I have been using Crunchbang for a while and like it. What I really like is Puppy Linux (Lucid). ROX is appealing to me in it's simplicity. What I like about Antix is that it comes with ROX, ICEWM, SpaceFM etc.... so there is a lot to choose from. Also a stable repo in Debian, so is there much difference between Crunchbang and Antix?

I love using Conky and Tint2 in Crunchbang. So easy to use and configure.

I'd love to hear back so that I can get some guidance whether to switch or not based on my attraction to simplicity and flexibility. Like many others out there I am still learning the Linux way of doing things after being a Mac user since 1988.

When you replay I would appreciate point form comments. They are easier to read for me. Thanks again!! __{{emoticon}}__

This is my reckoning:

- antiX has all that you want in crunchbang except tint.
- crunchbang has less of what you want than antiX provides OOTB.
- antiX is a lot more 'Puppy-like' than crunchbang

To be honest, I can not tell you what to use, as I am not you.
but #! was ok, but it is full of consolekit and systemd stuff which I dislike.
I have no idea how you feel about that

In my case, #! used around twice the amount of ram that antix does, again, I have no idea how you feel about that. If you have 16 gigs of ram, it is probably not something to worry about.

otoh, antix is maybe a bit difficult to get used to changing things in, in the beginning.
it has a lot of neat tools to use to configure stuff, but you have to know where they are, and when to use what. #! is maybe a bit more regular-debian-distro like there?

If I had to choose for you, I would install antix, then install openbox/tint2, then copy the configs from #!

in the end, you can make both do the same thing. what do you want?

I want something fast, reliable, fairly straight forward to configure. I know the basics of configuring the fstab file and ssh so I think that's a good start? I have 2GB of RAM on my Dell 3000 running a celeron processor. On my HP laptops, they each have I think 3GB of RAM. I am very flexible. If I have to create new config files that's fine. For me it's all part of the learning experience. Or I could always copy over the config files as suggested by rust collector.

My preference is AntiX, I was a long time (pure) Debian user, but the insistence of not including some non free drivers drove me away to #!, but that seemed to have a lot included that I didn't use, so switched to Antix base (which used Fluxbox).
(I also like SliTaz, not Debian based, but a small light distro.)
Whichever you choose, it is still Linux under the skin.

Like anticapitalista said:

anticapitalista wrote:This is my reckoning:

- antiX has all that you want in crunchbang except tint.
- crunchbang has less of what you want than antiX provides OOTB.
- antiX is a lot more 'Puppy-like' than crunchbang

AntiX is only missing tint is easier to use, and is more"Puppy-like". It is all LINUX under the skin. It just depends on what you want to do with it. __{{emoticon}}__

All I do aside from browsing the net and checking email, is using Audacity to digitize my record collection as well as audio editing for my weekly radio show. At the moment I have Crunchbang and Mint 16 (xfce) on my old Dell 3000. I use fstab to automagically mount the samba shares I have so I can access the other computers on my LAN quickly.

Like I said before, I like using really light distros that allow you to quickly make changes if need be without having a PHD so to speak.

I know that aside from Antix 13 there is a newer distro called MX-14. Is there much of a difference?

One thing I have to mention are the excellent videos from runwiththedolphin. Thos videos really clear things up for me a lot! I don't have that much room on my laptop to install both MX-14 and Antix 13. Recomended preference would be appreciated!!

Thanks!! __{{emoticon}}__

rmcellig wrote:I know that aside from Antix 13 there is a newer distro called MX-14. Is there much of a difference?

One thing I have to mention are the excellent videos from runwiththedolphin. Thos videos really clear things up for me a lot! I don't have that much room on my laptop to install both MX-14 and Antix 13. Recomended preference would be appreciated!!

Thanks!! __{{emoticon}}__

MX-14 is a collaboration between the MEPIS community and the antiX community, utilizing the best of both to make one even stronger, Where antiX is primarily designed for the older, lower powered machines, MX-14 is more for"middleweight" computers and up. Sure, there are some of the older computers that run MX-14 without major problems. It is mostly for machines that would run windozw xp and up.
========= SCRAPER REMOVED AN EMBEDDED LINK HERE ===========
url was:"http://www.mepiscommunity.org/mx"
linktext was:"http://www.mepiscommunity.org/mx"
====================================

It is easy to make a LiveUSB with antiX and with MX. If you want to save your changes then either do a Live-remaster (in the RemasterCC) or enable persistence. If speed is an issue, you've got enough RAM to use of the"toram" option which will make the machines fly (speed-wise). Even a LiveCD will run fast (once it is loaded) with the"toram" option. You can even enable persistence with the LiveCD (but you can't remaster).

This is a great way to try things out before you install. If you decide to install then the changes you've made to the LiveUSB will get copied over. if your machine cannot boot directly from usb then you can boot the LiveUSB from a LiveCD (made from the same .iso file) with the"from=usb" option.

A related option is to do a frugal-install. This is just like a LiveUSB but it runs from your hard-drive. If you have crunchbang installed, you could do an antiX frugal install on top of it. Just add a /antiX-$VERSION directory to the crunchbang root file system and then copy the files in the /antiX/ directory from the LiveCD or the LiveUSB into that directory. You would then need to add some entries to your crunchbang boot loader but we can help you with those. One benefit of doing a frugal install instead of a full install is that it takes up less than a gig of disk space and does not require its own partition.

I think your choice will come down to your personal preferences. Particular your preferences regarding the window-manger / desktop -environment. This is why I think you should"try before you buy". If you like XFCE (over IceWM and Fluxbox) then MX is the way to go. If XFCE is not your cup of tea then go with antiX.