Archived thread 1021088 from Other OS Talk. Markdown source: Other_OS_Talk/thread_1021088_What_do_you_think_about_Linux_Mint.md
I just run it from live-CD yesterday. I kind of liked it.. Not everything.. but really loved the menu and few other things.
What do you think about Linux Mint? Should I install it?
Or should I keep Ubuntu? I guess Ubuntu will have better updates..
Is there possible to install some of those features in Mint? Like Mint's menu?
Kdar said:
Or should I keep Ubuntu? I guess Ubuntu will have better updates..
The individual package updates should be about the same.
Mint still uses Ubuntu's repositories and it's own. In my mind, Mint is more of an Ubuntu Respin than a separate distribution.
Although, Mint keeps moving farther and farther away from Ubuntu so it will get there eventually.
I like Mint, it's solid and it comes with multiple media codecs pre-installed.
Mint is based on Ubuntu. You can still use the Ubuntu repositories and Debs built for Ubuntu. If you like it, install it.
oh so.. If I will have some problem in Mint.. I would probably be able to ask it here? Since you say its almost like Ubuntu.
@namegame. To what kind of direction are they heading? What do you think they would focus on compare to Ubuntu?
mint is to ubuntu, what ubuntu is to debian, its all the same, you'd be surprised by how similar they all are, its just how they're maintained, and how they're packaged and finally philosophy
I personally like vanillabuntu (plain simple ubuntu)
Kdar said: oh so.. If I will have some problem in Mint.. I would probably be able to ask it here? Since you say its almost like Ubuntu.
Yes. At the end of the day, Linux is Linux and most distributions function in generally the same manner. Many Ubuntu Forum members do not use Ubuntu at all, including myself. You should be able to find help for any distribution in existence.
@namegame. To what kind of direction are they heading? What do you think they would focus on compare to Ubuntu?
When Linux Mint 2.0 was released it was directly derived from Ubuntu Edgy. Every successive release after that has been based on the release before it. For example, Linux Mint 3.0 was based on Linux Mint 2.0, then Mint 4 was based on Mint 3, etc. Linux Mint is now becoming more reliant on itself rather than Ubuntu.
About a year ago, Linux Mint released an Alpha distribution based on Debian rather than Ubuntu. I don't know the progress on this so I can't say much.
I think Linux Mint is starting to break away from Ubuntu, but that will just take time.
I think it has awesome codec support, and I like the default colors better than ubuntu's. Other than that is pretty much the same in my eyes. The Mint forums are cool too, a lot of nice people there, when I was using Mint I got responses pretty quick.
namegame said:
I like Mint, it's solid and it comes with multiple media codecs pre-installed.
+1
IMO, Mint is the best distro to recommend to anyone who is considering linux but anxious over the multimedia codecs issue
namegame said: Yes. At the end of the day, Linux is Linux and most distributions function in generally the same manner. Many Ubuntu Forum members do not use Ubuntu at all, including myself. You should be able to find help for any distribution in existence.
When Linux Mint 2.0 was released it was directly derived from Ubuntu Edgy. Every successive release after that has been based on the release before it. For example, Linux Mint 3.0 was based on Linux Mint 2.0, then Mint 4 was based on Mint 3, etc. Linux Mint is now becoming more reliant on itself rather than Ubuntu.
About a year ago, Linux Mint released an Alpha distribution based on Debian rather than Ubuntu. I don't know the progress on this so I can't say much.
I think Linux Mint is starting to break away from Ubuntu, but that will just take time. They rebased it on Ibex for Mint 6.
Changturkey said: They rebased it on Ibex for Mint 6.
it still has its base from edgy like the previous poster said. clem (lead dev) makes each version compatible with the current ubuntu version from there.
As I predicted a couple years ago Mint will over take Ubuntu in users at some point. Last time I looked at distrowatch it was number three.
Mint and CLem listens to its users while Ubuntu does not care too. To coin a term a came up with a long time ago on this forum
Mint is Ubuntu done right. Now I recommend Mint to new users over Ubuntu. If you don't like the Mint Menu don't use it. Its that simple.
Well, actually, menu was one of the things that got me interested in Mint.
grazed said: it still has its base from edgy like the previous poster said. clem (lead dev) makes each version compatible with the current ubuntu version from there.
The Linux Mint project as a whole is going through important changes. The new focus is given to R&D and the design of desktop utilities more than to the base system itself. The project aims at automating the porting of its technology on top of the current base in an effort to rebase on every single Ubuntu release instead of following its own branch since the initial fork of Edgy. Since the Edgy/Barbara fork, Linux Mint 6 Felicia is the first release of Linux Mint Main Edition to be built directly from Ubuntu and not from the preceeding Linux Mint release. The advantages of this are to guarantee an even higher compatibility with Ubuntu, to speed up the process of jumping from one release to another, to automate the process of porting our technology (which can then be used to "mintify" Ubuntu or other distributions) and above all to guarantee that most of our time goes into desktop innovations and not in the actual releases themselves.
jrusso2 said: As I predicted a couple years ago Mint will over take Ubuntu in users at some point. Last time I looked at distrowatch it was number three.
Mint and CLem listens to its users while Ubuntu does not care too. To coin a term a came up with a long time ago on this forum
Mint is Ubuntu done right. Now I recommend Mint to new users over Ubuntu. If you don't like the Mint Menu don't use it. Its that simple.
linux mint pre-installs codecs that are patented in the US. The mint team doesn't care because they're based in Ireland and while Concanical(ubuntu) is based outside the US they are a for profit company that wants to become a major player which means abiding by US law. Which means they can't do what linux mint does
Correct me if I'm mistaken
shadylookin said: linux mint pre-installs codecs that are patented in the US. The mint team doesn't care because they're based in Ireland and while Concanical(ubuntu) is based outside the US they are a for profit company that wants to become a major player which means abiding by US law. Which means they can't do what linux mint does
Correct me if I'm mistaken
Your mistaken Clem says he is not doing anything illegal. Ubuntu chooses not to include the codecs due to philosophical reasons.
I give Mint to noobs to try. It is good for noobs as it has most of the codecs and stuff people want right away preinstalled. I have converted my father and uncle to Linux with Mint. They both use straight Ubuntu now. Personally I don't like the menu system, I know it can be changed, but noobs find it easy, so it has to be a good thing.
jrusso2 said: Your mistaken Clem says he is not doing anything illegal. Ubuntu chooses not to include the codecs due to philosophical reasons.
Nonsense. Clem can say what he wants but he is not telling the truth regarding this.
"In some countries, the use of certain codecs may be prohibited by law. You should verify that you are permitted to use them before installing them."
Kdar said: I just run it from live-CD yesterday. I kind of liked it.. Not everything.. but really loved the menu and few other things.
What do you think about Linux Mint? Should I install it?
Or should I keep Ubuntu? I guess Ubuntu will have better updates..
Is there possible to install some of those features in Mint? Like Mint's menu?
Mint is Ubuntu, with some little tweaks.
If you want the menu: http://linuxowns.wordpress.com/2008/06/03/install-the-linux-mint-menu-in-ubuntu-hardy/
Personally, i like Ubuntu better; but if i was installing Linux on a freind's computer, i would choose Mint because of the extra codecs and stuff that comes pre-installed.
That and the starting theme are the only things that i think that are better than Ubuntu, but i can get Ubuntu to look better and have the stuff in Mint after a little tweaking.
i think mint linux for ubuntu addicts, i don't know why but i don't feel comfortable with other distros especially non-debian based ones. i think with mint linux you can use ubuntu repos/stability and OF COURSE you can still be part of ubuntu community.
well, the most important thing that stuck me to ubuntu is: ubuntuforums.org
Hmm Does this new release of mint come with the drivers for Broadcom wireless? As 8.10 doesn't by default..
I have tried it a few versions with different DE. I think it is awful. Sorry. I stick with my Baltix GNU/Linux (Ubuntu diversion)
OffHand said: Nonsense. Clem can say what he wants but he is not telling the truth regarding this.
"In some countries, the use of certain codecs may be prohibited by law. You should verify that you are permitted to use them before installing them."
https://help.ubuntu.com/8.04/musicvideophotos/C/codecs.html
That's why Mint has a version without the codecs installed. If you're in the US or Japan, you're supposed to download that version.
Mint is pretty cool. I like the menu, too. But any derivative of another distro is always going to be at least somewhat behind in releases. Mint is also pretty slow on entering the 64-bit world. They're getting there, but the 64-bit version is the old version of Mint.
forrestcupp said: That's why Mint has a version without the codecs installed. If you're in the US or Japan, you're supposed to download that version.
Mint is pretty cool. I like the menu, too. But any derivative of another distro is always going to be at least somewhat behind in releases. Mint is also pretty slow on entering the 64-bit world. They're getting there, but the 64-bit version is the old version of Mint.
yeh but if its one thing I like better with mint is its updater, Ubuntu's updater includes all updates including ones that can break a system. Mint only installs the packages that are needed for the general user experience.
SunnyRabbiera said: yeh but if its one thing I like better with mint is its updater, Ubuntu's updater includes all updates including ones that can break a system.
Mint only installs the packages that are needed for the general user experience.
Which is actually a bad thing, as you could have important kernel bugs left open for people to exploit.
billgoldberg said: Which is actually a bad thing, as you could have important kernel bugs left open for people to exploit.
No, as the kernel is still patched.
I like it for the most part. It runs pretty well on my TV's computer with a 1 Ghz processor. Is fairly small with the XFCE and is pretty easy to update.
Mint is great for new users. Personally I can't stand the menu though (reminds me too much of xp/vista)
Personally, I think Mint is a decent build. Very easy to install as it will install out of the box on most desktops (laptops .. no experience there, so no opinion)
I installed it on and old and slow Celeron 466 with 512g of memory (that originally ran WinME) .. it installed in less than 1/2 hour, but because of the old and slow computer (FSB of 66), the updates took forever on high speed internet! Still and all, I think it is a really good entry type of Linux build that will not scare the crud out of a newbie because there is NO NEED to use terminal initially!!
The only change I had to make was in the audio .. the default did not work very well on the default OB sound chip, removing it and installing Amarok fixed that issue.
But, agree on the interface .. it is dull and offers no eye candy to a Windows user that is used to such. BUT IT WORKS .. (found the D-Link wireless card without a hitch, for instance .. installed the networked printers without asking .. and so on!)