@SamK, thank you for discussing my proposal. So much discussion shows for me that it is at least a controversial idea. I'm considering it however not relevant anymore. I actually found a way to make Fluxbox ok for me by adding a tint2 panel to autostart and making Fluxbox taskbar invisible. (See my latest screenshot post44483.html#p44483 )

If it ain't broke, don't fix it, or re-compile it or whatever. LOL AntiX-16 would be fine if it was only an upgraded antiX-15. Trying to drop around 100 MB to fit on a CD isn't going to help either if you go with testing so it makes sense to use Jessie. Packages are easy to install with synaptic and if people want a really fully loaded release they can use MX-15.

If people want favourite desktops included other than the defaults, again, they are easy enough to install through synaptic and then they can give back to the distro and community by writing up a Wiki entry to help others install that desktop.

I use fbmenugen on my Slackware and Gentoo installs but I don't have it for anything Debian yet. That would be my only request.

Looking forward to installing the upgraded antiX-15 as the Xorg changes did a number on my install whilst running with sid during a dist-upgrade.

I use fbmenugen on my Slackware and Gentoo installs but I don't have it for anything Debian yet.

Have you tried antix yet?
antix already has (even better than) what you described -- when new programs are installed,
desktop menu entries are autocreated for the fluxbox menu AND for the icewm menu AND for the jwm menu.

@skidoo I've used antiX off and on as my Debian distro of choice for a couple of years. I really like the menu with antiX, it's just that I'm used to obmenugen and fbmenugen from when I was at ArchBang and old habits die hard.

If it ain't broke, don't fix it, or re-compile it or whatever.

+1

skidoo wrote:

If it ain't broke, don't fix it, or re-compile it or whatever.

+1

Generally true, yes. Don't change simply for the sake of change, but do change to include improvements and advancements - when we have a consensus that they are in fact improvements and advancements, not merely"something new and different".

We've innovated or used the innovations of others. We've kept things to a modest size - though our system has grown tremendously in the past decade.

To keep it relevant, let's continue to think about what best serves our primary user base. If that changes, that may be when we have to change.

Reference mounting USB and hdd.
If it could just list them, that would be nice, where a r-click would allow us to mount them.

Had a think on what I posted earlier.

Shay wrote:Reference mounting USB and hdd.
If it could just list them, that would be nice, where a r-click would allow us to mount them.

Had a think on what I posted earlier.

That is a good suggestion.

I was still silent. AntiX to be published recently is because in Asia users has become useless.
I recommend the MX to Asia users instead.
Should be questions about this is this one:

"Do antiX continue to use the SLiM?"

If it is say yes, difficult to Asian users will be continued.

In prior discussions I've mentioned my reluctance to switch to lightDM.
The significant vulnerability vector is not lightDM itself, but its"lightdm-webkit-greeter" addon.
Debian packagers recognize/agree with this & have refused to package the worrisome addon.

If switching to lightDM solves the problem for asian users, go for it -- make the switch
... but, without adding 40Mb of additional fonts and further IME components, does simply introducing lightDM accomplish anything?

Re Session Managent

dolphin_oracle wrote:I'd desktop-session is staying around...

Note - presumed typo"I'd"=If

masinick wrote: Don't change simply for the sake of change, but do change to include improvements and advancements - when we have a consensus that they are in fact improvements and advancements, not merely"something new and different".

The session management routine introduced in antiX-15 might be an example of doing something because it is"new and different" rather than providing"improvements and advancements". It provides little that could not be done in antiX-13.2 in a different way.

The most obvious difference is the way switching to an alternative desktop is done. In antiX-15 it does not need a logout and log-in, in antiX-13.2 it does. At best this is a marginal improvement. Long experience leads me to conclude that the overwhelming (and silent) majority of non-technical users have a distinct preference for a single, specific desktop environment of their choice. They prefer to stick with what they know and are familiar with. For such users the method of switching desktops is a secondary and minor consideration.

The new session management system is both complex and sparsely documented. There is comparatively little about it on the net and nothing that I can find specifically for antiX. In effect, existing information resources on the internet for the various WM's become harder to use.

Troubleshooting is more difficult. During the alpha/beta stages of antiX-15 an issue was reported which was demonstrated to be attributable to the antiX session management. There was almost zero help from antiX (with the exception of one experienced community member who gave help privately), and the information on the net was not useful. The matter was not resolved.

Taking into account the above, the benefit confered by the present antiX desktop session management is, at the very least, questionable. I suggest antiX revert to the simpler, better documented and better supported method used in antiX-13.2.

dolphin_oracle wrote:...apt-get has menu hooks (a nice move by mr. dave by the way)...

In my opinion this is the primary improvement to emerge from the development and is worth retaining.

suggest: desktop menu entry"calculator" for xcalc

The ability to switch between desktop environments on-the-fly, without logout, has been tremendously useful for me.
It's a standout feature compared to other distros.

Isn't the potential confusion regarding"session management" a distinctly separate issue (separate from on-the-fly switching)?
User must wonder why/when the"manage global session" ControlCentre item is appropriate, vs"user manager session".
Where to inject link(s) to additional documention so that a user will absolutely find it?
vis Jerry@MX, after drafting additional documentation...
users often post in forum to ask instead of taking the time to read those docs.

If a"drop what you're doing, logout, start different wm session..." interruption was necessary, surely that would
dampen enthusiasm toward quickly responding to"new user questions" that pop up in the forum.

skidoo wrote:The ability to switch between desktop environments on-the-fly, without logout, has been tremendously useful for me.

I don't doubt that at all. I'm certain that there are always some users who find useful any given feature. Your activity in the forum makes it is less certain that you are an archetypal member of the group I referred to i.e. ...silent) majority of non-technical users...

skidoo wrote:Isn't the potential confusion regarding"session management" a distinctly separate issue (separate from on-the-fly switching)?

Quite possibily. The two elements were introduced at the same time and give all outward appearance of being linked. It might be that they are discrete parts. The complexity of the matter combined with the dearth of information makes the details somewhat opaque.

skidoo wrote:...surely that would dampen enthusiasm toward quickly responding to"new user questions" that pop up in the forum

I am unaware of the evidence for that being the case in the previous versions of antiX.



One of the most attractive aspects of this forum is the is room for all shades of opinion. Perhaps we hold different views on this topic.

Re Session Management et al

Perhaps at the heart of my previous suggestion is a desire to have a similar degree of clarity, understanding of, availability of reference material etc that applies to antiX-13.2. If session management is staying and if those can be attained for antiX-16 it will be an improvement over the present position. If they cannot let us revert to well understood and known-good ground.

I think it is particularly important there is a way of troubleshooting problems. To eliminate session management as a contributing factor will require some way of obtaining a fully operational system with session management deactivated or completely taken out of circuit.

While pondering, the feelings of unease about 15.1 returned. These are mainly concerned with new and shiny items that were included as advancements even though I think similar functions could be achieved in different ways in 13.2. Session management, desktop switching, console decoration, fbxkb in the taskbar, and to a lesser extent search bar in the taskbar, are all examples. They are inessential and some are just candy. A concerning aspect is that each of them is active by default. From my perspective this is counter to the usual antiX stance of starting from a position of lean and mean and allowing the user to decide what to add (or activate) to that base. While it is now common for form to be seen as more important than function, I find it disappointing that it showing up in antiX.

@skidoo
Thanks for opening another perspective for me on the matter, even though it leads me to similar conclusions as before.