Middleweight champ MX Linux 23 delivers knockout punch
- Reference: 1691058916
- News link: https://www.theregister.co.uk/2023/08/03/mx_linux_23/
- Source link:
Around this time last year, MX Linux was new to us, as we said [1]when we looked at version 21.2 . Now at [2]version 23 , its developers describe it as a middleweight distro. Don't be misled, though: while it doesn't go out of its way to be stripped down or minimalist, it's as rich and feature-complete as any desktop distro out there.
The principal difference between MX and other Debian remixes which seek to improve on the base OS, such as [3]Linux Mint Debian Edition or [4]siduction , is that MX is a member of the shortlist of distros that don't use the systemd init system.
[5]
You won't find MX Linux 23 on the [6]No systemd list, though, because systemd is present – it's just not the init system. Having it installed but inactive makes MX compatible with the increasing number of apps which require this shoggoth of a startup daemon, but thanks to a package called [7]systemd-shim it's effectively disabled unless you specifically choose it from the boot menu.
[8]
The default desktop in MX Linux 23 is Xfce
Unlike some distros, MX doesn't try to offer every desktop environment around – a pragmatic choice, in our opinion. There are just three options: Xfce, KDE and Fluxbox – and unusually, the biggest and fanciest is not the default here. The flagship edition is Xfce, which we think is an excellent choice. It can do anything the bigger desktops can, and it does it in less memory, less disk space, and with far fewer bugs. So it's worth a look even if you're a fan of MATE, Cinnamon or some other desktop. Xfce can do everything they can, and in any case, they're available in the repos.
Like Debian itself, MX Linux is in some ways a technologically conservative distribution, and it hasn't substantially changed from the previous release. As such, our comments that time around stand, and if you don't recall our previous look at the distro, it might be worth refreshing your memory.
[9]
[10]
If you are particularly wedded to KDE, that's an option, and MX ships the latest version, with a relatively muted dark theme and a fairly basic, clean desktop config. In contrast, the Xfce configuration has been tweaked and tuned, as we described last time: the basic Xfce app menu has been replaced with the much better Whisker Menu, and it's summoned with the Super (or "Windows") key, as it should be. The single panel has been augmented with the [11]docklike taskbar plugin as standard, for an experience that's a bit more akin to Windows 7 and later, rather than Xfce's Windows-95-style default.
[12]
KDE fans get the conventional taskbar down below
There's also an even lighter-weight edition based around the Fluxbox window manager and the tint2 desktop panel (which might be familiar to users of [13]the late Crunchbang distro , or its parallel offshoots [14]BunsenLabs and [15]Crunchbang++ ). We found this quite a bit clunkier, but it's an option for very resource-limited machines. MX is one of the few modern distros to still offer an x86-32 release.
The version number denotes the year of release: this is the first new version of 2023, and the reason for a new major version is that the upstream Debian project has just put out a new major version. So, the core components here are mostly the same versions that you'll find in Debian "Bookworm".
New in this are the improved [16]Nala package manager, which we first encountered [17]in the Snap and Flatpak-free Ubuntu remix Zinc . The MX Updater app can optionally use Nala instead of apt .
[18]
Unlike Zinc, MX doesn't include [19]deb-get for fetching Debian packages of proprietary apps, but it doesn't really need it: native packages of many of the usual suspects – Chrome, MS Edge and VS Code, or Zoom – can be found in the MX Package Installer app anyway, via pre-configured external repos. This also has a Flatpak tab, which offers many more, such as Slack and the [20]Franz multiprotocol chat client . This extends to a choice of kernels, such as the [21]optimized Liquorix kernel we looked at last year, and both older and newer kernels from the upstream antiX and Debian projects.
[22]
The Fluxbox edition is a lot less polished
New features in this release are the Orca screen-reader in all three desktops on offer, plus built-in screen magnifiers. All use the [23]Pipewire audio server , plus the accompanying [24]Wireplumber tool to manage it, and the UFW firewall. MX comes with an assortment of helpful applets that aid in managing drivers, kernels, backup and restore, and so on, collectively known as the MX Tools, and these have all been updated, and those which require elevated privileges are now managed by [25]polkit .
[26]Soft-reboot in systemd 254 sounds a lot like Windows' Fast Startup
[27]GNOME project considers adding window tiling by default
[28]Latest version of Canonical's Wayland compositor arrives
[29]OctoX is a radical Rust implementation of a very old OS for RISC-V
Two interesting touches will benefit those looking to put the distro onto multiple PCs: [30]MX Snapshot lets you take a snapshot of your entire running system, and turn it into an ISO file that you can install onto another computer. If you want a clean install but to replicate a set of additional software you've installed, the [31]User installed packages tool will make a list of everything on one machine. You can then take this list to other machines, and the tool will install everything on the list.
There's a special 64-bit edition called AHS for Advanced Hardware Support, which includes a newer kernel and drivers for hardware so new and shiny that the stock kernel 6.1 can't handle it. The KDE flavor is only available in this form, but you can add the updated components to an existing installation via the [32]AHS repository . Apparently, "AHS" is meant to rhyme with "Oz", which tells us that the MX developers are not from the same part of the world as The Reg FOSS desk.
Judging from the comments, many Reg readers are not fans of systemd. It's [33]prevented many of our own machines from booting before now. For many, [34]Debian fork Devuan is their go-to choice.
The contrast between Devuan and MX Linux reminds us of BunsenLabs and Crunchbang++. They remain quite similar, but CB++ stuck as closely as possible to the original, just with updated components, while the BunsenLabs team gradually added some enhancements and tweaks. Devuan hews very close to upstream Debian, but with a more complicated installation process – there are very few visible improvements.
[35]
The MX team, meanwhile, is much bolder: its distro is easier to install, and it isn't afraid of adding new repositories, components, and drivers – and tools to manage them – to the base distro, while retaining excellent compatibility. If you want an improved Debian experience without the additional bulk of Ubuntu or Mint, it's worth a try. Even if you're happy enough with Debian but you desperately want to avoid systemd, its additional polish compared to Devuan could win you over. ®
Get our [36]Tech Resources
[1] https://www.theregister.com/2022/08/31/mx_linux_212/
[2] https://mxlinux.org/blog/mx-23-libretto-now-available/
[3] https://www.theregister.com/2022/03/19/linux_mint_debian_edition_5/
[4] https://www.theregister.com/2023/01/05/siduction_2022_1/
[5] https://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/jump?co=1&iu=/6978/reg_software/oses&sz=300x50%7C300x100%7C300x250%7C300x251%7C300x252%7C300x600%7C300x601&tile=2&c=2ZMvPJbGGH111dap-7RD9mQAAA8Q&t=ct%3Dns%26unitnum%3D2%26raptor%3Dcondor%26pos%3Dtop%26test%3D0
[6] https://nosystemd.org/
[7] https://github.com/knelsonmeister/systemd
[8] https://regmedia.co.uk/2023/08/02/mx-23-xfce.jpg
[9] https://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/jump?co=1&iu=/6978/reg_software/oses&sz=300x50%7C300x100%7C300x250%7C300x251%7C300x252%7C300x600%7C300x601&tile=4&c=44ZMvPJbGGH111dap-7RD9mQAAA8Q&t=ct%3Dns%26unitnum%3D4%26raptor%3Dfalcon%26pos%3Dmid%26test%3D0
[10] https://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/jump?co=1&iu=/6978/reg_software/oses&sz=300x50%7C300x100%7C300x250%7C300x251%7C300x252%7C300x600%7C300x601&tile=3&c=33ZMvPJbGGH111dap-7RD9mQAAA8Q&t=ct%3Dns%26unitnum%3D3%26raptor%3Deagle%26pos%3Dmid%26test%3D0
[11] https://docs.xfce.org/panel-plugins/xfce4-docklike-plugin/start
[12] https://regmedia.co.uk/2023/08/02/mx-23-kde.jpg
[13] https://www.theregister.com/2015/02/09/brit_linux_distro_crunchbang_calls_it_quits/
[14] https://www.bunsenlabs.org/
[15] https://crunchbangplusplus.org/
[16] https://gitlab.com/volian/nala
[17] https://www.theregister.com/2022/10/13/zinc_ubuntu_remix/
[18] https://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/jump?co=1&iu=/6978/reg_software/oses&sz=300x50%7C300x100%7C300x250%7C300x251%7C300x252%7C300x600%7C300x601&tile=4&c=44ZMvPJbGGH111dap-7RD9mQAAA8Q&t=ct%3Dns%26unitnum%3D4%26raptor%3Dfalcon%26pos%3Dmid%26test%3D0
[19] https://github.com/wimpysworld/deb-get
[20] https://www.theregister.com/2021/11/19/friday_foss_fest/
[21] https://www.theregister.com/2022/02/25/friday_foss_fest_liquorix_kernel/
[22] https://regmedia.co.uk/2023/08/02/mx-23-fluxbox.jpg
[23] https://www.theregister.com/2022/05/24/new_audio_server_pipewire_coming/
[24] https://pipewire.pages.freedesktop.org/wireplumber/
[25] https://www.linux.org/docs/man8/polkit.html
[26] https://www.theregister.com/2023/08/02/systemd_254/
[27] https://www.theregister.com/2023/08/01/gnome_considers_tiling_by_default/
[28] https://www.theregister.com/2023/07/28/mir_canonicals_wayland_compositor/
[29] https://www.theregister.com/2023/07/28/octox_v6_unix_in_rust/
[30] https://github.com/MX-Linux/mx-snapshot
[31] https://mxlinux.org/wiki/help-files/help-mx-user-installed-packages/
[32] https://mxlinux.org/blog/new-advanced-hardware-support-repo-ahs-for-short/
[33] https://www.theregister.com/2023/08/02/systemd_254/
[34] https://www.theregister.com/2021/10/15/devuan_4_chimaera_released/
[35] https://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/jump?co=1&iu=/6978/reg_software/oses&sz=300x50%7C300x100%7C300x250%7C300x251%7C300x252%7C300x600%7C300x601&tile=3&c=33ZMvPJbGGH111dap-7RD9mQAAA8Q&t=ct%3Dns%26unitnum%3D3%26raptor%3Deagle%26pos%3Dmid%26test%3D0
[36] https://whitepapers.theregister.com/
Glad it has some documentation
They've created a user manual with a load of information, and forums which will be searchable, immediately placing it way above Devuan.
I'm sure Devuan ultimately works but its documentation is absolutely dire. 'Ask on IRC' rarely works well, and the fallbacks options are looking at Google or seeing if the documentation of Arch Linux (usually excellent) covers your situation.
Re: Glad it has some documentation
"I'm sure Devuan ultimately works but its documentation is absolutely dire."
If by ultimately works you mean its release schedule lags behind Debian then I agree. It may mean your very latest H/W might not have drivers in the install image. Otherwise it just works as in the way Debian just works but better in not having the systemd obfuscation.
As for documentation Debian documentation will fit better than Arch and I've never heard of anyone calling the Debian Administrator's Handbook dire. A pre-systemd version will obviously be needed to cover sysvinit.
I should add that I ran the then next version of Devuan on a Pi Nextcloud server months before it was officially released and I currently have the Daedalus, the Bookworm based version running on a laptop and will probably get round to updating the main laptop shortly.
this shoggoth of a startup daemon
OK, you've done it now. We'll get a replacement for systemd being called tekeli-d.
Re: this shoggoth of a startup daemon
Systemd - the giant, bloated, blind penguin.
Not sure about the problem...
... Devuan was really painless to install. I had some problems with the current Debian though: I want to set my language to English, make lots of things much simpler. However, the graphical installer then insisted on not offering me the correct time zone nor the correct keyboard. Which is stupid.
Re: Not sure about the problem...
This is why we need Debian derivatives. People who are good at wrangling the low-level plumbing of an OS are often terrible with the usability.
You should've mentioned MX's frugal/persistence install mode. This allows to install MX on any (and I mean ANY) PC with, say, 8GB of free disk space. I am not talking about shuffling partitions or creating a new partition where MX would be installed: no, MX can peacefully and fully-featured co-exist with a Windows7...11 install on the very same NTFS partition, given enough free space.
This has allowed me, back in the days, to test drive then-MX17 in parallel with my aging Win7 install for a few months and to gradually switch from one OS to the other... Even now, six or so years on, I still have MX (now 23) running as frugal as it's incredibly easy to backup (just copy three or four files) and a breeze to install on new machines, even without the snapshot/ISO route.
The beer goes to the devs.
Devuan again
Intrigued to see the number of Devuan-related posts here. Seems the Reg forums are the only independent place on the planet that admits to the existence of us Devuantes.
I am intrigued by the "improved" Nala - how is it better than Synaptic?
But "its additional polish compared to Devuan could win you over" reads to me as "its additional polish compared to Devuan could fsck you over." Debian/Devuan never sold on polish, and that's the way I like 'em.
Re: Devuan again
I find Synaptic better than anything that's been tried more recently. If I'm building a new deb based system, it's pretty much the first thing I install after the first reboot.
I am all in favour of distros free from systemd and might take MX Linux for a spin in Virtualbox just to see what it can do.
I don't think that I will be installing it permanently though.
Because MX Linux is derived from Debian I assume it has inherited sudo as well. Now it might be the old sysadmin in me but I never liked the idea of having a user getting admin privileges on a computer. It strikes me as asking for trouble if you are the got-to-guy for support with family and friends.
I think that Texstar and the folks at PCLinuxOS have the right idea and stick to the UNIX way of doing things and only allowing root have access to the sensitive parts of the system.
Now I have, in the past, been down voted for voicing concerns about sudo but cases differ and if you're happy with sudo then use it.
Part of the joy of Linux is that your boxes are your boxes and no-one can tell you what is right and what is wrong.
MX Linux does look good though.
@nematoad
You are aware that sudo was written by admins. just like you.
It was invented to allow admins to give more granular access to some facilities in a more flexible way than UNIX groups on a UNIX-like system without giving full superuser access.
If you've ever run a UNIX-like OS in a larger environment, especially one running production services, you will be glad that you can give facilities such as creating user accounts, managing filesystem mounting, starting and stopping application software etc. to lower grade administrators and operators without handing out the crown-jewels to people who could be dangerous with too much power. Remember some UNIX systems in the past have been mainframe-class systems, and have had hundreds of users and run many applications on the same system. They're not all run as workstations.
Yes, it can be laborious to configure the sudoers file, but there are tricks you can do (like setting up rules to allow members of various groups access to different sets of commands and integrating with LDAP or Kerberos) to allow you to almost achieve RBAC type functionality.
I agree that the standard sudoers file which most Linuxes ship, which effectively only sets up administrator and non-administrator accounts is too blunt, but used properly it can be a very effective tool, especially for systems that are managed by many people. But even using it as an Admin, with full access, using sudo allows me to protect myself by running as a normal user, and just jumping over the privilege hurdle only when I need it. Admins who work as root all the time are asking for finger trouble to kill their systems!
I wonder just how many people badmouthing sudo have never really investigated just how it can be controlleld to make it more useful, and just taken the out-of-the-box configuration at face value. I really wouldn't want to go back to an environment where the only way of administering systems was by logging on or su-ing as root, or setting suid bits all over the place (before sudo became widely adopted, I used a similar system called "Op", and I also know that there have been other very similar solutions, both freeware and commercial that do similar things, so it's a problem that has generated tools like sudo more than once).
I'm with Peter here. Actually sudo gives you much more fine-grained control over which user can do what than the blunt non-root-user/root dichotomy. It's really worthwhile to read up about its capabilities... perhaps especially for an old-timer, if you pardon the expression.
There are concerns with sudo due to its size and configuration complexity but the general principle is sound.
Try doas on FreeBSD and OpenBSD instead.
Shoggoth
+1 for the Lovecraft reference!