82
What's up with distrowatch and MX Linux? (mander.xyz)
submitted 1 year ago by to c/linux@lemmy.ml
56 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

I feel like MX Linux has been at or near the top of Distrowatch forever, but I literally never hear it mentioned elsewhere on the web. Is it just people literally asking this question for them selves, clicking on it and bumping it up? Has anyone tried MX to see if it lives up?

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 1 point 1 year ago* (2 children)

MX is a nice distro. However, it is also true that it is just Debian with XFCE, KDE, or Fluxbox on top.

Your comment about not “being a fork of a fork” is ironic. MX Linux is a fork of AntiX which is a fork of Debian.

This is a not a criticism of MX. I love EndeavourOS and it is just Arch with a different installer and some sensible defaults. But I can also understand why some people look at MX and wonder why they don’t just install Debian with XFCE directly.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago

    wonder why they don’t just install Debian with XFCE directly

    I think the main reason are the "MX Tools" which get praised a lot. And maybe also the "Advanced Hardware Support" they offer.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago

    MX is a new name for Mepis. Part of MX and AntiX contributors are the same persons. MX got kernel compiled by AntiX, that particularily suits old hardware. Also the Xfce setup is more modern comparing to the default provided by Debian.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent