Are antiX full DEs being updated – Just a question…

Forum Forums General Software Are antiX full DEs being updated – Just a question…

  • This topic has 6 replies, 4 voices, and was last updated Aug 1-1:39 pm by anticapitalista.
Viewing 7 posts - 1 through 7 (of 7 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #39678
    Member
    Avatarolsztyn

    This is just a question, out of curiosity:
    Those full desktop environments for antiX available in Package Installer – are they being updated from time to time or they are just as originally assembled and never touched again? There seems no versioning mentioned…
    Understandably they are considered optional packages to try/debug/test at the discretion of user and not a part of antiX supported software. However, since there has been much work invested into assembling these DEs to be made available in Package Installer there possibly might be an on-going improvement or update and maintenance, which would be good to know…
    In any case thanks very much for putting them out there…

    #39679
    Moderator
    masinickmasinick

    This is just a question, out of curiosity:
    Those full desktop environments for antiX available in Package Installer – are they being updated from time to time or they are just as originally assembled and never touched again? There seems no versioning mentioned…
    Understandably they are considered optional packages to try/debug/test at the discretion of user and not a part of antiX supported software. However, since there has been much work invested into assembling these DEs to be made available in Package Installer there possibly might be an on-going improvement or update and maintenance, which would be good to know…
    In any case thanks very much for putting them out there…

    I believe that the alternative desktop environments are those being provided through Debian repositories. As such, (if I am correct about this) they ARE maintained, but not specifically through antiX, rather through the packaging source.

    Brian Masinick

    #39680
    Member
    XecureXecure

    They are built by debian. They call to install a metapackage that brings all needed packages for the DE to work. They are included in the antiX Package Installer for people who don’t know how to install a DE/WM on their system from terminal and really want to use them. antiX doesn’t manage them directly (some, like fluxbox and icewm, are).

    Example:
    Package name: KDE Standard
    Packages installed by Package Installer: kde-standard, virtuoso-minimal
    As this is a metapackage (a package that is really a list of packages that will be downloaded as dependencies, and does not contain any “real files” inside), one would have to look at the package named plasma-desktop, for example, to see how updated it is:
    In Debian Buster: plasma-desktop (4:5.14.5.1-1) – Wed, 13 Feb 2019

    So installing it on your system is like installing it from Debian. Before, like in antiX 17, I think anticapitalista had to build specific versions that were systemd free (so updates would be up to antiX devs), but debian changed a bit its policy and buster is more init friendly (who know how long this will last). If I am mistaken, please forgive me. My history with antiX is very recent, so I may be mixing thing up.

    WMs work great when installing from the package installer, but installing any DEs is a different story. The installation is so minimal that, as a non-expert, I find myself lost and don’t know what other packages I need to complement the DE and make everything work. When I installed KDE or Mate, I did it from core and installing the recommended packages. For example, for KDE:
    sudo apt install --install-recommends kde-standard
    The recommended packages (no included by default, as they are NOT true dependencies) complement very well what is needed for us “simple humans” to get the DE to work.

    In summary: Desktop Environments are managed by Debian. When important bugs are discovered, they are usually patched by someone from the Debian team. The default Window Managers are handled by the antiX devs, and have been heavily customized by them.

    #39681
    Member
    Avatarolsztyn

    Thanks Xecure and masinick very much for the insight.
    I did myself try a few and do understand it seems not straightforward to make them work…
    Thanks and Regards…

    #39682
    Moderator
    masinickmasinick

    Thanks Xecure and masinick very much for the insight.
    I did myself try a few and do understand it seems not straightforward to make them work…
    Thanks and Regards…

    Each desktop is distinctive and has its own behavior; it takes a while to get familiar with the ones that differ significantly from what you are used to using.
    I usually can “figure them out”, but like anyone, I become familiar with certain things and to change isn’t automatic. I do, however, run quite a few distributions; one of the recent ones I have tried this month is Endeavor OS; it’s derived from Arch Linux. Unlike Arch Linux, which is quite compact unless you fill it up with software, the default setup really isn’t “there”; you make of it what you learn and put into it. In contrast, Manjaro and Endeavor OS are derived from Arch, but they both include configurations that you can work with. I found Endeavor OS to be immediately usable.

    To complete the analogy though, it is a lot different than antiX and it takes some “getting used to it” – familiarization. If you haven’t previously experimented with many other systems, their package managers, desktop environments, and other conventions, it can be a steep learning curve.

    Brian Masinick

    #39684
    Member
    Avatarolsztyn

    To complete the analogy though, it is a lot different than antiX and it takes some “getting used to it” – familiarization. If you haven’t previously experimented with many other systems, their package managers, desktop environments, and other conventions, it can be a steep learning curve.

    Yes, indeed. However as far as I am concerned I happen to rather easily adapt to different ways in these different desktop environments. What is important to me is their functionality and efficiency.
    Although antiX is my favorite in that respect (after setting up to my liking) I like to research what DE could be ‘slapped’ on top of it for additional functionality but not to waste resources, such as memory and to ensure no memory leaks. I happened to play with some of these provided in ‘Package Installer’ on top of antiX and looking at satisfying these requirements, even if some functions did not work.
    My observation in general is that from resource use a lot depends on implementation of particular DE, and difference can be quite significant.
    E.g. – With the same version of Gnome an no other noticeable difference:
    – Pop!_OS is using 1.2 GB memory on start
    – Clear Linux is using about 700M on start. Superior architecture to Pop!_OS too…
    From those desktop environments provided in antiX ‘Package Installer’ the most ‘frugal’ seems XFCE (about 350M on start), Budgie and Mate a bit more and Gnome, KDE significantly more.
    I did not spend much time however to try to make them fully work, so some functionality was not there for me, e.g. adding new printers did not seem to work.
    It was not my objective however, fully configured antiX Live with IceWM or Fluxbox is good and capable…

    #39685
    Forum Admin
    anticapitalistaanticapitalista

    As masinick says, the desktop environments available via package installer are all vanilla Debian versions.
    There are no antiX customizations.

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

    antiX with runit - leaner and meaner.

Viewing 7 posts - 1 through 7 (of 7 total)
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.