Why is it that MX Linux has no Wi-Fi or Bluetooth issues. But other well known Linux OS builds do?

Cro69

New Member
Joined
Oct 14, 2020
Messages
7
Reaction score
3
Credits
56
Hi guys I am new to this linux world. Having tried and tried many Linux OS builds I settled on MX Linux as it was the only one that had WiFi sorted from beginning. So I suppose if MX Linux team can do it why can't the others? As it's really hard for a new linux user to overcome this hurdle with very limited knowledge. I will not name the other Linux OS builds that failed me with WiFi connection and Bluetooth issues. But just really want to know why this isn't sorted yet. As reading through many articles this Wi-Fi issue has happened over many years.
 


G'day @Cro69 and welcome to linux.org :)

Yours is a very valid question, I almost put a Love on it.

You certainly CAN name the other Distros, as long as you don't malign the Devs (developers) and their products with unsubstantiated claims.

I run 56 Linux (today) and the MX series has been one of my faves for over 5 years.

I am 63 and quite possibly have less patience than you, LOL.

I have been dabbling with Linux for around 10 years, and 6 years ago last month made my decision to blow away Windows 7 and embrace a totally Linux environment, and have not looked back.

But just really want to know why this isn't sorted yet.

Again, valid, but a bit like "How long is a piece of string?"

A lot of it relates to drivers, whether it be for graphics, audio, wifi, bluetooth, &c and the proprietary nature of their software and whether our Linux people can duplicate that, or whether the companies provide a Linux version, and so on.

I have to sign off for my evening in Australia, but I will check back in tomorrow.

Cheers

Chris Turner
wizardfromoz
 
G'day @Cro69 and welcome to linux.org :)

Yours is a very valid question, I almost put a Love on it.

You certainly CAN name the other Distros, as long as you don't malign the Devs (developers) and their products with unsubstantiated claims.

I run 56 Linux (today) and the MX series has been one of my faves for over 5 years.

I am 63 and quite possibly have less patience than you, LOL.

I have been dabbling with Linux for around 10 years, and 6 years ago last month made my decision to blow away Windows 7 and embrace a totally Linux environment, and have not looked back.



Again, valid, but a bit like "How long is a piece of string?"

A lot of it relates to drivers, whether it be for graphics, audio, wifi, bluetooth, &c and the proprietary nature of their software and whether our Linux people can duplicate that, or whether the companies provide a Linux version, and so on.

I have to sign off for my evening in Australia, but I will check back in tomorrow.

Cheers

Chris Turner
wizardfromoz
I'm in oz too!! Melbourne
 
The linux kernel is, as one of its functions responsible to talk to hardware. When it comes to code that is free source thats not a problem. As i understand it the manufacturers of the wifi chips don't release firmware that enables the kernel to work with the wifi chip on a free source basis.


for this reason distro's such as pureOS https://www.gnu.org/distros/free-distros.html

won't even entertain the idea of having wifi because it not free source. Its this element that i was told that Slackware can not be refereed to as fully technically "free source" because it has none free drivers.
 
I tried on old laptop no wifi but with mx linux there was. Tried on newer laptop no Wi-Fi but yes on mx linux. And even tried on my newly build pc same issues continued. So essentially what I'm saying is that maybe the major players in linux should ask the MX team how their managing to overcome this hurdle. As for me it's pretty easy plug and play os .
 
If all Linux distros did the same thing there would in effect be one Linux distro...

You could look at 3 related distros. Debian, Ubuntu and Linux Mint.

Debian is the oldest. It says on its front page
Debian is a free operating system (OS) for your computer.
It goes into a description of what is free and non-free. Their policy is to provide the free but not the non-free. In effect if you had a computer that had "free" compatible hardware it would run. It doesn't have e.g. Wi-Fi drivers because they are proprietary - non free. Many people who use Debian get around this by adding the contrib and non-free Repositories, or using the "unofficial" non-free installation disk.

Ubuntu is derived from Debian unstable. Many people do not understand that it also has a "free" policy. It says this is because of licencing issues. Proprietary drivers, however, are easier to find, It involves adding Additional Drivers from the menu, https://www.makeuseof.com/tag/insta...s here that you will find proprietary drivers. Then there is ubuntu-restricted-extras https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ubuntu-restricted-extras

Linux Mint is derived from Ubuntu. It just seems to have the additional drivers and stuff. How they don't get into trouble with licensing I don't know.

You could ask the question about installing. Some distros are easy to install, some are more difficult.
 
Why? Because some distros don't install proprietary binary blobs by default, as a matter of philosophical viewpoints. Without those proprietary drivers, the hardware doesn't work. Some distros don't mind including proprietary software as a default. Those are easier to get working on a wider array of hardware.

It's the 'open source zealotry', of which there are many kinds. If it ain't GPL (or another approved OSS license), it ain't getting included.
 
So essentially what I'm saying is that maybe the major players in linux should ask the MX team how their managing to overcome this hurdle.

Hear, hear

Wizard
 
If/when you get the time, consider swinging over to Member Introductions and saying Hi.

I'll round up a couple of Aussies to welcome you, and you can meet some more of The Gang :)

Chris
 

Members online


Top