Welcome!

The kernel problem with recent updates has been solved. Find the solution here

Important information
-- Required MX 15/16 Repository Changes
-- Information on torrent hosting changes
-- Information on MX15/16 GPG Keys
-- Spectre and Meltdown vulnerabilities

News
-- Introducing our new Website
-- MX Linux on social media: here

Current releases
-- MX-18.3 Point Release release info here
-- Migration Information to MX-18 here
-- antiX-17.4.1 release info here

New users
-- Please read this first, and don't forget to add system and hardware information to posts!
-- Here are the Forum Rules

[SOLVED] Difference between antiX and MX

User avatar
beardedragon
Forum Regular
Forum Regular
Posts: 138
Joined: Wed Mar 27, 2019 11:26 pm

Re: Difference between antiX and MX

#11

Post by beardedragon » Wed Apr 24, 2019 6:12 pm

I like to mix and match. I started with MX preferring xfce to fluxbox, currently running Kernel: 4.20.12-antix.1-amd64-smp x86_64 bits so I can use GeForce GT 720/PCIe/SSE2 v: 4.6.0 NVIDIA 418.56
Sort of like Manjaro users using things straight from Arch Repos.
Rule #1 Backup Everything
Rule #2 Read Rule #1

Klaas Vaak
Forum Regular
Forum Regular
Posts: 154
Joined: Mon Dec 10, 2018 1:50 pm

Re: Difference between antiX and MX

#12

Post by Klaas Vaak » Thu Apr 25, 2019 5:59 am

Thanks to everyone for your input. I had used both antiX and MX in Windows-hosted VM for a short time only, had a slight preference for MX without really being able to put my finger on it. Currently I have antiX installed on a 2 GB RAM/32 GB HDD 64-bit Lenovo tablet/PC hybrid. No big complaints. Switching to MX? Probably not.

bigbenaugust
Forum Novice
Forum  Novice
Posts: 78
Joined: Wed Dec 20, 2017 10:41 am

Re: Difference between antiX and MX

#13

Post by bigbenaugust » Thu Apr 25, 2019 2:03 pm

Artim wrote:
Wed Apr 24, 2019 6:02 pm
Openbox antiX? That would be great! antiXbang? crunchX?
I did once run the BunsenLabs (bunsenlabs.org) install atop an antiX install. Everything worked except the custom exit dialog, which depends on systemd. That would just be a matter of rewriting the openbox config to use its own exit command.
--Ben

PPC
Forum Regular
Forum Regular
Posts: 137
Joined: Tue Sep 11, 2018 8:22 am

Re: Difference between antiX and MX

#14

Post by PPC » Fri Apr 26, 2019 12:08 pm

manyroads wrote:
Wed Apr 24, 2019 2:07 pm
As you may have noted... I am building an OpenBox version of MX (re-spin). OpenBox is a windows manager not a Desktop Environment. I will try to port the OpenBox, I build over to antiX. I think with a similar UI on both OSes, you'll get a much better idea of the 'under the hood' differences. Besides, it's just a fun exercise. :eek:
Hi! I already have the experience of using MX and antiX with a very similar "envrironment" to MX- I'm running Fluxbox "DE", Skidoo's version, with several "icons" and "scripts" to make it run almost like MX linux with a horizontal bar. I have the same windows decorations as MX on my antiX box, and the same icon theme, so, unless I click the "start" menu, there is almost no difference.
I threw out the idea, on the forum, to have similar UI on both MX and antiX, but it didn't have a very good reception :-(

According to my limited experience: (not a apples to apples experience, since I use 2 differents PC's and MX runs XFCE and my antiX runs a heavily customized Fluxbox)- antiX runs with a much smaller memory footprint (some 130 mb of RAM on idle). If you install and run the same browser and office suit, on both systems, like I did, you don't notice any real difference.
In my case the main differences are: different "start" menu (that would not happen, I guess, if using Openbox on both OS's), different "tools" - antiX favors CLI apps, different File Manager (even after configuring antiX's to look almost like MX's)
I like running Appimages, those run about at the same speed on both systems.
My MX box has a single core, 3 gig of ram, a nvidia card, my antiX is on a atom netbook, single core, 1 gig of shared ram.
On my antiX box MX does not run very well simply because it runs out of ram when using Firefox and starts digging into SWAP space, slowing it to a crawl, that's why I stuck with antiX! But if I find a new usb pendrive, i'll try MX openbox on it :happy:

P.

User avatar
manyroads
Forum Regular
Forum Regular
Posts: 1873
Joined: Sat Jun 30, 2018 6:33 pm

Re: Difference between antiX and MX

#15

Post by manyroads » Fri Apr 26, 2019 5:04 pm

PPC wrote:
Fri Apr 26, 2019 12:08 pm
Hi! I already have the experience of using MX and antiX with a very similar "envrironment" to MX- I'm running Fluxbox "DE", Skidoo's version, with several "icons" and "scripts" to make it run almost like MX linux with a horizontal bar. I have the same windows decorations as MX on my antiX box, and the same icon theme, so, unless I click the "start" menu, there is almost no difference.
I threw out the idea, on the forum, to have similar UI on both MX and antiX, but it didn't have a very good reception :-(

According to my limited experience: (not a apples to apples experience, since I use 2 differents PC's and MX runs XFCE and my antiX runs a heavily customized Fluxbox)- antiX runs with a much smaller memory footprint (some 130 mb of RAM on idle). If you install and run the same browser and office suit, on both systems, like I did, you don't notice any real difference.
In my case the main differences are: different "start" menu (that would not happen, I guess, if using Openbox on both OS's), different "tools" - antiX favors CLI apps, different File Manager (even after configuring antiX's to look almost like MX's)
I like running Appimages, those run about at the same speed on both systems.
My MX box has a single core, 3 gig of ram, a nvidia card, my antiX is on a atom netbook, single core, 1 gig of shared ram.
On my antiX box MX does not run very well simply because it runs out of ram when using Firefox and starts digging into SWAP space, slowing it to a crawl, that's why I stuck with antiX! But if I find a new usb pendrive, i'll try MX openbox on it :happy:

P.
Not to worry. I "DO" like your idea of putting the same UI on both antiX & MX. I have and am doing that. Want to help? :eek: :bagoverhead:
Pax vobiscum,
Mark Rabideau - http://many-roads.com
bspwm MX-18.3 kernel: 5.1.11-antix.1-amd64-smp
"For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong." H. L. Mencken
Testing: antiX19

User avatar
seaken64
Forum Regular
Forum Regular
Posts: 220
Joined: Wed Jan 02, 2019 2:43 pm

Re: Difference between antiX and MX

#16

Post by seaken64 » Sun Apr 28, 2019 7:13 pm

skidoo wrote:
Wed Apr 24, 2019 2:28 pm
PSA:
iceWM, fluxbox, JWM are stacking window managers

antiX currently provides only one tiling window manager, the funnily-named (to my ear) herbstluftwm
archwiki::Comparison_of_tiling_window_managers
If you don't count dvtm, tmux, and screen from the repos, (for you folks who like text interfaces, like me). These are all tiling window managers, or screen multiplexers.
MX-18 on Thinkpad R61i Core2 Laptop. MX-18 on HP Core2 Desktop
MX-18-64/MX-18-32/antiX-17-32 Frugal on Gateway Core2 Laptop
antiX-17 on Compaq PIII 1000 Mhz Desktop, Multi-boot Slackware, Debian, MX, W2K
antiX-17/16 on Dell PIII 450 Mhz Laptop

User avatar
seaken64
Forum Regular
Forum Regular
Posts: 220
Joined: Wed Jan 02, 2019 2:43 pm

Re: Difference between antiX and MX

#17

Post by seaken64 » Sun Apr 28, 2019 7:20 pm

skidoo wrote:
Wed Apr 24, 2019 2:38 pm
missed the MX package installer - which allows you to install packages from "testing" repo without having to add that repo.
antiX full edition includes a similar application (but no "testing" tab) ~~ /usr/bin/packageinstaller , aka
antiX Control Center }}} System }}} Package Installer
if you like editing text, like I do, then antiX has a nice Control Center that has some icons that link you to the config files. You then don't have to remember where these files are located in the file system.

Just click on the icon link, make your edit and save. Easy peasy.

This takes me a couple of seconds. If I use the MX tools it takes me minutes to wait for the gui to do it's thing. And I don't get to see what is happening. The MX tools keep the secrets of the OS. antiX makes it easier to probe into the guts and expose some of the secrets.

Seaken64
MX-18 on Thinkpad R61i Core2 Laptop. MX-18 on HP Core2 Desktop
MX-18-64/MX-18-32/antiX-17-32 Frugal on Gateway Core2 Laptop
antiX-17 on Compaq PIII 1000 Mhz Desktop, Multi-boot Slackware, Debian, MX, W2K
antiX-17/16 on Dell PIII 450 Mhz Laptop

User avatar
seaken64
Forum Regular
Forum Regular
Posts: 220
Joined: Wed Jan 02, 2019 2:43 pm

Re: Difference between antiX and MX

#18

Post by seaken64 » Sun Apr 28, 2019 7:29 pm

seaken64 wrote:
Sun Apr 28, 2019 7:20 pm

if you like editing text, like I do, then antiX has a nice Control Center that has some icons that link you to the config files. You then don't have to remember where these files are located in the file system.

Just click on the icon link, make your edit and save. Easy peasy.

This takes me a couple of seconds. If I use the MX tools it takes me minutes to wait for the gui to do it's thing. And I don't get to see what is happening. The MX tools keep the secrets of the OS. antiX makes it easier to probe into the guts and expose some of the secrets.

Seaken64
So, one of the differences between the two systems is that antiX caters more to the advanced user or geek, MX tries to do more hand-holding for those who are uncomfortable with the more esoteric features of computing.

Both are appropriate. But since I skew a little toward the geek I prefer the antiX approach. And I'm always amazed at how antiX can restore an old computer back into a useful tool. But playing with old computers is my hobby. I would never suggest a regular computer user to stay with their old Pentium 4 and run antix if they have the resources to buy into a Quad Core i7 with 16 GB running MX. Two different experiences, to be sure.

Seaken64
MX-18 on Thinkpad R61i Core2 Laptop. MX-18 on HP Core2 Desktop
MX-18-64/MX-18-32/antiX-17-32 Frugal on Gateway Core2 Laptop
antiX-17 on Compaq PIII 1000 Mhz Desktop, Multi-boot Slackware, Debian, MX, W2K
antiX-17/16 on Dell PIII 450 Mhz Laptop

PPC
Forum Regular
Forum Regular
Posts: 137
Joined: Tue Sep 11, 2018 8:22 am

Re: Difference between antiX and MX

#19

Post by PPC » Mon Apr 29, 2019 6:08 am

manyroads wrote:
Fri Apr 26, 2019 5:04 pm
Not to worry. I "DO" like your idea of putting the same UI on both antiX & MX. I have and am doing that. Want to help? :eek: :bagoverhead:
sorry for the delay, manyroads: I don't really have much free time now a days... But if you want I can send you my "antix Fluxbox transformation pack", so you can have some more ideas and resources to work on... PM me if you are interested, ok?
A small part of having almost the same tools as MX on antiX is my gui updater script. I use it with a very similar icon to MX's updater (note: It does not scan for new updates)- I have it here in the forum... You can have a look at that too!

P.

User avatar
beardedragon
Forum Regular
Forum Regular
Posts: 138
Joined: Wed Mar 27, 2019 11:26 pm

Re: Difference between antiX and MX

#20

Post by beardedragon » Mon Apr 29, 2019 6:00 pm

beardedragon wrote:
Mon Apr 29, 2019 12:54 pm
Well, I managed to duo-boot AntiX-19 and MX-18.2, now all I have to do is learn how to use AntiX. LOL
Any good suggestions?
I should have posted this here instead of [antiX-19-a1-full (64 bit) available]. Anyway I am using antix now with xfce desktop running, (My preference) and it took some changes but managed to get it up and running. The best of both worlds? Let me tell you, it is challenging and I am up for it. I use both the GUI and the terminal often enough to get around things. The fact that this option is available if you search for it is awesome. Still get a message when antix starts telling me this is not one of their preferred Window Managers, even when I check the xfce box. Like to get rid of that somehow.
Rule #1 Backup Everything
Rule #2 Read Rule #1

Post Reply

Return to “antiX”