I was wondering which programs are essential to keep in AntiX (don't know exactly when what program needs to be used):
Correct me if I'm wrong but I suppose:
* antix2usb is used to make a general new immediatelly bootable antix USB stick -non customised one, so without any changes to the original antix base/full-
* antixsnapshot is used to make an iso from the current antix one is working on -so a customised antix version-, and RemasterCC does the same. I'm not sure what the difference is between the 2
* simpleburn is also present, this tool can be used to put an iso on a usb stick, in which it makes the usb stick bootable

In my view, only antixsnapshot OR remasterCC and simpleburn hence need to be kept/are essential (antix2usb and either antixsnapshot or remasterCC can be deleted). antix2usb is redundant as an iso can be downloaded from the antix sourceforge site anyway (and this would be the latest antix version) and once downloaded, the iso can be kept on a HD for later use (if additional usb sticks need to be made)

I also didn't find the synaptic package manager in the base version of antix. I did find a"metapackage installer" but this seems to be redundant, as metapackages could be placed on the antix sourceforge site and made self-installable (or alternatively, kept as mere packages and an offline package installer can be added to antix). It also has the benefit that the metapackage installer can then not be mistakenly seen by new users as being the synaptic package installer (which is missing in the base version). Also, it has very few packages in it anyway, so moving the packages to sourceforge is well doable.

The apps you mention as redundant actually do very different things.

1. antix2usb takes an antix iso and turns it into a bootable usb.
2. antixsnapshot takes an installed system and turns it into a iso (hopefully bootable).
3. simpleburn can burn discs.
4. remastercc is for remastering liveUSB that have persitence files into a compacted linuxfs. so if you have a lot of apps installed in a rootfs persistence, remaster will take that rootfs persistence file and incorporate it into the base linuxfs.

They are covered in the docs, and I've covered some of this in my videos, cause I know no one reads the docs __{{emoticon}}__

I thought synaptic was included in antiX base, but maybe I'm wrong. you can look in the control center for"Manage Packages" if its not in the menu. The"metapackage-installer" draws from additional repos beyond the standard repos shipped enabled in antiX. for instance, there is an option for installing libdvdcss2, which is necessary for watching commercial dvds.

The one thing the antiX crew doesn't want to do is maintain a whole ton of packages. What may seem like a small number to you is in fact a great deal of work to host yourself, especially if they are hosted somewhere else already.

dolphin_oracle wrote:The apps you mention as redundant actually do very different things.

1. antix2usb takes an antix iso and turns it into a bootable usb.
2. antixsnapshot takes an installed system and turns it into a iso (hopefully bootable).
3. simpleburn can burn discs.
4. remastercc is for remastering liveUSB that have persitence files into a compacted linuxfs. so if you have a lot of apps installed in a rootfs persistence, remaster will take that rootfs persistence file and incorporate it into the base linuxfs.

Thanks for confirming dolphin_oracle.
So I think I was right that some things could be eliminated and less confusing.
antix2usb can be swapped for just simpleburn I suppose (besides burning discs, iso's can be written to a HD too I suppose -similar to Nero Burning ROM, ...-) Alternatively, a non-specific single linux boot (or even multiboot) program like netbootin, ... can be used instead -in case this isn't possible- This solution would eliminate confusion, and can be used for other linux iso's as well

remasterCC seems a bit redundant to me as well, although I see it indeed still has its use. It could be avoided though by having the user to have his antix system made completely the way he likes it, and then simply using antixsnapshot (rather than having to remaster a liveusb iso). In some cases it might be much more work though. I guess an alternative is to simply add a text/help button in the program itself, stating that people can use antixsnaphot for making"snapshots"/backups of antix (current system) and use remasterCC only for remastering a pre-made antix backup/iso.

well, they all have their uses, just not what everyone would use. I must admit I use unetbootin more than antix2usb, although antix2usb will make a liveUSB w/ persistence in one step.

remastercc is invaluable if you are running live only (no installed system). remastercc does not make iso's, it takes a live linuxfs and incorporates the rootfs (and optionally) the homefs persistence files into a new linuxfs. this has the effect of using less space on the usb, and potentially less ram on the system. this is particularly helpful for incorporating updates in a liveUSB format.

There is a lot of commonality among those applications. This is not the same thing as redundancy. In an ideal world, they would be unified into a single application (perhaps with a variety of front-ends). The operation the combined application carries out would depend on selecting a source and a destination for the data. Sources include: Destinations include: Such a unification would make things easier and more orderly for users. The reason it has not been done (yet) is that it would take a lot of work because it would have to combine the functionality of code that was created by different developers, some of it written in different languages. One developer would have to take over several different projects. The amount of functionality that would be gained is small for the work required. Incremental improvements (such as letting antix2usb copy a live system directly instead of requiring an iso file) will be a more efficient use of our limited developer resources.