Why did you editorialize the title? I feared that my post would be misunderstood if I didn't. This happened on Reddit. The change is minimal in any case. What is Deidomedo? A website that contains...
Why did you editorialize the title?
I feared that my post would be misunderstood if I didn't. This happened on Reddit. The change is minimal in any case.
What is Deidomedo?
A website that contains technical reviews, among other stuff. When it comes to Linux, it focuses almost exclusively on distributions for the home user, and expects layperson-oriented distributions to work out of the box as reliable production machines. The reviews are simple and to the point, focusing more in actual usability for the home user than with shiny new features.
Why should I trust these reviews?
You probably shouldn't. It's just a single person opinion, but one I happen to agree a lot. Besides, his reviews are simple and follow mostly the same criteria, making it easier to draw relevant comparisons.
Is this a low-effort list post?
I don't think so. All subtopics contain links to complete articles that substantiate the conclusions. They are.
I believe you've spelled the name wrong in both the title and your post. The links are all "dedoimedo" but you've spelled it "Deidomedo." (I hope this doesn't sound too pedantic. Just trying to be...
I believe you've spelled the name wrong in both the title and your post. The links are all "dedoimedo" but you've spelled it "Deidomedo." (I hope this doesn't sound too pedantic. Just trying to be helpful. Let me know if I'm not.)
Debian. The answer to this question is always, ultimately, Debian. So it's got an MX or Ubuntu or Zorin or whatever flavour fancy hat on it. It's still Debian. There's a reason the Debian project...
Debian. The answer to this question is always, ultimately, Debian. So it's got an MX or Ubuntu or Zorin or whatever flavour fancy hat on it. It's still Debian. There's a reason the Debian project is so successful. It works.
It does matter that people keep trying other things though.
My original intention years ago was indeed to use Debian. But I wasn't able to make it recognize my wireless card for the life of me. I tried everything. This actually happened on two totally...
My original intention years ago was indeed to use Debian. But I wasn't able to make it recognize my wireless card for the life of me. I tried everything. This actually happened on two totally different laptops. So I looked for something that was closer to Debian with better support for my hardware, and this is how I started using MX.
Maybe I'll use proper Debian in the future, but for the time being I'm entirely comfortable with MX.
I think it's fair to put MX as a different distro. It does more than Ubuntu does, even, in terms of significant changes from Debian, with the antix project and added repositories. It's still...
I think it's fair to put MX as a different distro. It does more than Ubuntu does, even, in terms of significant changes from Debian, with the antix project and added repositories. It's still largely Debian, but it does a good job of differentiating itself, too.
Some of the MX Tools and antiX bits sound interesting if you're not into that whole "editing text files to get stuff done" thing (which is cool, gui tools are nice) or if you like to do lots of...
Some of the MX Tools and antiX bits sound interesting if you're not into that whole "editing text files to get stuff done" thing (which is cool, gui tools are nice) or if you like to do lots of liveboot stuff - but the fact remains that if you take away Debian, MX doesn't exist. It's not like, for example, Arch where if you take away Debian you still have all of Arch.
It's just like Mint and all the other Debian-based projects. They are cool projects, and it's awesome systems exist to let them happen, and maybe some of the cooler bits will make their way upstream one day - but they still only exist because of Debian. There's nothing stopping me adding MX's repos to my Debian system and installing their stuff. I can't do that with Suse or Slackware or whatever.
That's what I mean when I say it's always, ultimately, Debian in these sort of lists. Debian is the bedrock on which all these little projects are built. Whether that makes things like MX "true" distros or not is a fairly pointless question that I'm not sure is worth anyone's time. These projects exist, they are good, if they want to call themselves a distro then that's fine by me. If they want to call themselves a DE or a skin or anything really, that's also cool. I don't really care.
Both my previous comment and the article provide some rationale, but you will find the details in the linked reviews: https://www.dedoimedo.com/computers/mx-18-lenovo.html...
Both my previous comment and the article provide some rationale, but you will find the details in the linked reviews:
I recently downloaded manjaro on my laptop. I've got to say that so far I'm not a fan. I don't really have a problem with anything manjaro specific, but I can't stand arch Linux. I feel like...
I recently downloaded manjaro on my laptop. I've got to say that so far I'm not a fan. I don't really have a problem with anything manjaro specific, but I can't stand arch Linux. I feel like installing things on it is the biggest pain in the ass. Most Linux installation guides seem to be made with Debian in mind which makes things very confusing. Now, I will say that it is probably an issue of pilot error, but I don't think that invalidates my criticism.
I also dislike Manjaro. I tried it 4 or 5 times on different machines, including a recent attempt. I was disappointed at every turn. They seem to have a lot of trouble making pulseaudio work....
I also dislike Manjaro. I tried it 4 or 5 times on different machines, including a recent attempt. I was disappointed at every turn. They seem to have a lot of trouble making pulseaudio work. Numerous visits to forums and Arch Wiki were only able to minimize the issue — making sound work required multiple reboots and manual procedures. Apart from that, every update came with little annoyances that, while not breaking the system, made it much less pleasant to use. In the end I went back to my beloved MX-Linux, which is basically a Debian Stable that recognizes my wireless card and have a few extra tools. MX is so solid and have so few bugs that it's hard to get used with other distros after using it for some time. It is a boring distribution that uses boring, time-proven technology. Besides, I require very few recent packages, so installing from source is not an issue at all. Once you turn MX on, it just starts working and never stops. I love it.
I would use Arch if I thought it would be a valid learning experience. I prefer distributions that are focused on stability with minimal intervention on my part. I already have Emacs to manage :P
Never used manjaro, but does it come with some helper for building from the arch user repository (AUR), like yay? If not or if you hadn't used it, I can see why you'd feel that way, but with an...
Never used manjaro, but does it come with some helper for building from the arch user repository (AUR), like yay? If not or if you hadn't used it, I can see why you'd feel that way, but with an AUR helper, I think arch is actually one of the easiest distros on which to install software that isn't in the main repos. Just about any (free) piece of linux software you could think of has an automated install script, and you can install it with no more effort than using a regular package manager.
Yes, you can tick a box in Manjaro to install from AUR. Just to balance out some of the other comments, I'm a big fan. I found Manjaro very easy to set up and use.
Yes, you can tick a box in Manjaro to install from AUR.
Just to balance out some of the other comments, I'm a big fan. I found Manjaro very easy to set up and use.
Yeah, no problem! While I like Arch's overall design philosophy, the AUR is really the killer app, and it's a bit of a shame that it's not more widely known outside the community.
Yeah, no problem! While I like Arch's overall design philosophy, the AUR is really the killer app, and it's a bit of a shame that it's not more widely known outside the community.
In the end I went back to my beloved MX-Linux, which is basically a Debian Stable that recognizes my wireless card and have a few extra tools. MX is so solid and have so few bugs that it's hard to get used with other distros after using it for some time. It is a boring distribution that uses boring, time-proven technology. Besides, I require very few recent packages, so installing from source is not an issue at all. Once you turn MX on, it just starts working and never stops. I love it.
I ditched Linux a while ago since I couldn't get Ubuntu Linux to work on my desktop PC with dual monitors, but this has got me excited to try Linux out again. When I was in my twenties, I'd love...
I ditched Linux a while ago since I couldn't get Ubuntu Linux to work on my desktop PC with dual monitors, but this has got me excited to try Linux out again.
When I was in my twenties, I'd love bleeding edge software/distros. Now I long for boring stuff that just works.
I don't know how long you meant by a while ago...but nowadays many linux distros have a "live cd" option (not always a CD anymore with the prevalence of USB sticks). This option literally allows...
I don't know how long you meant by a while ago...but nowadays many linux distros have a "live cd" option (not always a CD anymore with the prevalence of USB sticks). This option literally allows you to "try before you buy"...in that, it doesn't install anything to your computer. It merely allows you to play with the particular linux distro. (It will run a bit slower but that's ok) Some people use this option to see if they like a particular distro from a personal taste perspective, but I use this option to test out how supported (or not) my machine (and it's hardware) might be with the relevant distro - again without any installation commitment. If/When you wish to try linux again, you might want to try it that way first.
It was about a year ago? I've definitely have used the Live desktop feature - the issue comes when I install the distro and it boots up and the OS breaks due to driver issues.
It was about a year ago? I've definitely have used the Live desktop feature - the issue comes when I install the distro and it boots up and the OS breaks due to driver issues.
Ah, well, good to hear that you were aware/using live CD. As I understand, it's quite rare that no issues with drivers with the live CD but issues with the OS installed. But I guess it happens...
Ah, well, good to hear that you were aware/using live CD. As I understand, it's quite rare that no issues with drivers with the live CD but issues with the OS installed. But I guess it happens sometimes. (Sorry) Also I was recently reminded that some computer makers publish linux hardware compatibility lists with their models. I know Lenovo does it for ThinkPads. (BTW ThinkPad machines usually have awesome support with linux.) Also some linux distros publish similar hardware compatibility lists (from their side pointing to hardware models, etc.) I know Ubuntu and Red hat publishes these for many years now. Of course, last resort: you can purchase a machine with linux officially and already installed by hardware vendor since that assumes they tested things properly for support. Examples include Dell (very few models but hey), System76 (yeah this is the name of the company), PineBook, etc. I hope this helps!
My PC was one of these custom designed PCs from pcspecialist.co.uk so I'd have to look up individual hardware listings which is something I'm not really interested in doing - especially given that...
My PC was one of these custom designed PCs from pcspecialist.co.uk so I'd have to look up individual hardware listings which is something I'm not really interested in doing - especially given that Windows works just fine on here.
This PC was a >£1k PC for gaming so I'm pretty sure there are some proprietary things (graphics card, ethernet, motherboard, processor, etc) that screw with the Linux installation. Regardless, ever since I got a switch I barely ever play on the PC. It is a great PC that has lasted me nearly 5 years and it's still going strong - still incredibly fast and powerful with little issues (it struggles to shut down properly, but that's a separate issue). But my next PC probably won't be so... "gamerish" and will probably be a bit cheaper with hopefully a lot more hardware components that are supported as standard by the Linux community.
Ah, ok, yeah gaming rigs have historically required lots of attention if the desire is to run linux on them. Posible of course, but way too much TLC needed. The components are designed/implemented...
Ah, ok, yeah gaming rigs have historically required lots of attention if the desire is to run linux on them. Posible of course, but way too much TLC needed. The components are designed/implemented for game performance primarily, which historically has targeted windows as an OS platform, hence the proprietary nature of them...which kind of sucks, because ironically if these rigs were also targeting linux as platform, i imagine stuff would fly even faster than windows...Oh well. Best of luck on your quest for your next - likely les "gamerish" - machine! Cheers!
Why did you editorialize the title?
I feared that my post would be misunderstood if I didn't. This happened on Reddit. The change is minimal in any case.
What is Deidomedo?
A website that contains technical reviews, among other stuff. When it comes to Linux, it focuses almost exclusively on distributions for the home user, and expects layperson-oriented distributions to work out of the box as reliable production machines. The reviews are simple and to the point, focusing more in actual usability for the home user than with shiny new features.
Why should I trust these reviews?
You probably shouldn't. It's just a single person opinion, but one I happen to agree a lot. Besides, his reviews are simple and follow mostly the same criteria, making it easier to draw relevant comparisons.
Is this a low-effort list post?
I don't think so. All subtopics contain links to complete articles that substantiate the conclusions. They are.
Are you affiliated with this website?
No, I'm not.
Why are you giving so many justifications? We're fine with your post!
/r/linux traumatized me.
I believe you've spelled the name wrong in both the title and your post. The links are all "dedoimedo" but you've spelled it "Deidomedo." (I hope this doesn't sound too pedantic. Just trying to be helpful. Let me know if I'm not.)
Debian. The answer to this question is always, ultimately, Debian. So it's got an MX or Ubuntu or Zorin or whatever flavour fancy hat on it. It's still Debian. There's a reason the Debian project is so successful. It works.
It does matter that people keep trying other things though.
My original intention years ago was indeed to use Debian. But I wasn't able to make it recognize my wireless card for the life of me. I tried everything. This actually happened on two totally different laptops. So I looked for something that was closer to Debian with better support for my hardware, and this is how I started using MX.
Maybe I'll use proper Debian in the future, but for the time being I'm entirely comfortable with MX.
I think it's fair to put MX as a different distro. It does more than Ubuntu does, even, in terms of significant changes from Debian, with the antix project and added repositories. It's still largely Debian, but it does a good job of differentiating itself, too.
Some of the MX Tools and antiX bits sound interesting if you're not into that whole "editing text files to get stuff done" thing (which is cool, gui tools are nice) or if you like to do lots of liveboot stuff - but the fact remains that if you take away Debian, MX doesn't exist. It's not like, for example, Arch where if you take away Debian you still have all of Arch.
It's just like Mint and all the other Debian-based projects. They are cool projects, and it's awesome systems exist to let them happen, and maybe some of the cooler bits will make their way upstream one day - but they still only exist because of Debian. There's nothing stopping me adding MX's repos to my Debian system and installing their stuff. I can't do that with Suse or Slackware or whatever.
That's what I mean when I say it's always, ultimately, Debian in these sort of lists. Debian is the bedrock on which all these little projects are built. Whether that makes things like MX "true" distros or not is a fairly pointless question that I'm not sure is worth anyone's time. These projects exist, they are good, if they want to call themselves a distro then that's fine by me. If they want to call themselves a DE or a skin or anything really, that's also cool. I don't really care.
Both my previous comment and the article provide some rationale, but you will find the details in the linked reviews:
I recently downloaded manjaro on my laptop. I've got to say that so far I'm not a fan. I don't really have a problem with anything manjaro specific, but I can't stand arch Linux. I feel like installing things on it is the biggest pain in the ass. Most Linux installation guides seem to be made with Debian in mind which makes things very confusing. Now, I will say that it is probably an issue of pilot error, but I don't think that invalidates my criticism.
I also dislike Manjaro. I tried it 4 or 5 times on different machines, including a recent attempt. I was disappointed at every turn. They seem to have a lot of trouble making
pulseaudiowork. Numerous visits to forums and Arch Wiki were only able to minimize the issue — making sound work required multiple reboots and manual procedures. Apart from that, every update came with little annoyances that, while not breaking the system, made it much less pleasant to use. In the end I went back to my beloved MX-Linux, which is basically a Debian Stable that recognizes my wireless card and have a few extra tools. MX is so solid and have so few bugs that it's hard to get used with other distros after using it for some time. It is a boring distribution that uses boring, time-proven technology. Besides, I require very few recent packages, so installing from source is not an issue at all. Once you turn MX on, it just starts working and never stops. I love it.I would use Arch if I thought it would be a valid learning experience. I prefer distributions that are focused on stability with minimal intervention on my part. I already have Emacs to manage :P
Never used manjaro, but does it come with some helper for building from the arch user repository (AUR), like yay? If not or if you hadn't used it, I can see why you'd feel that way, but with an AUR helper, I think arch is actually one of the easiest distros on which to install software that isn't in the main repos. Just about any (free) piece of linux software you could think of has an automated install script, and you can install it with no more effort than using a regular package manager.
Yes, you can tick a box in Manjaro to install from AUR.
Just to balance out some of the other comments, I'm a big fan. I found Manjaro very easy to set up and use.
It is easy to setup, but being on the bleeding-edge have its price. For some people it is worth it, for some it is not.
Holy shit you're right. I knew it had to be pilot error. I appreciate the advice man.
Yeah, no problem! While I like Arch's overall design philosophy, the AUR is really the killer app, and it's a bit of a shame that it's not more widely known outside the community.
Anyone that uses MX Linux that wants to tell about their experiences? What makes it special?
Me:
I ditched Linux a while ago since I couldn't get Ubuntu Linux to work on my desktop PC with dual monitors, but this has got me excited to try Linux out again.
When I was in my twenties, I'd love bleeding edge software/distros. Now I long for boring stuff that just works.
I don't know how long you meant by a while ago...but nowadays many linux distros have a "live cd" option (not always a CD anymore with the prevalence of USB sticks). This option literally allows you to "try before you buy"...in that, it doesn't install anything to your computer. It merely allows you to play with the particular linux distro. (It will run a bit slower but that's ok) Some people use this option to see if they like a particular distro from a personal taste perspective, but I use this option to test out how supported (or not) my machine (and it's hardware) might be with the relevant distro - again without any installation commitment. If/When you wish to try linux again, you might want to try it that way first.
It was about a year ago? I've definitely have used the Live desktop feature - the issue comes when I install the distro and it boots up and the OS breaks due to driver issues.
Ah, well, good to hear that you were aware/using live CD. As I understand, it's quite rare that no issues with drivers with the live CD but issues with the OS installed. But I guess it happens sometimes. (Sorry) Also I was recently reminded that some computer makers publish linux hardware compatibility lists with their models. I know Lenovo does it for ThinkPads. (BTW ThinkPad machines usually have awesome support with linux.) Also some linux distros publish similar hardware compatibility lists (from their side pointing to hardware models, etc.) I know Ubuntu and Red hat publishes these for many years now. Of course, last resort: you can purchase a machine with linux officially and already installed by hardware vendor since that assumes they tested things properly for support. Examples include Dell (very few models but hey), System76 (yeah this is the name of the company), PineBook, etc. I hope this helps!
My PC was one of these custom designed PCs from pcspecialist.co.uk so I'd have to look up individual hardware listings which is something I'm not really interested in doing - especially given that Windows works just fine on here.
This PC was a >£1k PC for gaming so I'm pretty sure there are some proprietary things (graphics card, ethernet, motherboard, processor, etc) that screw with the Linux installation. Regardless, ever since I got a switch I barely ever play on the PC. It is a great PC that has lasted me nearly 5 years and it's still going strong - still incredibly fast and powerful with little issues (it struggles to shut down properly, but that's a separate issue). But my next PC probably won't be so... "gamerish" and will probably be a bit cheaper with hopefully a lot more hardware components that are supported as standard by the Linux community.
Ah, ok, yeah gaming rigs have historically required lots of attention if the desire is to run linux on them. Posible of course, but way too much TLC needed. The components are designed/implemented for game performance primarily, which historically has targeted windows as an OS platform, hence the proprietary nature of them...which kind of sucks, because ironically if these rigs were also targeting linux as platform, i imagine stuff would fly even faster than windows...Oh well. Best of luck on your quest for your next - likely les "gamerish" - machine! Cheers!