When comparing GNU+Linux vs MX Linux, the Slant community recommends GNU+Linux for most people. In the question“What are the best alternatives to Windows 10?” GNU+Linux is ranked 4th while MX Linux is ranked 5th. The most important reason people chose GNU+Linux is:
It is a Unix clone.
Ranked in these QuestionsQuestion Ranking
It is a Unix clone.
Pro Many different desktops to choose
Just use whatever you want. Some are lightweight, others are full of extravagant features. There is a flavor for each taste.
Uses the same userland as other GNU variants.
You don't have to pay anything.
Pro Easy to use
Pro MX Snapshot: lets you make your own distro
Can create your own ISO (snapshot) and use it either as live-session and install back when needed.
With the (pre-installed) Snapshot tool you can easily create an ISO of your running system and then save it to a USB (or other media) and use "your own" distro as a live session or install back whenever you like (even on a different PC with different specs with no issues). You can even give that customized ISO to friends (selecting "non-personal" ISO when creating the snapshot; thus resetting the accounts & passwords and Home folder etc.).
Also you can save that ISO directly encrypted via MX Live USB Maker tool. Again, you can install MX encrypted during installation with just ticking a box, no matter if it's the official ISO or your snapshot.
Pro Supports non-free drivers
Pro Good MX Tools and Package Installer
MX Linux comes with its own set of tools called MX Tools, designed to make life easier for users.
Pro Easy install
Pro Based on Debian
It is based on Debian and not based on Ubuntu.
Pro Very stable
Pro No systemd
Pro Can also be used as an emergency tool
It has almost all tools to repair non booting systems or recover files & folders and save them on a safe place. And when thought together with it starts quick on live-session. In addition, you can do these with "your own", customized distro (snapshot).
Pro Live-Session boots fastest after Puppy
After Puppy Linux (which's aimed to run from RAM and which is smaller in size) the second fastest (head & shoulders) booting one (together with the sister project antiX) and also has the option "toram" to run from RAM. Yes, not only when compared to full distros, even far faster than small sized or tiny distros, especially when booted to "live-session", about 2 - 2.5 times faster on an old single core laptop.
Con GNU Copyleft
The coplyleft in the GNU licenses make it unattractive to many developers. It s also impossible to port GPLed Linux improvements to other more open operating systems like BSD or Haiku.
Con Many distributions
There are just too many of them to know.
Con Often limited by decisions of the Kernel developers
Support for the latest features in Linux is often limited by their kernel developers, for example, Nvidia once had added patches to support Optimus on Linux, however, the kernel developers rejected those patches resulting in still no official Optimus support for Linux.
Con Frankenstein OS
The whole OS is mixed together with software from different sources.
Con No interface Guidelines
Since there are plenty of X11-Desktop environments and two big Widget Toolkits, every app works and feels differently.
Con Most Distributions are not LSB-conform
The most Distributions don't follow the Linux Standard Base which results in different package formates, package management tools, bootloaders, init-systems or even filesystem hierarchy standards.
Con Most 3D drivers are not as fast as their Windows counterparts
The only display driver that comes close to their Windows counterpart is the nvidia driver. Both AMD and Intel drivers miss a Control Panel on Linux to adjust more settings than just your resolution they also usually much slower than their Windows counterparts.
Con A big mess
10-15 years ago I had everything working on my linux system bluetooth, graphic driver desktop etc.
Nowadays it is just a big mess: Distributions force me to use systemd a system I don't like since it is terrible to debug, KDE and GNOME(and its siblings) have moved even further away from each other no unlike years ago when they used freedesktop to unify things. There are now dozens of different GUI toolkits o choose every one with they own themes and usability(not to mention all the different minor versions like gtk2, 3,4 whatever that look and work all differently). in 2005 i could use bluetooth audio with alsa and no issues on every DE or WM nowadays you need pulseaudio to get it working some applications even need it to play audio. All distributions use different packaging formates (but they do and work all the same). You have now traditional apps and flatpaks, snaps and appimages. There are desktops/distributions that come with wayland preinstalled and the majority still uses X.org.
It's only a clone and some things work differently.
Con Not secure
Linux is actually the least secure OS and it is a security nightmare. Windows, MacOS, and ChromeOS are all far more secure.
Con No graphical user-interface
As the most unix systems this also comes without a graphical user interface by default.
Con Only one Desktop Environment
Con Its XFCE version is too laggy
XFCE is meant to be lightweight, and it's almost true for other XFCE distros but not for MX Linux.
Con Old software
Many software applications are older.
Con Remixed Debian testing
It's mainly a Debian stable with some recompiled/backported Debian testing packages.
Con Includes non-free drivers
Con More than 50 tweaking softwares pre-installed
Con Longer boot time
Con 10s of media players preinstalled
Con Too much preinstalled applications
Con Causes overheating on some hardwares
Other debian based XFCE distros- Xubuntu, Debian XFCE, Devuan leave small footprint on system whereas MXLinux uses too much CPU resources on same system.
Con Installer and configuration tools are different
Installer and configuration tools are different and can take some time getting used to.