- This topic has 17 replies, 7 voices, and was last updated Jun 10-6:33 am by anticapitalista.
-
Posts
-
anticapitalX
Hello,
With the recent discussions about potential improvements to the antiX installer, I believe this is an opportune time to share some suggestions that could significantly enhance the user experience.Following up on @cacluimsodium’s important observation about runit logging issues during installation:
Hello,
Another concern is that if I turn off all logging in runit and make a snapshot.
Then run the snapshot live and install to hard drive.
After install, I boot into runit of the installed system, then some runsv logging is present and burns up hard drive unnecessarily.
The only bullet proof way so far to overcome this, in my testing, is to make a backup of the /etc/sv folder
and immediately after install,
delete the /etc/sv folder in the installed system,
and copy the /etc/sv_backup to /etc/sv.
Only after this manual procedure do I get a runit without any logging same as right before I make the snapshot.
The snapshot and the live system DOES faithfully have the correct /etc/sv folder.
BUT, during installation, this /etc/sv folder is changed by the antiX installer in the INSTALLED system.
Therefore, does the antiX installer have to be modified specific for the multi init sytem?
This issue highlights that the antiX installer currently modifies the
/etc/svfolder during installation, which affects the multi-init system configuration. While I believe @anticapitalista and the antiX dev team can address this specific problem, it also presents an opportunity to consider broader installer enhancements.1. Init System Selection During Installation:
The init diversity project offers users the ability to test different init systems in the live environment, which is fantastic for determining compatibility and preference.
Proposal:
Add an init system selection interface during installation that allows users to:
– Install only one specific init system (e.g., sysVinit-only antiX)
– Install multiple init systems in custom combinations (e.g., sysVinit + 66)
– Choose from any available combination of supported init systemsBenefits:
– Cleaner installations with only desired init systems
– Reduced system complexity for users who prefer single-init setups
– Better resource utilization
– Addresses the logging configuration issues mentioned above
– reduce number of isos (full-base-core-net)2. Package Selection Interface
Taking inspiration from installers like EndeavourOS, which provides granular package selection during installation.
Proposal:
Implement a package selection screen similar to EndeavourOS installer that allows users to:
– Review all packages planned for installation
– Select/deselect individual packages or package categories
– Customize their antiX installation based on specific needs
– Reduce bloat for minimal installationsBenefits:
– More personalized installations
– Reduced disk usage for users who don’t need certain packages
– Better alignment with antiX’s philosophy of user choice and control
– Easier creation of specialized/minimal systemsImplementation Considerations:
Both suggestions could be implemented as optional steps in the installer:
– Default behavior could remain unchanged for users who prefer the current experience
– Advanced users could access these options through an “Advanced Installation” mode
– The interface could be similar to the current EndeavourOS model shown in the screenshotThank you for considering these suggestions, and thank you to the entire antiX team for maintaining such a flexible and user-focused distribution.
Best regards
Attachments:
Let's accept antiX as it is
Pure and Elegant by its nature
vitforlinux
One thing that I really hate Ubuntu: wait a lot of time for an installation, which puts and removes packages because you make choices during the installation … including minimal, it was worth downloading a smaller ISO, perhaps Xubuntu minimal.
One thing that I love antiX and MX: what is in the ISO is what I will have installed, such and which, without even having to have the internet, as the greats of information technology would like, and also in places where there is no internet … and still exist.
A system for changing inits without being capable is a nice idea, but if I am not able to change the Init, I don’t even know what we are talking about.
Use Artix that as an antiX has versions with different init, when you download the ISO you choose, that is the time to decide that you init want, and it will be perfectly functional.
Why if you want EndeavourOS, don’t you do it and enjoy the weight of KDE? Or download the ISO with KDE and then you put Openbox and take off KDE? Might as was worth downloading Archbang.
The time to make the choice of what you want in a distro is before installing it, and choosing the right one, otherwise you do an ISO everything to do, and at what moment you choose if you want Fedora, Debian or Arch … from an ISO of 12 Giga where there are 10 distro.
Sorry for my spaghetti english, i'm italian. Happy XORG user. GNOME? No thanks!
Brian Masinick
“The time to make the choice of what you want in a distro is before installing it”
I agree completely with this; it is completely unrealistic, time consuming, and of questionable value, to provide a super comprehensive multi-init, multi-desktop, multi anything setup for large scale distribution.
The @ProwlerGr “init-diversity” projects have been very interesting for a few people to experiment with, and @ProwlerGr has done a fantastic job with them. To provide these in a general purpose system though is something I would caution against. As interesting as the project has been, there have been problems with the approach that the small group of experimenters have worked with and helped the team to investigate and resolve, but for the general user community, this would be a show stopper and an extremely bad idea; I’ve been a part of the 2024 and 2025 “init-diversity” projects. They are highly interesting development exercises, but they are not production quality, 100% reliable efforts.
It’s quite enough to support two different init alternatives, building them for multiple system images. Especially for a development team as small as ours, it’s unreasonable to expect continual expansion of this effort. If anything, it’d be nice to be able to reduce the number of supported images and choices. The decisions and choices of what to do, how much to do, etc. are those of the development team. During the exploration phase of the release, we’re asked to share what we’d like to see, and we’ve had a thread in existence for at least a year for suggestions. What’s chosen and what is not is up to the developers. Someone who wants to ADD a feature can develop it and submit it; some of those works have either been added to the package collection; a few have been integrated into the full release; others remain as optional additions; some are not included; that’s the way it is.
I look forward to seeing what our next release will look like and what it will contain; I trust our team and I’ve never been disappointed.
--
Brian Masinick
Alternate "Search B":
This search pagevitforlinux
Thanks, every now and then I feel like a grumpy old to think that things have phases.
If you want to install / uninstall the packages, there are both Program Installer and Synaptic after the installation of the OS.
Perhaps it would be an advantage of the ISO only with the classic Init and have runit or vice versa as a choice? It seems to me better to choose if you are rebel even at the classic Init before installing.
2 init x 3 iso type = 6 ISO. Runit doesn’t work for you? Choose Classic Init.
- This reply was modified 1 year, 3 months ago by vitforlinux.
Sorry for my spaghetti english, i'm italian. Happy XORG user. GNOME? No thanks!
anti-apXos
To me the eight different ISO choices antix already has feels like too much. If any of the other inits that are being worked on are eventually offered, that number is just going to multiply like rodents.
Having literally several dozen different antix ISOs that need to be built and selected from for every release doesn’t seem like it would benefit anyone.
It also doesn’t seem to me like even the four package variants (net, core, base, full) available now are enough if the software decisions should be made by selecting the right ISO. Tons of posts in these forums make it clear that a lot of people want something between base and full, for example, but offering yet another variant or cutting out one of the existing choices don’t seem like good solutions either.
The time to make the choice of what you want in a distro is before installing it
Well, that’s what’s being proposed. Currently, the most common recommendation I see is “just install full and then uninstall what you don’t want.” It works, but I agree it would be nicer to make these decisions before installing.
I’ve also thought that antix repos should have meta-packages to recreate the different versions, so that from antix-net or any of the lower variants, you could upgraded to other versions with a single command. This would also be an easy way to offer that middle ground between base and full without making a whole new ISO.
"--"
vitforlinux
I’ve also thought that antix repos should have meta-packages to recreate the different versions, so that from antix-net or any of the lower variants, you could upgraded to other versions with a single command. This would also be an easy way to offer that middle ground between base and full without making a whole new ISO.
Having fewer ISO and more meta-packages could be a way to reduce the number of ISOs, and also to allow switching from FULL to BASE without reinstalling everything.
Can you tell that I use BASE?
Sorry for my spaghetti english, i'm italian. Happy XORG user. GNOME? No thanks!
anticapitalista
Problem with meta-packages is what to include and what to not include.
Personally, I hate them.Remember, our installer is shared with MX Linux.
They, it seems, have little to no interest in alternative init systems.All our installer does is copy what is on the iso to a hard drive.
No internet connection is required and installation takes just a few minutes on reasonable hardware.There is nothing stopping a user from adding/removing apps during the ‘live’ session and then installing to a drive.
All changes will be copied over.Philosophers have interpreted the world in many ways; the point is to change it.
antiX with runit - leaner and meaner.
ProwlerGr
To me the eight different ISO choices antix already has feels like too much. If any of the other inits that are being worked on are eventually offered, that number is just going to multiply like rodents.
Having literally several dozen different antix ISOs that need to be built and selected from for every release doesn’t seem like it would benefit anyone.
It also doesn’t seem to me like even the four package variants (net, core, base, full) available now are enough if the software decisions should be made by selecting the right ISO. Tons of posts in these forums make it clear that a lot of people want something between base and full, for example, but offering yet another variant or cutting out one of the existing choices don’t seem like good solutions either.
Yes 16 iso’s is overkill to me & I can see many bugs or omissions could have been avoided in the past (eg missed translations or mislabeled grub screens) if the focus was only on one polished iso for each architecture.
The base & core installations can easily be achieved from the full iso with a string of ‘sudo purge xxxx yyyy … zzzz && sudo apt autoremove –purge’ of predefined lists of packages each for base & core.
The removal of extra packages does not really add too much time to the installation (in contrast to adding packages from repos on a slow connection).Even looking at the sourceforge downloads page I can see the full iso downloads dwarf all other offerings combined anyway.
Problem with meta-packages is what to include and what to not include.
Wouldn’t a metapackage to go to a “full” install just be a diff of the packages installed on “net” and the packages installled on “full”? Or are there other differences?
"--"
anticapitalista
Browser on base is different to the one on full.
I’m sure some will complain of bloat – that going to full includes apps they don’t want, but will get installed anyway.
Philosophers have interpreted the world in many ways; the point is to change it.
antiX with runit - leaner and meaner.
anticapitalista
Our tools make it relatively easy (compared to other distros) to create personalized versions at any stage.
You have the option to start with next to nothing (net) and build up, including whatever init you may wish to use (except systemd).
Or you can start with full and remove the ‘bloat’, make a snaphot and its done.Philosophers have interpreted the world in many ways; the point is to change it.
antiX with runit - leaner and meaner.
Brian Masinick
I have many years of personal experience with all except the Net alternative (though I’ve used the Debian “netinst” in the distant past, which is quite similar). I was among the first group to use the original antiX Core – before “Net” became an option. A couple of years ago I revisited antiX Core after @christophe wrote a very nice HOWTO install a custom antiX Core image. I chose different apps than the example, but it was great.
Years ago I used to do the majority of my antiX builds from “Base”, and I’d install a new release or a test instance mostly to test.
These days, with only a WiFi network available, and most of my systems require newer WiFi modules than the older kernels will support, I usually have to grab ONLY the latest kernels. The good news is that my HP-14 IS able to run a Linux 6.1 kernel (tested it recently) and my Dell Inspiron 5558 and my oldest system, a Lenovo Thinkpad X201 CAN startup with Core, Base, or Full, so though these aren’t my daily use systems, I CAN test some of the other builds from time to time.
What I’m getting at by mentioning experience with our different methods is to confirm what @anticapitalista has said, and also to comment that quite a few of us add to or subtract from our build configurations on a regular basis. antiX veteran users will freely share that this is precisely the reason we use antiX.
In my case that’s the PRIMARY reason. My three most recent systems don’t really HAVE to run antiX; MX Linux, Debian, Slackware and various Arch derivatives work there too; I just like antiX because I can build what I want, create a snapshot, then put it on as many of the other systems as I wish, and that is typically what I do.
In fact, I created a snapshot this morning of my Privacy Edition of antiX, and I’m going to put it on my HP-14. I also broke my “init-diversity” version there; I can either build another one from the Privacy Edition plus a bash script to configure the diversity edition OR I can install it from another SNAPSHOT that I previously created.
So as you hopefully can see, these snapshots and different images we make available allow you tremendous flexibility.
If you know what you are doing, you can start with any of them. Most of us recommend starting with a Full image, then add or remove software, turning it into whatever you wish.--
Brian Masinick
Alternate "Search B":
This search pageBrian Masinick
http://www.antixforum.com/forums/topic/updating-many-antix-systems-today/#post-178979 should be here!
--
Brian Masinick
Alternate "Search B":
This search pageAll our installer does is copy what is on the iso to a hard drive.
No internet connection is required and installation takes just a few minutes on reasonable hardware.There is nothing stopping a user from adding/removing apps during the ‘live’ session and then installing to a drive.
All changes will be copied over.Thank you for this explanation! I think I got my answer.
The package management feature I was asking for is actually already there – just implemented in a much smarter way than I realized.
antiX’s live environment is so well designed that it installs all the live changes you make before installation. This is actually better than traditional package selection screens because you can test everything first.
So all I need as a minimalistic user is a simple script to remove bloat packages during the live session, then install the antiX base system. Everything I customize in the live environment gets copied over.
As an ordinary user, I also prefer having a single init system that works rock solid, just like antiX has always done. The reliability and simplicity is what makes antiX special.
I appreciate learning about this approach – it’s more elegant than what I originally suggested!
Let's accept antiX as it is
Pure and Elegant by its natureXunzi_23
hi anticapitalX, pls also make a remaster on your live stick after changes. With that you
can have a tested backup of your installed system with minimal effort. Pls do confirm all
working as expected, Trouble is rare but buggy unreliable or fake USB sticks are around,
all brands affected.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.