Hi David, When did the trouble with Salix start for you? Did you recently upgrade from 14.1 to 14.2? The kernel is stock from Slackware which is stock/vanilla Linux kernel, so I am surprised if it was working before that it would just stop.

PS: *buntu LTS is Debian Testing, only the 6 month releases are from Unstable branch.

I agree that antiX leaves somethings to be desired except on very old computers (on which the user should be grateful for ANYTHING that works!).

But have you tried MX Linux? It is a combination of antiX and the former MEPIS distributions - and it's better than either and much better than both!

It's based on Debian Stable but it is easy to add (and update) programs from Debian Testing (and I have had absolutely no problems when doing so) and you can even add programs from Debian Unstable (but I have not done that nor do I recommend doing so).

Except for the fact that, so far, when a new version of MX Linux is introduced (approximately once a year) it is necessary for the operating system to be re-installed, the system is extremely stable and it runs perfectly without calling attention to itself. You don't even need to upgrade yearly unless you want to do so as each version is supported for many years.

However as your entire /home partition can be preserved during the re-installation, this need for re-installation is not too onerous. I made a list (on paper!) of everything I have installed in my MX Linux system as well as all of the xfce4 and xfwm4 settings. This makes it very easy for me. I have MX Linux installed on four computers and they all look alike (I'm funny that way).

We went from MX-15 to MX-16 and noe to MX-17 with no trouble whatsoever.

MX Linux is the ONLY distribution which comes with its own owners manual which can even be printed (I did that). Plus the MX Tools section is positively unparalleled in its versatility and ease of use (it's even better - and safer to use - than YaST in my opinion).

And the xfce desktop is superb on it, even better than it was on Xubuntu, in our opinions. Configuration and adjustment to your own preferences are easy and fully logical.

Xubuntu is okay - my wife and I formerly used it but when network upgrades failed on three of our computers then running it (making a re-installation necessary), we said, "Nuts!" and we went over to MX Linux.

You may want to consider MX Linux. I think you'll like it.

1 members found this post helpful.

That's false for MX-15, MX-16, MX16.1 which were up-gradable and didn't require to do a full re-install because they were all based on Debian Jesse. That's only true for MX-17 because it's based on Debian Stretch.

I think the advice you've been given on MX Linux is sound. I have only used it on a persistent pendrive as backup but am impressed with the thought and care that has gone into the system, and XFCE is rock-solid and highly configurable as you know. I would take it any day over the *buntus.

If you want more choices, Mageia offers just about anything you could want and still supports 32-bit machines. There is a LiveDVD with XFCE (decently if unexcitingly configured) and other lightweight DEs to choose from. If you have a good internet connection, the net install is just as simple as the classical media with ready access to the full range of DEs and WMs

1 members found this post helpful.

You did not read my post in this thread https://www.linuxquestions.org/quest...5/#post5820762

so I'll post it here, to set the record straight.

1 members found this post helpful.

As I said, I have the Banias Pentium M. That requires either a kernel that doesn't have PAE support built in — e.g. AntiX — or one which accepts the boot parameter "forcepae" to tell it not to ask — e.g. a Ubuntu derivative. Not MX, as indicated on their web-site.

In the antiX forum, when I reported the problem with Xfce, I was told that I must install from the antiX package installer, not Synaptic, as "The package installer is set up for us to avoid systemd package installs Debian gives in synaptic package manager. Systemd screws with our /usr/local/bin files since systemd defaults to using /usr/bin." That sounds like incompatibility to me!

The live USB creator does indeed have a dd mode, but both modes failed with both the Mint and Xubumtu ISOs, while dd from the command line worked.

I currently use Tahrpup64, MX-16, and an OS called ROSA. All are great. But since you have a 32-bit machine, maybe try the 32-bit Tahrpup. I put it on an old eMachine of a friend a long time ago and he loves it.

01) It's much faster (Openbox & Tint2 setup) than Windows
02) I can play with a number of distros without having to pay anything
03) I can install multiple times on multiple machines without violating any licensing restrictions
04) I love using the Openbox and Tint2 combo as a desktop environment
05) I can use hardware for a longer time
06) The variety of distros and being able to see different ideas on Linux setups
07) Security by obfuscation...people who haven't used Linux will not even usually touch a computer with Linux running.

1 members found this post helpful.

MX Linux 32-bit offers both PAE and non-PAE kernels. Also, if you open MX Tools, click on Package Installer, open the Test Repo, and do a search for "liquorix" (without the quotes), you will see the latest kernels, both PAE and non-PAE, available.

MX-17 32 bit iso only ships with a pae kernel.

https://mxlinux.org/current-release-features

But if you look in the Package Installer section (Test Repo) and search for liquorix, you will see both PAE and non-PAE kernels.

I use the PAE kernels myself and I had to be careful to not select the non-PAE kernel options.

True. However, if you have a box that only boots non-pae, you won't be able to install MX-17 (or even run it live).
You would have to boot it on a box that works with pae, install a non-pae kernel, do a remaster/snapshot and then use that new iso/usb to boot on the non-pae computer.

1 members found this post helpful.

Thank you for this information about which I was unaware. I believe that antiX ships with both types of kernel (pleas correct me if I'm wrong) and, if true, that would allow running on a non-PAE system.

If, in fact, antiX can do this, why can't the live MX Linux ISO be adjusted to do the same?

Just a thought ...

antiX 32 bit only ships with a non-pae kernel. The logic behind this being that all boxes should boot it, unlike with pae only. We only ship with one kernel since having 2 on the live iso takes up too much space and antiX aims to fit on a cd (no longer possible for the full version). pae kernels are available after install.

MX-16 did have both a pae and a non-pae kernel on its 32 bit iso as they were not concerned about the size of the live iso.
For MX-17, they dropped the non-pae version because their focus is on a medium-weight not light-weight desktop experience.
MX has never had its aim to support very old (non-pae) hardware.