the packages I want.June 29, 2020 at 1:17 pm #38276Memberolsztyn
So far I have 10 machines that the Intel won’t boot on, and 4 that it should. (I didn’t try either of those, yet, and not sure its worth trying).
It is pretty restrictive on hardware. It works fine on my Thinkpad T520 (UEFI), Thinkpad X220 (UEFI) and Thinkpad T410 (2010) – BIOS. In either UEFI or BIOS computer Clear Linux Live install USB boots fine but installation to disk requires that disk must be GPT. If MBR disk then converts to GPT if using entire disk. Most other Thinkpads (before 2010) will not do.
I’m happy with the WM setup and adding the packages I want.
I am too. However I will gladly try to do the same with the new DE edition as new frontier…
- This reply was modified 1 month, 1 week ago by olsztyn.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.