Systemd-free antiX Linux 26: Debian 13, in bonsai form

AntiX Linux is a heavily cut-down version of Debian 13, with a choice of init systems and ultralightweight GUIs. This means it's able to run usefully on older and lower-end PCs – and, of course, to run faster on modern ones. AntiX 26 "Stephen Kapos" is the newly updated version of antiX, based on last year's Debian 13 "Trixie …

[jonathan keith]

Pronunciation?

Is it 'anticks' or 'anti-ex'?

[cyberdemon]

Re: Pronunciation?

Antiques?

Old != Bad though.. X11 and SysV are old.. Very old. But they still beat Wayland and Systemd, especially for high-reliability use-cases such as kiosks

[Liam Proven]

Re: Pronunciation?

> Is it 'anticks' or 'anti-ex'?

Yes.

;-)

[blu3b3rry]

Re: Pronunciation?

I've heard it called anticks before in the past, but who is to say if that's correct!

Glad to see that a 32-bit release is still on offer for those who need it, too. It certainly runs nicely on a rather underpowered (and 32-bit only) Samsung Netbook.

[williamyf]

Re: Pronunciation?

If said netbook uses a P4 or, more likely, an Atom, AntiX is the better choice.

If it uses something slighly more potent, like 32bit only core (not core2) then mageia is the better choice.

[blu3b3rry]

Re: Pronunciation?

This netbook is a Samsung NC10, with a single-core Atom N270 (albeit hyperthreaded) processor. Apparently it's equivalent in performance to a Pentium M.

It's been dual-booting Debian 12 XFCE and Windows XP for a good while but AntiX is definitely going to be a better pick.

[Uncle Slacky]

Re: Pronunciation?

32-bit Void also works well on them all.

[NetMage]

Re: Pronunciation?

You alternate every time you say them.

[Bebu sa Ware]

Re: Pronunciation?

> You alternate every time you say them.

I imagine it is just "Anti X antics" with a nudge and wink.

Say no more guvnor.

[cyberdemon]

Fluxbox!

Now there's a blast from the past..

I started using Fluxbox 23 years ago (and stopped when I ditched it for KDE a year later), which means I've known it and Linux-land well over half my life..

Amazed that it's still in "active" development.. But it hasn't changed much in that time by the looks of it, unlike me!

[LionelB]

Re: Fluxbox!

> I started using Fluxbox 23 years ago

Same, and still happily using it today.

[williamyf]

Yay for AntiX.

Installed the beta for AntiX 26 on really old machines. We are talking 32bit only P4 laptops. Was the only way to make them "usable" for donation (for some Venezuelans, and all cubans, those laptops are very welcome indeed)

Comming from sysadmin and OpenStack, I do not care much about the "init cultural wars". If anything, I have some simpathty for Systemd, so, the only thing that factored in the decition was 32bit support and lightness, and AntiX delivered

For more powerfull 32bit only machines, mageia it is!

[kmorwath]

If the time spent creating another distro...

... was spent in actually writing useful desktop software for Linux, it would have better chances to become useful to more people...

But writing actual GUI software is far harder then removing systemd, just because it wasn't written in 1975.

[JessicaRabbit]

Re: If the time spent creating another distro...

Are you personally doing anything to encourage more desktop software being worked on or are you just whinging about it?

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: If the time spent creating another distro...

Yes this post *is* encouragement. "If you spent as much time doing X as you do Y..." is a solid argument, as my mother would attest. Creating non-systemd distros is a displacement activity.

[achillesneil]

Re: If the time spent creating another distro...

I think there is some pretty good desktop software available on Linux and BSD distros.

[Steve Graham]

zzzFM

I don't use a specific "desktop environment", just openbox with xfce-panel (vertically, on the right). Then I have a pick-and-mix of applications, many from xfce and lxde, including pcmanfm from the latter as my preferred file manager. (Although I keep thunar as well, because its bulk rename is very useful.)

So I thought I'd give zzzFM a try after seeing it mentioned here. I made some tweaks in the preferences, mainly to suit a high-res monitor. When I tried to save the settings however, zzzFM said it was going to prompt me for the root password so that it could store them in /etc/zzzFM. As it happens, I don't have a graphical su installed, so that failed. I'm sticking with pcmanfm.

[Anonymous Coward]

the boot menu offers a selection of both kernel versions, each with five different init systems

That's four too many.

The world needs just one init system. And it isn't systemd.

[williamyf]

Re: the boot menu offers a selection of both kernel versions, each with five different init systems

I'd not say is four too many. They are moving from sys-v init as default to the more modern runinit as default. The other three are experimental. So maybe, at some point, they may ditch sysv-init and the failed experiments, and offer only one or two main, and newer experiments.

They have a long tradition of multiinit support, so is both a diferentiating factor for them as well as a fertile ground for init testing and improvement

What are the chances that sysv-init was the pinacle of init? Or that systemd is the pinacle of init tech? In both cases i'd say "slim to none". So having a place were is easy to test, develop and compare multiple init systems is important

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: the boot menu offers a selection of both kernel versions, each with five different init systems

What are the chances that sysv-init was the pinacle of init? Or that systemd is the pinacle of init tech? In both cases i'd say "slim to none".

I agree. Peak init was reached in V6-7 Unix ~50 years ago. It's still found in BSD. But it went rapidly downhill from there. Everything after 4BSD added nothing worthwhile to init - just more enshittification, ugly cruft and needless, mindless complexity. That train wreck began with the run level bollocks introduced in SysV (or was is SysIII?).

So having a place were is easy to test, develop and compare multiple init systems is important.

That place is in the development lab, not production releases.

[Liam Proven]

Re: the boot menu offers a selection of both kernel versions, each with five different init systems

> Everything after 4BSD added nothing worthwhile to init

Actually, I agree here. I am mystified by the widespread nostalgia for the SysV init. I encountered that in about 1989 and I found it needlessly complex then.

> That train wreck began with the run level bollocks introduced in SysV (or was is SysIII?).

Hey, hang on. Runlevels I like. Runlevels were genuinely useful.

Wretched box won't boot into the GUI because of hardware or driver problems? No problem. Bring it up in runlevel 2, go online, fetch updates, in desperation use Lynx to Google for info.

(Remember when Google was _good_?)

Some daemon misbehaving, like writing gigs of logs? Runlevel 1, mount root r/w, poke around.

No, runlevels were handy. I miss them.

[williamyf]

Re: the boot menu offers a selection of both kernel versions, each with five different init systems

What about concurrently start services in parallel to boot faster. For desktop, enbeded and trqaditional server is a footnote.

For openstack (what used to put bread on my table) and elasticity in the cloud it means all the difference in the world.

Sys-v init and previous could not do it. Systemd, runinit and launchd can.

No. There is still plenty to improve in init-land

[ludditus]

What's the deal with the choice of kernels?

Um, a “Customised 5.10.240 kernel” and a “Customised 6.6.119 kernel (x64 full only)” because Debian's 6.12 kernel (also a LTS one) is for suckers?

[williamyf]

Re: What's the deal with the choice of kernels?

5.10 is for 32 bit machines, and older hardware (as in peripherals in the Mobo or other peripherals)

But yes, going for 6.6 Vanilla-LTS instead of 6.12 CIP-LTS (therefore longer support) is ¿odd? Very odd indeed.

[gosand]

"AntiX Linux is one of the parent distros of MX Linux"

Nope. AntiX, as well as MX Linux, are based on Debian.

"MX Linux is a cooperative venture between the antiX and MX Linux communities. It is a family of operating systems built by users from Debian Stable repositories that are designed to combine elegant and efficient desktops with high stability and solid performance."

And AntiX came from Mepis, which was based on Debian. This is all confirmed in the fantastic 'Timeline of the development of main Linux distributions' image in Wikipedia. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linux_distribution

I was looking at AntiX and MX Linux back in 2018 when I moved away from Mint, but chose Devuan w/XFCE and have been very happy on it since.

I am glad it is still under development though, while people complain about 'too many distros' I think it continues to lend to the excitement and variations that exist in the Linux ecosystem.

I'm old and mostly stodgy, I don't distro-hop because I like my current setup. My son on the other hand switched from Windows to Arch last year, and he'd been on Hyprland. He told me recently he's switching to Niri (which I've never heard of). But he's 18 and is just tinkering around with it... so how can I complain!?

sudo rm -rf ~/mylawn/*

[Liam Proven]

> Nope. AntiX, as well as MX Linux, are based on Debian.

Newsflash for you.

Software collections, like people, usually have more than one parent and more than one generation of parents.

[Anonymous Coward]

"Newsflash for you."

Even if you're right, that's a bit aggressive.

[williamyf]

No. MX linux WAS a cooperative development between MEPIS Linux (therefore the M) and AntiX Linux (therefore the X). MEPIS died, so, AntiX is the only "surviving parent" of MX.

As a matter of fact, MX Linux still pulls a lot from AntiX. The most recent pull being the capacity to have multiple init systems, they were having problems and were about to let go. As per the MX people themselves:

«The current system is thanks to @ProwlerGr and their “init-diversity” work with the antiX distribution.»

https://mxlinux.org/blog/mx-25-1-infinity-beta-1-isos-now-available-for-testing-purposes/

Perhaps Liam can chip in this conversation.

[Liam Proven]

> Perhaps Liam can chip in this conversation.

I already did, when someone decided to find fault in what I maintain was a relevant and correct point.

I am told I was too hostile; I felt that the incorrect contradiction of my article was hostile. :shrug:

A distro based on Ubuntu is based on Debian, because Ubuntu is based on Debian -- but it's not _directly_ based on Debian. Debian is its grandparent, so to speak.

antiX is based on Debian, with influences from other lightweight Linuxes; MX Linux is based on antiX, but with additional components from other places too.

I have written about the init-diversity tools previously, here:

https://www.theregister.com/2026/01/21/mx_25_1_init_diversity/

[williamyf]

I often check el reg on my phone, while waiting for phisio, or while receiveing physio, like EMT or ultyrasound. I did not realize you chiped in until after - hit submit. Keepup the good work. Both the reporting, and the interacting in the comments

[gosand]

I know that it was a collaboration, but I think people are getting tripped up on the word parent.

I'm going off of what I consider to be a parent distrobution, which means where do the packages come from and what distro is it based on - not where it started.

I went and looked because I could be wrong, but everything I have seen says that MX Linux is based on Debian. Which to me means that Debian is the parent. If others want to use a different definition, so be it I guess.

https://mxrepo.com/

[kamen_n]

AntiX

Ah, yes, AntiX!

You can't beat an antifa distro!

(Although I wonder what will happen with the 32-bit edition - in AntiX and MxLinux - once Debian leaves 32-bit behind.)

[Liam Proven]

Re: AntiX

> (Although I wonder what will happen with the 32-bit edition - in AntiX and MxLinux - once Debian leaves 32-bit behind.)

It has already gone.

Debian 13 has no x86-32 edition.

MX 26 has no x86-32 edition.

That is why I said:

«

Unlike Debian itself, it still offers a 32-bit edition

»

[keithpeter]

USB drive utilities...

AntiX has tools that provide a range of ways of making and customising bootable USB images with or without persistent data storage. Might be worth looking into for some people. Those who remember TENS or LPS perhaps?

[Michael Hoffmann]

But...

.... can it run Proton?

By which I quite seriously mean whether it can act as a very unbloated and light-weight gaming system?

[Uncle Slacky]

Re: But...

Can't see why not, it's still essentially Debian. I don't think Proton has any systemd dependencies.

[R Soul]

I don't think Proton has any systemd dependencies.

Nothing in Linux-land should have any systemd dependencies.

Something is very seriously fucked up if anything has these dependencies.

[williamyf]

Re: But...

In theory, it can. But in practice, unless you are into VERY RETRO windows gaming, is of no use.

This distro has a very specific use case in mind (low end hardware) as well as a very strong ideological stance, so, the hoops you have to jump trough to get some software (likce closed source drivers, firmwares, codecs, DRM and plug-ins) is well above Linux average.

If you have hardware capable enough to run modern games, you do not need an "Ultra Lightweight" distro like AntiX, instead, go for something like Mint or Zorin, which, while still lightweight, will make your life much easier.