Brian Masinick
Thanks @dolphin_oracle. kde version from 19.1-sid is older than the one you showed in your video. I forget to note the version. I moved to antix-core_19.2-buster. Installed kde-5.14 and stays with ceni. Antix+kde is faster than Mx+kde ????
This actually makes sense to me. Even though most of our software is “stable”, being “derived” software, we can – and do – use the most effective software for our purposes. For example, while the majority of our software is “Debian-based”, the development team of antiX chooses to use alternative system initialization (scheduler) processing. Debian, several years ago, moved to a system scheduler known as “SystemD”, which is NOT a Debian creation, it was created primarily by a Red Hat developer. The main reasons that some people dislike it are that:
1) It does MORE than just provide process and job scheduling; it’s a pretty large selection of processes.
2) It is NOT managed by text editable configuration files; it has binary routines that provide much of its capability.
These things don’t necessarily make SystemD terrible; on systems with many processors, it does allow the workload to split out into different processors. The objections generally are concerned about a lot of “magic” going on it binary routines, where you really can only see what’s happening by going deeply into the original source code, instead of simply changing things with a text readable configuration file. Also the tendency to do too much with one monolithic tool is another common objection.
with that said, antiX completely stays away from SystemD. MX, like antiX, does offer traditional Linux scheduling but it also allows for the use of SystemD. Moreover, MX Linux has a convenient desktop environment layer. While relatively “efficient” compared to many desktop environment “layers”, the conveniences this provides DO also have OVERHEAD not found in antiX, which is why you see antiX considerably more memory and resource efficient, hence the primary differences between MX Linux and antiX. Both have excellent software; MX Linux aims to be a drop in easy user environment; antiX aims to be “a lean and mean”, efficient system, aimed to work on aging hardware.
Does that provide a reasonable explanation of where antiX and MX Linux have similarities and differences?
(They are my two favorite distributions, CLEARLY for DIFFERENT reasons).
--
Brian Masinick
Alternate "Search B":
This search page