Dedoimedo: MX Linux MX-25 Infinity Xfce - Jolly but not too chipper

[Gandalf_The_Grey]

Conclusion

MX Linux MX-25 Infinity is a'right. If nothing else, you have to appreciate the following facts: the distro is reasonably consistent, it's slowly improving, the distro team sticks to their goals without getting distracted, and they champion the cause of simplicity quite admirably. That said, Debian brings its own constrains, the Xfce session takes quite a bit of time tweaking, and things aren't as slim as they used to be.

Still, I'm pleased. And I do want to see what happens when one chooses the KDE version, the systemd version, or both. I may also take this fine distro for a spin on an Nvidia-powered machine. Look, if you're looking for something that isn't barebones Debian or "heavy" Ubuntu, MX Linux fits the bill nicely. You get lots of decent programs, good hardware compatibility, and excellent speed. Just don't go comparing MX Linux to itself, as that might leads to some heartache. Lastly, even though Infinity is okay, it can do better on the first impressions front. In particular, the choice of the theme, and the fact you need a lot of effort in multiple places to tame the Xfce desktop, be it the panel, the clock, the dock, the Whisker menu, and whatnot. Each comes with its own utility, its own configurations, and this can get tedious.

All in all, 'tis a good start for a new-age MX Linux. I don't know what this practically means, other than the loss of 32-bit architecture builds. How the KDE work will pan out, or how systemd will pan out, and all the relevant implications, I doth not know yet. For the time being, MX sticks to its familiar story, and it seems to work quite well. It just needs a sprinkling of happiness, brighter colors and some extra consistency. We're done.

MX Linux MX-25 Infinity Xfce - Jolly but not too chipper

Review of MX Linux MX-25 Infinity Xfce init-based edition, tested in a dual-boot configuration on a laptop with AMD Ryzen 5 processor and integrated graphics, covering live session, installation and post-install usage, including quick setup, excellent session save, look and feel, complex...

www.dedoimedo.com

 

[Bot]

MX Linux MX-25 Infinity Xfce - Jolly but not too chipper

Review of MX Linux MX-25 Infinity Xfce init-based edition, tested in a dual-boot configuration on a laptop with AMD Ryzen 5 processor and integrated graphics, covering live session, installation and post-install usage, including quick setup, excellent session save, look and feel, complex...

www.dedoimedo.com

That’s a fair assessment, and it highlights a few *practical* trade-offs that tend to matter more than “distro branding”: base (Debian), desktop (Xfce vs KDE), and init (systemd vs non-systemd).

About the “too much tweaking” point (Xfce)

Xfce’s strength is modularity, but that also means configuration gets fragmented:

• Panel, menu (Whisker), clock plugins, docks, theming, compositor settings, and per-plugin preferences are all separate layers.
• From a usability standpoint, this can feel inconsistent compared with desktops that centralize settings.
• From a security standpoint, it’s mostly neutral (themes/plugins are rarely “security features”), but it does increase “surface area” for misconfiguration and for pulling in third‑party add-ons from less-trustworthy sources if someone goes hunting for fixes.

If you want to keep Xfce but reduce hassle, a good approach is: stick to repository-packaged themes/plugins only, and avoid random scripts/theme installers.

KDE edition vs Xfce edition (what tends to change)

In general (not MX-specific), KDE Plasma often feels more consistent because:

• Settings are centralized (System Settings + integrated components).
• Layout and theming are “one ecosystem” rather than many small tools.
• You usually spend less time making basic UI elements match.

The trade-off is typically higher RAM/CPU usage and more background services. That’s not “bad,” but it’s a real consideration on older hardware.

systemd vs non-systemd (practical + security implications)

This is less about ideology and more about compatibility and tooling:

• Some software stacks and vendor instructions assume systemd is present (service management, logging, user sessions).
• systemd can offer useful hardening features (service sandboxing controls, tighter service policies) if the distro enables them and the unit files are written well.
• Non-systemd setups can be simpler to reason about for some users, but you may run into occasional “this guide assumes systemctl/journalctl” friction.

If your goal is “least hassle with third-party instructions,” systemd often wins. If your goal is “keep it minimal and familiar,” non-systemd can be fine—just expect occasional documentation mismatch.

Nvidia-powered machine: the safe path

If you test MX on Nvidia, the most important “do not improvise” rules are:

• Use distro repositories / official packaging for the proprietary driver (avoid random driver scripts).
• Keep kernel + headers + DKMS in sync (to avoid breakage after updates).
• If Secure Boot is enabled, be prepared for module signing/driver load issues (or disable Secure Boot if appropriate for your threat model).

Also, for security: don’t treat “it boots and benchmarks well” as the end—make sure updates are enabled and actually being applied.

32-bit going away

Dropping 32-bit builds is common now. For older 32-bit-only hardware, the safer long-term options are usually:

• A distro that still explicitly supports 32-bit with security updates, or
• Keeping that machine off the Internet / using it for offline tasks.

Security-focused “baseline” if you decide to run it

Regardless of Xfce/KDE/systemd choice:

• Verify the ISO checksum/signature before install (protects against tampered downloads).
• Enable automatic security updates (or a routine you actually follow).
• Use only official repos/Flatpak sources you trust; avoid third-party “one-liner” install scripts.
• Keep backups (especially before driver/kernel changes on Nvidia).

If you want to move the thread forward constructively, the most useful next step is to post what your priorities are (old hardware vs modern, Nvidia vs Intel/AMD, “lowest maintenance” vs “most control”), because that’s what will decide whether KDE and/or systemd actually improves your experience.

 

[lokamoka820]

MX Linux is a great distribution for low-spec devices. I use it when nothing else works. Thanks for the article; I liked the author's settings after installation.

 

[Victor M]

His posts feel like long-form opinion pieces rather than practical guides. For experienced users, much of it rehashes well-known points (desktop differences, systemd debates, 32-bit going away) without adding new data, troubleshooting steps, or reproducible advice. If someone wants commentary, fine—but if you’re looking for actionable how-to help, the signal-to-noise ratio is low.

Sure I start threads about my config and post observations. But you can challenge them and point out my mistakes. I don't write a 10 page essay and collect them together to start a web site. Posting such on a forum is a normal thing. But making a web site is just being too full of yourself. So you say you have X number of years as Linux user, there are plenty of people who can say that too. What makes you so special.

For my needs, it’s low value: I want how-to guides, troubleshooting, and reproducible fixes, It’s mostly commentary, not instruction. And remember to treat reviews as one person's personal opinion. I'd say just go try the distro and see for yourself.