Debian Wheezy (present Testing) will go final soon and that means (for those of you that don't know) it will become the new Stable, supported for at least 2 years with only bug fix upgrades.
Once it has gone Stable, the flood gates will open and Debian Testing will start to get a lot of upgrades and some changes *MIGHT* break something (usually not the whole sysytem, but an app or 2).

antiX is going to release around about time Debian goes final, or just before or after, with the Stable/Wheezy repos as default.
Does that mean antiX is no longer based on 'rolling' Testing?
- No it doesn't. It is an added feature we offer. Experienced users can change the repo easily enough, and we might even ask users at install or on first boot whether they want to keep exiting repo (ie Stable/Wheezy) or run 'rolling' re Testing.

After that release, the next antiX version, lets call it antiX-13.1, will be using Testing repo and will come out pretty soon after.

So what decisions need to be made?

Well - it really boils down to which kernel to ship with, with the Stable/Wheezy release.

32 bit - 3.6.11, 3.7.10-antix.2 or 3.8.0
64 bit - 3.6.11, 3.7.10-antix.2 or 3.8.2-antix.2

32 bit:
Users with very old nvidia cards, cannot go higher than 3.6.11
Users with old nvidia cards, but prefer nouveau - can use latest 3.8.0 kernel. (and later)
3.8.2 kernels and later work ok installed, but there is an aufs/live issue with usb devices,

64 bit:
It seems that even the oldest nvidia cards on a 64 bit box will work with 3.7.10 (maybe later)
3.8.2 kernel works with aufs/live on usb sticks, later kernels do not.

The 'conservative' decision is to ship with 3.6.11 for 32 bit and 3.7.10 for 64 bit.
I'm thinking more along the lines of 3.7.10 for 32 bit and 3.8.2 for 64 bit.

Let me know your thoughts. Do keep in mind that I'm not asking what you want for your box, but what you think antiX-13 should ship with.

3.8.2 for 64 bit.
This is from my live USB w/persistence made from an antixsnapshot. Full dist-upgrade to unstable.

I think the conservative option is ok, the kernels are easy enough to install later, and the most important thing is that you can install the OS, and have things working.

Just my opinion.

rust collector wrote:I think the conservative option is ok, the kernels are easy enough to install later, and the most important thing is that you can install the OS, and have things working.

Just my opinion.

Same +1 from me. It is harder to get a install going than to get the kernel upgraded. Once you have a stable kernel to fall back on.
You can trip the light fantastic with Dave's repo or smxi installing newer kernels. If it breaks. You boot into your stable kernel and start over.

Just posting about my experiences with AntiX 11 base on my emachine desktop computer and experiments with kernel upgrades.
The Mepis 2.6 kernel bailed me out every time a kernel upgrade would not boot.

I like the conservative thought. All my hardware including, my out of date nvidia video card works great with 3.7.10

Having an installable system that works for the largest group of people likely to be interested in antiX seems to make the most sense. Note that may not mean the largest audience, but the largest group who have been faithfully using antiX. Therefore, catering to the needs of those with 3-10 year old hardware makes the most sense to me.

for kernels, i'd go with the most newer and stable. but the same kernel for both 32 and 64 bit.
i don't know what to say about leaving testing repos commented out by default.
stable is far behind the actual state of the programs, from the freeze in august there are lots of program updates that fixed bugs and quirks that will not be in wheezy.
i feel like 13.1 after 13 will be confusing for people and the best way is a choice for the user to select either testing or stable, with the explication of different choices.

Difficult question for me.
On the one hand I agree with dark-d
on the other hand I can also see why I came to antiX: the support old hardware.
Therefore I conclude me masinik, rust collector unt roky on.

I vote on conservative kernel choice. It's easy to update later. And I prefer to ship with testing repos by default. Anyone running AntiX on a mission critical computer?

rokytnji wrote:Same +1 from me. It is harder to get a install going than to get the kernel upgraded. Once you have a stable kernel to fall back on. You can trip the light fantastic with Dave's repo or smxi installing newer kernels. If it breaks. You boot into your stable kernel and start over.

+1

rokytnji wrote:Same +1 from me. It is harder to get a install going than to get the kernel upgraded. Once you have a stable kernel to fall back on. You can trip the light fantastic with Dave's repo or smxi installing newer kernels. If it breaks. You boot into your stable kernel and start over.

+1 from me also.

I am not familiar with C / QT so I am not sure if changing minstall is resonable. However maybe a drop down to choose"Stable, Adventurous, or Bleeding Edge" that would change your sources.list.d/* to match this choice?
Stable would change the repos to stable,
Adventurous would change the repos at testing / antix main,
Bleeding Edge would change the repos to unstable / antix dev.
Then have a radio button to select update now or later?
So if"update now" is selected when it boots into the new install it automatically runs an update outside of X.
Maybe after the dist-upgrade while still outside of X, request / call sgfxi to install drivers?

I would also say keep the stable repos (wheezy), because I do not think we would like a fresh release that will almost certainly break for the first 2-3 weeks. Better to let the debian transfers settle down a bit. As to a 13.1, I do not believe it is essential, Just a good document explaining why stable, and a how-to included in 13 (maybe on the desktop) on how to push from wheezy to the new testing stream.

Then again, if a 13.5 or 14 is far in the future (1year + / - a month or 2) then the repos should be testing with a good document explaining to stay with the" ISO current setup" till a certain time period has passed.

Eperbab wrote: Anyone running AntiX on a mission critical computer?

Yes I do, but most of them are built from core and using the squeeze repo. Mainly servers, but some workstations.

My main use for antiX is on my netbook which is a single core, hyperthreaded 32bit machine with 1gb RAM - so my immediate interest is that. On the other hand, I am seriously wondering about using it on my notebook which is i5 with 6gb RAM and on that I use for virtualisation & playing with some intensely memory hungry things like OCR (not I hasten to add 'Doom' or 'World of Warcraft') - so I'm interested in that as well.

I guess the question you guys have to ask yourselves (and as Roky said somewhere else, it's you who will be doing the work) is what the legs are in 32bit? I've forgotten how far we got with the olriginal '86 series of chips but certainly 16bit was an architecture that was around for a long while. The original '86 machine appeared in the 70's. I seem to remember the 486 came in during the mid '80s with the Pentium appearing in the late '90's. Things are changing faster these days.

I hope you will keep the 32bit distro up to date for the sake of old farts like me who like to sit up in bed tapping all this stuff into the ether. But, equally well, the future probably lies with ARM and multiple cored 128bit chipsets. As I have at last discovered, it's easy enough to put a new kernel in and, if it doesn't work, you re-boot with an old one. I bought the Samsung as a present for myself when I retired and it's probably the last computer I shall ever buy. You (and your fellows), however, have to keep an eye on what's going to happen next!

Put me down with RC, Roky et al as a +1.

dmk

anticapitalista wrote:antiX is going to release around about time Debian goes final, or just before or after, with the Stable/Wheezy repos as default.

This is a decision I wholeheartedly support. It will broaden the appeal of antiX to include a group that values reliabilty over latest. A broader user-appeal can only be in antiX's favour.

anticapitalista wrote:The 'conservative' decision is to ship with 3.6.11 for 32 bit...

rust collector wrote:...the most important thing is that you can install the OS, and have things working.

rokytnji wrote:Same +1 from me. It is harder to get a install going than to get the kernel upgraded. Once you have a stable kernel to fall back on. You can trip the light fantastic with Dave's repo or smxi installing newer kernels. If it breaks. You boot into your stable kernel and start over.

These views seem well founded. antiX should continue to be suitable for use on older kit, and particularly by novice users. To do this, it is important that it works straight-out-of-the-box, and the first impression of it should be"newbie friendly". If a new user stumbles at this initial stage, antiX may be discarded. If that happens all the other benefits and reasons to use antiX count for nothing.

It is sometimes difficult to remember how daunting moving to a new system can be to a novice user. As has been mentioned, experienced antiX users will find it reasonably easy to modify a working system. One of the most attractive aspects of antiX is the friendliness of the forum. The helpful folks here will be able to assist new users that want to explore the capabilities of their working system.

Well said (and summarized) SamK! I am in support of whatever approach anti goes with; he always takes the viewpoints of the forum members into account before making decisions, and I trust the choices that he makes regarding antiX.