I feel like MX Linux has been at or near the top of Distrowatch forever, but I literally never hear it mentioned elsewhere on the web. Is it just people literally asking this question for them selves, clicking on it and bumping it up? Has anyone tried MX to see if it lives up?

  • actionjbone@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    35
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    3 days ago

    MX has become my go-to for low-power, outdated computers.

    It runs on a toaster. It installs on 64-bit systems with 32-bit EFI. The base install supports touchscreens. It fits on a 16GB SSD with room to spare. 2GB RAM is plenty. It has an active development community.

    If your computer is less 5 years old, there are better options. But if you’re trying to keep a Chromebook out of the junk yard, MX is a good choice.

    • AndrewZabar@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      13
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      2 days ago

      Oh, now come on… 5 years is hardly where a system becomes “old.” It’s 2025 right now. Using a system made in 2020 hardly differs at all from one made yesterday. I’d say a cutoff for considering slim distros would be more like ten years ago. I’ve got some systems that are older than that even and they blaze. Only a few things really put that kind of thing to the test: games and heavy graphics editing. Am I wrong?

        • actionjbone@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          1 day ago

          Even at that age, some computers can do plenty.

          I built my “old” gaming desktop in 2009. It currently runs Linux with Plasma. I still use it to do 3D modeling for 3D printing.

          • marcie (she/her)@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            edit-2
            21 hours ago

            The issue ends up being a hardware limitation. I can’t quite recall the specific issue but there was some sort of encoding thing on the CPU that prevented me from using most apps without severe performance issues. Of course browsing and so on was fine. I ended up using it as a server for some time (20 Years old at this point) and the energy costs were bad enough that I decided to put it to rest. Its now part of my own little museum of old ass computers that I let guests use for mostly for viewing pdfs and boardgame rules. I tell my family to ship me their old laptops and stuff I got like 15 of them at this point, and I have in fact used all 15 of them simultaneously when I invite a lot of nerds over. Most of them are running Fedora Atomic, a couple are running MX Linux, Alpine, and Damn Small Linux. I intend on going through the small distros at some point and do a comparison

          • AndrewZabar@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 day ago

            Indeed! It depends what you’re doing on it. Because there’s a wealth of computer activities that have not increased in actual power demand in decades. Sure they keep making software more bloated to keep the need up, but if you throw an efficient distro on a machine and only need it for basic office type things like office suites, email etc. and even basic graphics editing, you can use a 25 year old machine and do just fine. It will run, and it will do the job well, and you’re never going to feel like it’s slow. Maybe not as glitzy as newer ones, but that is where you’re already beyond need and into want.

            The only things that are tricky are internet connections with anything using web protocols, due to certificate tech etc. and that can be handled by using a still-maintained browser such as a Firefox fork, and email can be done via software like Thunderbird, which doesn’t have to render the bloated front-ends of many email providers.

    • Ŝan@piefed.zip
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      2 days ago

      Why? What makes it good for þat? Is it because þe kernel is trim?

      I ask, because MX isn’t þe base for any leading LXC “mini” containers, AFAIK. Alpine was þe top choice for a long time, alþough þere are competitors for minimum-sized containers. And while containers aren’t fully bootable images, and more is needed, probably þe biggest addition is þe kernel. If you stay away from systemd, you can add dinit, metalog, and crond for a smidge over 1 mibibyte (750Kib, 47Kib, and 230Kib respectively, vs systemd’s 36MiB).

      So I’m wondering: what makes MX so good for old computers?

      • actionjbone@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        edit-2
        2 days ago

        Speaking just from my experience:

        It’s small, it’s stable, and it supports legacy hardware.

        In addition, its Xfce implementation is polished and easy to use. It has a straightforward package installation utility.

        I’ve used a whole bunch of lightweight Linux distros, and MX’s level of polish is uncommon for a distro that can easily live on a 16GB drive