Well, it could be but I do now have any most recent hardware so for me it's ok. I think sometimes it's software which stays a bit behind but usually installing from Mx Test Repo fixes it.
Another convert to MX, have mainly used Mint and Debian, and also various Puppy flavors. I think they've made a lot of good decisions about what should be included - not too big, not too small, just right; and the persistent modifiable pendrive capability is absolutely fantastic. Has effectively shelved Puppy as far as I'm concerned.
What is it about pure Debian 10 you find better than the way MX makes use of Buster ? is it because you use Mate DE ?
It is, but I like the boot repair tool even better. It's so fast and simple it makes a joke out of some other solutions.
I just find find Debian 10 to be even more stable than MX. Mate is nice because it runs lighter than Cinnamon or KDE, even though the latter two have more eye candy.
On New year Day I went from Windows 10 1909 64 bit to Linux Mint Cinnoman 19.3 and haven't looked back. I'm not a gamer or anything like that so Linux works great for me. What I really like is the fact now you can get rid of that Mint cover page on Firefox and use Firefox default home page. And glad I can get rid of those green icons and make them red. Now when I close a browser or whatever the icon is red instead of that green.
Another thing in MX's favor (IMO) is font rendering. I can't get the fonts in Arch or Manjaro looking good as they do in MX using the same Noto Sans with the same settings. Dont know if it's because of XFCE vs KDE or what ever.....
It would be useful especially for new Linux converts to have some clarification about exactly what ‘stable’ and ‘light’ means. Regarding the former and in all the years I’ve been doing this the only systems I’ve had break completely were Windows and Arch (based). Everything else has just chugged along nicely with maybe occasional minimal intervention for me. Absolutely you can get varying degrees of instability from some software sources but these will most likely be hardware related or specific to personal usage habits so it’s a bit unfair to label any one particular distro as being less stable unless you provide examples. Regarding ‘lightness’ I still can’t grasp why someone would want to count CPU cycles, RAM usage, boot time or read/write events and then use this as a basis for choosing a desktop environment or operating system unless they’re running an Atari. If you want to split it down there are ‘heavy’ KDE distros and also ‘light’ ones but hey let’s not include Porteus coz that’s a bit difficult to use so we’ll just say KDE is heavy and hope folks believe it. Like most other products Linux is not immune to enthusiastic marketing but Porteus’s own description of being “insanely fast” is accurate enough for me. My also-ran test system is a basic Samsung RV-415 which was never intended to set the world alight and it’s on this I test out all my new stuff in the knowledge that whatever it is will run better on pretty much anything else. Suffice to say unless you’re prepared to run Openbox or below, any of the more recognized DE’s are gonna be pretty sticky on any machine in the same category.
Regarding KDE, the recent versions use comparatively little RAM. About half of Mint Cinnamon, and maybe less than the new Xfce (depends on your system). Just sayin'
That was actually my point although it maybe wasn't clear how I'd written it. In one setup or another I currently have KDE versions of Debian, Endeavour, Calculate and LinuxFX operational and they all fly along nicely. Resource monitors to Linux are what registry cleaners are to Windows.
It's just based on my general perception on finding fewer little hangups and crashes, and overall slightly better responsiveness with Debian. Unfortunately I can't quantify my findings scientifically. It's based solely on my user experience. By ll means, I don't think anyone can wrong with MX, or a meaningful handful of other distros. Everyone's preferences are different. To state the obvious, what works best for some, may not be best for others.
I'm not a great lover of Arch based systems or rolling releases but if I had to pick one it would be this. The obvious talent carried forward from Antergos shows in the finished product. Can't vouch for the offline installer but I've installed several KDE versions online and all went without a hitch on a mix of different hardware. The forum is also active with a good amount of traffic and not too many bug reports which is always a good sign. Compared with say other 'new' Arch based efforts such as Condres which has already died, Endeavour is much better and I hope it stays around and continues to develop.
As a lot of folks believe, Endeavour is not a continuation of Antergos but a completely different distro. The only common factor is some community based association with both projects. Of course there are many differences between it and Manjaro most of which will mean little to average users. The main differences are less bloat with Endeavour whereas Manjaro comes with the sink included, and of course the Endeavour online installer options for just a base install or choice of 8 different desktops and/or system tools, themes, plugins etc. You can also run multiple desktops and choose which to use at login. This is also possible with Manjaro but with limited success based on my own experience. One of the most appealing choices for some Manjaro users might be the Deepin desktop offered by Endeavour since Manjaro no longer maintains theirs. I understand there’s still some Deepin activity within the Manjaro community but I’m not sure to what level.
Interesting, does it support hardened kernel? AFAIK Manjaro doesn't support it and my quick search on Endeavour didn't give me reliable info.
In truth I have no idea. I guess the best place to ask would be their own forum. https://endeavouros.com/forum/
Endeavour is not Manjaro, Manjaro maintains their own kernel. Endeavour is an easy install for Arch with some extras and community support. Arch has the hardened kernel. or, are you asking if Endeavour has security experts for supporting hardened kernel ?
This was something I’d never bothered with since I was always told a hardened kernel was of little use unless for servers or network connected machines where other users have physical access. That said instead of risking potential issues by trying to add this to a standard distro would it not be easier just to use Parrot OS or similar?
Indeed. They write on their homepage: I've never had this with Arch. I'm pretty sure that most of these problems are a result of performing a partial upgrade. So the most important rule for Arch (-based distros) is: Never ever install a package by simply executing Code: sudo pacman -S package but rather always execute Code: sudo pacman -Syu package instead. (This can be simplified by adding an alias like alias i="sudo pacman -Syu" to .bashrc) The second important rule is to read the announcements on the Arch homepage in order to determine if a manual intervention is necessary. This is what I do every day after starting my computer: I press Alt-Ctrl+F3, log into the TTY and execute u which is the following alias in my .bashrc: Code: alias u='yay -Pw && while true; do read -n 1 -p "Continue? [press any key/N(o)]" ANSWER if [ "$ANSWER" == "N" ] then echo echo " *** Break ***" break else echo echo sudo pacman -Syyuu && yay -Sua && pacnew > /home/heat/pacnew.log && sudo paccache -ruk0 && sudo paccache -rvk2; break; fi done' Notes: 1. I'm using the AUR helper yay in this script to look if there are new announcement on the Arch homepage (there are other ways how to do this). You have the chance to interrupt the script if a manual intervention is necessary. 2. pacnew is the following alias: Code: alias pacnew='sudo updatedb && locate --existing --regex "\.pac(new|save)$"' By following this approach Arch has always been very stable for me. That said, regressions in, say, new kernel versions happen sometimes (which are not Arch's fault). That's why it's a good idea to install linux-lts alongside the standard kernel. Or you can use linux-lts as your default kernel, of course.
summerheat, well said...thanks and We've taken Mrk's thread way off topic, sorry for my part doing so
It's surely not mandatory, more of a hobby of a kind and TBH I haven't played w/ it. I personally have never liked those secure Linux such as Subgraph as their definition of security seemed to be different from mine, but thanks I was not aware of Parrot.
