PDA

View Full Version : Your thoughts on Linux Mint



nengracia
June 4th, 2009, 06:10 PM
After trying out Linux Mint, I found that it's a bit advanced than Ubuntu:

Some of the most basic parts of an Ubuntu environment have been preloaded like gparted, compizconfig, media codecs, etc.

Realizing that Linux Mint 7 (Gloria) is built around Ubuntu 9.04, why didn't Ubuntu do more?

jbruced
June 4th, 2009, 06:20 PM
My thoughts?

#1 concerning codecs.

Staying legal.

Mint is pretty much a small organization, great ideas etc.. but won't get sued because there's no money, or more specifically, market penetration there.

In order to have all the codecs needed legally, money and contracts would need to be transferred.

It's like the pirate bay, ubuntu can say they didn't load anything, it was the end user who did it.

Unfortunately, this is the way of the world.

With Microsh*t and Appl* copy writing everything in sight, the true business maverick is stifled(and sometimes only when they become successful and have money that they find themselves being sued).

This stuff is so complicated, I don't think any judge or jury could make an informed decision anyway.

So it's CYA (cover your as?)

#2, it's not free as in speech.

You cannot control your named OS if nvidia(drivers), sun(Java), adobe(flash), etc. won't give you the source code to control. How do you really know what they're doing in the code?

Again, we need it, so make it easy to get, but don't include it.

CYA (cover your , ya you know what I mean)


I think Canonical is doing pretty good at it.

Bruce

UbuntuNerd
June 4th, 2009, 06:49 PM
My thoughts?

#1 concerning codecs.

Staying legal.

Mint is pretty much a small organization, great ideas etc.. but won't get sued because there's no money, or more specifically, market penetration there.

In order to have all the codecs needed legally, money and contracts would need to be transferred.

It's like the pirate bay, ubuntu can say they didn't load anything, it was the end user who did it.

Unfortunately, this is the way of the world.

With Microsh*t and Appl* copy writing everything in sight, the true business maverick is stifled(and sometimes only when they become successful and have money that they find themselves being sued).

This stuff is so complicated, I don't think any judge or jury could make an informed decision anyway.

So it's CYA (cover your as?)

#2, it's not free as in speech.

You cannot control your named OS if nvidia(drivers), sun(Java), adobe(flash), etc. won't give you the source code to control. How do you really know what they're doing in the code?

Again, we need it, so make it easy to get, but don't include it.

CYA (cover your , ya you know what I mean)


I think Canonical is doing pretty good at it.

Bruce

interesting answer :)

Sarai the Geek
June 4th, 2009, 08:55 PM
My thoughts?

#1 concerning codecs.

Staying legal.

Mint is pretty much a small organization, great ideas etc.. but won't get sued because there's no money, or more specifically, market penetration there.

In order to have all the codecs needed legally, money and contracts would need to be transferred.

It's like the pirate bay, ubuntu can say they didn't load anything, it was the end user who did it.

Unfortunately, this is the way of the world.

With Microsh*t and Appl* copy writing everything in sight, the true business maverick is stifled(and sometimes only when they become successful and have money that they find themselves being sued).

This stuff is so complicated, I don't think any judge or jury could make an informed decision anyway.

So it's CYA (cover your as?)

#2, it's not free as in speech.

You cannot control your named OS if nvidia(drivers), sun(Java), adobe(flash), etc. won't give you the source code to control. How do you really know what they're doing in the code?

Again, we need it, so make it easy to get, but don't include it.

CYA (cover your , ya you know what I mean)


I think Canonical is doing pretty good at it.

Bruce

I agree with this, to a certain degree. This covers very nicely why ubuntu doesn't include proprietary drivers and codecs- not so much why programs like gparted and compizconfig-settings-manager aren't installed by default in ubuntu- they are after all open source and included in the ubuntu repos.

I switched to mint about a week ago, I like it but for someone relatively familiar with linux, like me, there isn't a huge amount of difference between it and ubuntu. I can see how a newbie would really appreciate the preloaded codecs etc. My broadcom driver was included, so I didn't have to go seek out an ethernet connect to get my wireless working- which was a very nice touch.

There's also the mint community, it has a smaller, more international vibe to it. But you can still get support here if need be since the two distros are extremely similar.

Just spitballing, here...

LowSky
June 4th, 2009, 09:04 PM
Mint has a nicer Grub and boot splash screen,

as for codecs, getting the ones I need takes 2 minutes, i dont need them installed by default

Personaly Choice is Ubuntu over Mint

dragos240
June 4th, 2009, 09:08 PM
Hmm... Mint... how can I explain it. OH YES! Eyecandy galore!

Bölvağur
June 4th, 2009, 09:33 PM
For most people it is great!

HappyFeet
June 4th, 2009, 09:37 PM
Hmm... Mint... how can I explain it. OH YES! Eyecandy galore!

I don't think linux mint is all that great looking to begin with.

I don't use or need anything mint brings to the table, but I do give out live cd's of mint to newbs because of the codecs.

Tibuda
June 4th, 2009, 09:44 PM
Linux Mint is not only about codecs and themes. There's also some extra tools I have never seen the point on.

vinutux
June 4th, 2009, 09:51 PM
mint is not gr8 some artworks theams codecs and properitery plgins & softwares install default. use ubuntu's publicity............new users may consider it..........not an stable distro or an platform

Sarai the Geek
June 4th, 2009, 10:21 PM
not an stable distro or an platform

Mint uses Ubuntu as a base, so for nearly everything it should be every bit as stable as Ubuntu.

jbruced
June 4th, 2009, 10:28 PM
One more thing if you don't mind, remember this is just my thoughts.

You mentioned gparted and compiz-settings in particular, so:

#3a gparted is best run from boot CD

You can't do anything to your main system unless you are booting from another(boot CD), plus, its easy to install gparted from synaptic if needed.

Put another way, if you need to do partition sh?t, you can do anything by booting from the CD.


#3b compiz-settings

Have you tried to figure out what all these settings mean?(no offense ment)
Theses setting are all interactive and self destructing in some ways. Us geeks love to play and tweak, so we we know what can happen. Some things just clash. Try the cube and cylinder, some things just colide. There is no way I can understand the thousands of settings that are available, and what will conflict. Don't get me wrong, I dive in knowing full well the potential for danger, but I don't think Canonical wants to take that approach. Its real power that can shoot your leg off. There's a nice easy, safe, don't shoot yourself Compiz Config Settings Manager that tries to keep you safe.


Power users can go to the ultimate top and bottom of extremes. Ubuntu seems to know that power users don't need any extra help getting there.

In a nut shell- Ubuntu has some training wheels(and thank you Ubuntu for that), and its easy to take those training wheels off.

vinutux
June 4th, 2009, 10:29 PM
Mint uses Ubuntu as a base, so for nearly everything it should be every bit as stable as Ubuntu.

I use the word stable is not meant stablity of software.....perhaps with in one or two years there is no such a distro existing here.

Bodsda
June 4th, 2009, 10:41 PM
Ive tried mint a few times and while I prefer their themes (dark) and the grub and usplash images they seem to have taken ubuntu, whacked a shed load of stuff on top, stuffed it with even more pre-installed stuff and made a couple of apps. It is just so slow compared to ubuntu. The only good thing about it was the choice to have the funny ascii art whenever you open a terminal, but the novalty soon wore off

jhdogtraining
June 4th, 2009, 10:42 PM
Linux Mint is a lot easier to use and it has a distinct user interface.

SLEEPER_V
June 4th, 2009, 11:30 PM
Linux Mint is a lot easier to use and it has a distinct user interface.
Thats a nice opinion. I am a noob (as evidenced by my join date) and I have tried puppy linux, linux mint, kubuntu, edubuntu, crunchbang, mandriva, dreamlinux and the list goes on. Ubuntu has a super intuitive interface, if you realize you need to try to un remember windows training, and everything just works out of the box. Each time I have run a different linux distro, I have come back to ubuntu. The drawback to ubuntu is the standard eyecandy. Its Peeps when it should be more Snickers.

On topic, I liked Mint, but it just didnt have a wow factor, and it felt a little windowsy. Kinda sterile. Just my opinion

Kareeser
June 4th, 2009, 11:44 PM
Not having ever tried Mint, I'm confined to my opinion of it based on what I hear from others.

Linux Mint's creator, on one occasion, mentioned that those not protesting against some sort of political confict should cease using the distro. I took offense not to the political aspect, but the fact that Clem decided to make Mint "off-limits" in general.

I feel as though it goes against the spirit of open-source software, and thus I have no intention of trying it.

Unless he eats his words, of course... but I don't want this discussion to get political. Keep it tame, people!

nitehawk777
June 4th, 2009, 11:44 PM
Here's my $.02,.....
I am using Mint7 on my second computer (a PIII, 1Ghz, 512ram, 160G hard drive). Since I am on a slow dialup service, I appreciate Mint's preinstalled codecs. (With the dialup,...it takes me about 3 hours to get all the necessary medibuntu stuff downloaded in Ubuntu.) I took my Debian Lenny DVDs, and installed the Xfce desktop onto Mint,..(and other Lenny apps as well).
I use Lenny on my main computer,...but I didn't want to spend all that time doing the codecs downloading thingy on this second computer. The "Mint, Ubuntu, Debian Lenny hybrid" seems to be working pretty well.... :)
(one must do,..what one must do)....

EDIT:
Linux Mint's creator, on one occasion, mentioned that those not protesting against some sort of political confict should cease using the distro. I took offense not to the political aspect, but the fact that Clem decided to make Mint "off-limits" in general.

yeah,...I have concerns over this, also.......

CJ Master
June 4th, 2009, 11:53 PM
Not having ever tried Mint, I'm confined to my opinion of it based on what I hear from others.

Linux Mint's creator, on one occasion, mentioned that those not protesting against some sort of political confict should cease using the distro. I took offense not to the political aspect, but the fact that Clem decided to make Mint "off-limits" in general.

I feel as though it goes against the spirit of open-source software, and thus I have no intention of trying it.

Unless he eats his words, of course... but I don't want this discussion to get political. Keep it tame, people!

I have said this over and over. It has been discussed OVER AND OVER. I'm not sure when people will finally get it through their head that HE RECALLED THE STATEMENT! No offense to anybody in particular, it's annoying the heck out of me that people blindly accuse a distro while taking NO effort into actually checking it out for themselves!

[/rant]

jbruced
June 4th, 2009, 11:55 PM
Not having ever tried Mint, I'm confined to my opinion of it based on what I hear from others.

Linux Mint's creator, on one occasion, mentioned that those not protesting against some sort of political confict should cease using the distro. I took offense not to the political aspect, but the fact that Clem decided to make Mint "off-limits" in general.

I feel as though it goes against the spirit of open-source software, and thus I have no intention of trying it.

Unless he eats his words, of course... but I don't want this discussion to get political. Keep it tame, people!

I hear ya, but guess what, its not his.

Do you know how many millions of hours went into development before he even knew what a Linux was? You think he wrote the kernal, gnome, all those apps?

Use what you want.

If you like Mint, use it, its not his anyway.

Its YOURS, thats the deal.

Ac1ds0ld13r
June 5th, 2009, 12:07 AM
Maybe I got spoiled on my old internet connection or this one is just really really awful: But a 30 dl time. :(

It only took maaaaayyybbbeeeee 4 to get Ubuntu. Anything that big has to be heavy on the system.

Until I start to see some really positive things about it, I'll stick with Ubuntu. Would've been nice to do a boot disk though so I could at least play around with it.

EDIT: 30 minute download time. :(

mamamia88
June 5th, 2009, 12:12 AM
heres my 2 cents i switched to linux mint from ubuntu about 2 months or so ago and really enjoy it. It comes with compiz config setting manager and gnome-do installed by default which i absolutely love. It also has codecs installed that work great out of the box when in ubuntu it took me about half hour googling just trying to get dvd playback to work properly. i like mintinstall better than add/remove ,do to user reviews. only drawbacks i've seen compared to ubuntu are you have to manually install the gnome-games package. also, there is no "software sources" as far as i've seen so gpp has too be imported via command line which is no big deal. overall i think it's just a little bit better than ubuntu because of the additions the developers have made.

Sarai the Geek
June 5th, 2009, 12:12 AM
The whole political thing with Clem was a gaffe, pure and simple. Even though I disagree with his sentiment, I have no problem using an operating system that he helped develop. He doesn't make money off of Mint anyway, so using Mint isn't supporting his political views. If I like Mint better, which I do, then I'm going to use it, end of story.
Besides, if I stopped using the products of everyone whose personal views I disagreed with, I'd probably never get to use any piece of technology. Did you know that Alexander G. Bell thought that Deaf people shouldn't be allowed to marry? It's a horrible thing to believe, but I still use the telephone. You can disagree with someone but still appreciate their contributions to society.

speedwell68
June 5th, 2009, 12:33 AM
i agree with this, to a certain degree. This covers very nicely why ubuntu doesn't include proprietary drivers and codecs- not so much why programs like gparted and compizconfig-settings-manager aren't installed by default in ubuntu- they are after all open source and included in the ubuntu repos.

I switched to mint about a week ago, i like it but for someone relatively familiar with linux, like me, there isn't a huge amount of difference between it and ubuntu. I can see how a newbie would really appreciate the preloaded codecs etc. My broadcom driver was included, so i didn't have to go seek out an ethernet connect to get my wireless working- which was a very nice touch.

There's also the mint community, it has a smaller, more international vibe to it. But you can still get support here if need be since the two distros are extremely similar.

Just spitballing, here...

whs^^^

Polygon
June 5th, 2009, 12:35 AM
ubuntu for the lazy. I can install all the stuff that mint has 'preinstalled' in like less then 5 minutes in a normal ubuntu install

also, the lead developer uses the projects blog for his political views. Thats a nono.

aysiu
June 5th, 2009, 12:38 AM
My broadcom driver was included, so I didn't have to go seek out an ethernet connect to get my wireless working- which was a very nice touch. Just for the record, I got that nice touch in vanilla Ubuntu 9.04, too.

Sarai the Geek
June 5th, 2009, 02:27 AM
whs^^^

Lol... wss :p

EnGorDiaz
June 5th, 2009, 02:51 AM
mint is completely horrible...errrr

wolfdale
June 5th, 2009, 03:24 AM
I liked Linux Mint. The gnome structure seemed better laid out and in the Intrepid version, booting was much faster than Ubuntu. However, after trying out this distro (and other distros as well), I came back to Ubuntu. Why? Mainly because I know Ubuntu. I started using Ubuntu about a year ago and initially didn't understand much of it. I knew Windows and I do VB6 and NET programming for living but Ubuntu at first was unfamiliar territory for me. I made many mistakes, I bought some books, read ubuntuforums.org religiously and re-installed Ubuntu many times. Now I'm at a stage where I'm familiar with Ubuntu, familiar enough to turn a "vanilla" version of ubuntu into a linux mint and it is this control, knowledge and freedom of choice that keeps me a Ubuntu user. So, in summary, if you are a "power user" who has deep interest in learning linux, Ubuntu is a good choice. If you want something that operates in "schmoe" mode, Linux Mint(Gnome) and Mandriva(KDE) are excellent choices.

Kareeser
June 5th, 2009, 03:48 AM
I hear ya, but guess what, its not his.

Do you know how many millions of hours went into development before he even knew what a Linux was? You think he wrote the kernal, gnome, all those apps?

I most definitely agree with that fact, which is what makes the statement even more unbelievable to begin with. In any case...


I have said this over and over. It has been discussed OVER AND OVER. I'm not sure when people will finally get it through their head that HE RECALLED THE STATEMENT! No offense to anybody in particular, it's annoying the heck out of me that people blindly accuse a distro while taking NO effort into actually checking it out for themselves!

I actually did not know that. Thank you for clearing that up for me. It's good to hear that some good came out of the fiasco :)

Hence, I withdraw my earlier post.

nengracia
June 5th, 2009, 05:00 AM
heres my 2 cents i switched to linux mint from ubuntu about 2 months or so ago and really enjoy it. It comes with compiz config setting manager and gnome-do installed by default which i absolutely love. It also has codecs installed that work great out of the box when in ubuntu it took me about half hour googling just trying to get dvd playback to work properly. i like mintinstall better than add/remove ,do to user reviews. only drawbacks i've seen compared to ubuntu are you have to manually install the gnome-games package. also, there is no "software sources" as far as i've seen so gpp has too be imported via command line which is no big deal. overall i think it's just a little bit better than ubuntu because of the additions the developers have made.

I totally agree with you mamamia. This is precisely the point why mint seems to look like a better choice for newbies like me. In almost every case, a newb would prefer everything working out-of-the-box - user-friendliness (summed-up). It's user interface, as well, is something to behold.

With gparted, compizconfig, gnome do, the codecs, etc., one with limited access to the internet would totally approve to this.

But then again, ubuntuers have a point in its legality and accessibility. True that the codecs and hardware drivers are proprietary. True that most of the added features of mint are readily available in ubuntu repo.

So I guess the deal here is - no matter which flavor you adapt to doesn't matter, it all boils down to what users are comfortable in using.



EDIT:

With this said, I would like to thank all those who participated in this thread. It made me realize that there's no real end to what one has to say about things.

The end result is - Do what you think is best.

Ciao

unknownPoster
June 5th, 2009, 05:29 AM
I recommend Mint over Ubuntu to new Linux users, mostly because I'd be their primary means of support during their transition to Linux. Codec installation for a new user can be intimidating and frightening.

I also prefer MintInstall to Synaptic or "Add/Remove Programs" In my opinion it's much more intuitive.

Bodsda
June 5th, 2009, 07:09 AM
I honestly would never recommend a newbie to a distro were everything works ootb. << That may sound strange, allow me to clarify.

When a new user comes to Ubuntu, s/he will need to learn how to Install software, probably the first thing they will Install is graphics drivers. After that they will install the proprietary codec support.

This is the first moment when they realize that not everything is as it should be, they may see the various warning and info people post about such codecs and the new user may then decide not to use them.

Thats the first big learning curve which is very small, if a distro takes that first few steps away from people then its like teaching a baby to walk, they will be fine every time they have their shiny feature full backpack(Mint) and someone holding their hand(Whoever introduced them to Linux) but as soon as the hand holder is gone the baby falls over.

The user has not learned what makes his system work properly such as knowing that gstreamer is pretty darn useful if you wanna listen to music, or knowing that the xorg.conf file is where you can configure graphical properties.

If a user is hidden from these aspects of linux then how will they ever grow into a well informed competent individual? They wont, they will just sit around complaining that their Doom3 cd doesnt autorun.

I have no problems with people being user friendly, but theres a difference between being friendly and wrapping them in 30ft of bubble wrap in case the big bad terminal comes and eats them.

SLEEPER_V
June 5th, 2009, 01:29 PM
I honestly would never recommend a newbie to a distro were everything works ootb. << That may sound strange, allow me to clarify.

When a new user comes to Ubuntu, s/he will need to learn how to Install software, probably the first thing they will Install is graphics drivers. After that they will install the proprietary codec support.

This is the first moment when they realize that not everything is as it should be, they may see the various warning and info people post about such codecs and the new user may then decide not to use them.

Thats the first big learning curve which is very small, if a distro takes that first few steps away from people then its like teaching a baby to walk, they will be fine every time they have their shiny feature full backpack(Mint) and someone holding their hand(Whoever introduced them to Linux) but as soon as the hand holder is gone the baby falls over.

The user has not learned what makes his system work properly such as knowing that gstreamer is pretty darn useful if you wanna listen to music, or knowing that the xorg.conf file is where you can configure graphical properties.

If a user is hidden from these aspects of linux then how will they ever grow into a well informed competent individual? They wont, they will just sit around complaining that their Doom3 cd doesnt autorun.

I have no problems with people being user friendly, but theres a difference between being friendly and wrapping them in 30ft of bubble wrap in case the big bad terminal comes and eats them.

I have to kindly make a point with your post. I love ubuntu and this and the following is my opinion, dont take it personally.

This thought and attitude is the exact reason ubuntu/linux will never be viable versus ms and apple. Chances are, if you are using a linux distro then you have some tech capabilities. 95% of the people in the world and 85% of the computer owners in the world have NO tech experience. There is a reason why tech support people ask whether or not the apparatus is plugged in. These people are the ones that have to have their OS work out of the box. I have noticed on this forum a pervasive attitude that 'if they cant figure it out themselves, then ubuntu isnt for them'. I've seen this attitude in the general forum and the Brainstorming forum. It is what is throttling linux. Ubuntu should have as close to perfect functionality and compatibility as can be managed straight out of the box. One thing I have noticed is the repositories and synaptic etc is old hat for most people here, but for a person coming from windows it is a little daunting. They are taken for granted. Another is the driver issue. Honestly, considering the repositories arent the first place people will look, perhaps we should have driver search and retrieve program with an icon on the desktop. That would be simple and a gentle reminder that ubuntu is different. Anyway, thats my opinion. Get upset if you like, most likely these thoughts have already been considered, but its my spin.

meeples
June 5th, 2009, 03:04 PM
my thoughts on linux mint?

i think its out of the box much more appealing to the eye.

i think it would be a great starter distro for newbies, because it has a similar desktop layout to windows.

i think it does well to provide community based themes out of the box.

but i prefer ubuntu. basically all linux mint is, ubuntu with different packages added on default, some new themes, and only one panel.

its just a nicely repackaged ubuntu (which is a very nicely repackaged debian) but i do think ubuntu can learn from it aswell, with things like compizconfig as a default app and gparted.


i will stick to ubuntu :)

Tibuda
June 5th, 2009, 03:13 PM
I agree it is good to learn about package management, but disagree about xorg.conf.

WorfSOM
June 5th, 2009, 06:39 PM
I love Ubuntu but i also love Mint.

I am not a Linux newbie by any means, i have been using it for about 4 years now, but i do appreciate the 'out of the box' experience it provides and the overall look is very appealing.

gn2
June 5th, 2009, 06:46 PM
Don't like Mint Menu
Don't like Mint default theme
Don't like Live CD only, no Alternate or Mini CD in Mint
Don't like poor 64-bit support

aysiu
June 5th, 2009, 06:52 PM
Don't like Mint Menu
Don't like Mint default theme
Don't like Live CD only, no Alternate or Mini CD in Mint
Don't like poor 64-bit support
Tell us how you really feel.

mancha
June 5th, 2009, 07:02 PM
Not having ever tried Mint, I'm confined to my opinion of it based on what I hear from others.

Linux Mint's creator, on one occasion, mentioned that those not protesting against some sort of political confict should cease using the distro. I took offense not to the political aspect, but the fact that Clem decided to make Mint "off-limits" in general.

I feel as though it goes against the spirit of open-source software, and thus I have no intention of trying it.

Unless he eats his words, of course... but I don't want this discussion to get political. Keep it tame, people!


Him being Irish explains why he may do something like that given the past history of occupation.

jbruced
June 5th, 2009, 07:19 PM
Tell us how you really feel.

haha

schauerlich
June 5th, 2009, 07:46 PM
There is a reason why tech support people ask whether or not the apparatus is plugged in. These people are the ones that have to have their OS work out of the box.

I consider myself quite technically proficient, and I'd much rather something work without me having to convince it to. I guess I'm just another senile grandmother...

SLEEPER_V
June 5th, 2009, 08:10 PM
I consider myself quite technically proficient, and I'd much rather something work without me having to convince it to. I guess I'm just another senile grandmother...
Thats completely alright. I'm not technically proficient, and I like to fiddle, fondle, and generally mess with stuff. But you get my point, most folk just want it to work properly with their hardware.

uberdonkey5
June 5th, 2009, 08:51 PM
I have to kindly make a point with your post. I love ubuntu and this and the following is my opinion, dont take it personally.

This thought and attitude is the exact reason ubuntu/linux will never be viable versus ms and apple. Chances are, if you are using a linux distro then you have some tech capabilities. 95% of the people in the world and 85% of the computer owners in the world have NO tech experience. There is a reason why tech support people ask whether or not the apparatus is plugged in. These people are the ones that have to have their OS work out of the box. I have noticed on this forum a pervasive attitude that 'if they cant figure it out themselves, then ubuntu isnt for them'. I've seen this attitude in the general forum and the Brainstorming forum. It is what is throttling linux. Ubuntu should have as close to perfect functionality and compatibility as can be managed straight out of the box. One thing I have noticed is the repositories and synaptic etc is old hat for most people here, but for a person coming from windows it is a little daunting. They are taken for granted. Another is the driver issue. Honestly, considering the repositories arent the first place people will look, perhaps we should have driver search and retrieve program with an icon on the desktop. That would be simple and a gentle reminder that ubuntu is different. Anyway, thats my opinion. Get upset if you like, most likely these thoughts have already been considered, but its my spin.

this thread is extremely interesting to me.. I've been an ubuntu user for almost 2 years, but I DO NOT know my file system well, where to fiddle with the graphical interface etc. I'm not a techy. I love ubuntu, and have some basic knowledge, but most of my fiddling is beyond my comprehension! I edit some files and type in some sudo commands and it all works out. One day (I say to myself) I will learn what I actually did :D

gn2
June 5th, 2009, 08:57 PM
Tell us how you really feel.

I suppose for balance I should add that I feel it's the best option to recommend to new users of Linux as a first distro.

aysiu
June 5th, 2009, 08:58 PM
I suppose for balance I should add that I feel it's the best option to recommend to new users of Linux as a first distro.
I was being a little bit cheeky.

I actually agree with you in that respect. There's something about Linux Mint that doesn't sit right with my sensibilities. If I install it, I end up just undoing all of its stuff anyway (I favor the Human theme, a top panel, no Mint Menu, and no funny messages in the terminal), so I stick with vanilla Ubuntu myself.

But if a new user wanted to try Linux, I'd probably give her Linux Mint before Ubuntu.

Sarai the Geek
June 5th, 2009, 09:12 PM
I have to kindly make a point with your post. I love ubuntu and this and the following is my opinion, dont take it personally.

This thought and attitude is the exact reason ubuntu/linux will never be viable versus ms and apple. Chances are, if you are using a linux distro then you have some tech capabilities. 95% of the people in the world and 85% of the computer owners in the world have NO tech experience. There is a reason why tech support people ask whether or not the apparatus is plugged in. These people are the ones that have to have their OS work out of the box. I have noticed on this forum a pervasive attitude that 'if they cant figure it out themselves, then ubuntu isnt for them'. I've seen this attitude in the general forum and the Brainstorming forum. It is what is throttling linux. Ubuntu should have as close to perfect functionality and compatibility as can be managed straight out of the box. One thing I have noticed is the repositories and synaptic etc is old hat for most people here, but for a person coming from windows it is a little daunting. They are taken for granted. Another is the driver issue. Honestly, considering the repositories arent the first place people will look, perhaps we should have driver search and retrieve program with an icon on the desktop. That would be simple and a gentle reminder that ubuntu is different. Anyway, thats my opinion. Get upset if you like, most likely these thoughts have already been considered, but its my spin.

I think you really hit the nail on the head here. The only thing I would add, though, is that if people DON'T get a basic idea of how their computer works, they'll never be able to fix it on their own. If they're running Windows or Apple or some other system that has its own dedicated tech support folks that are paid to put up with people who may or may not know what they're doing- then that's not a bad thing. But in our culture, the idea is to help each other out- someone who continually only asks for help and never gives it will eventually be viewed as a drain on the community. What I like about Linux is the variety of distros gives you the opportunity to learn about your computer at your own pace, and a person who uses linux as their main operating system will almost certainly have a better idea of what it is going on behind the screen than someone who has only ever used windows or osx.

kamitsukai
June 5th, 2009, 09:52 PM
My thoughts?

#1 concerning codecs.

Staying legal.

Mint is pretty much a small organization, great ideas etc.. but won't get sued because there's no money, or more specifically, market penetration there.

In order to have all the codecs needed legally, money and contracts would need to be transferred.

It's like the pirate bay, ubuntu can say they didn't load anything, it was the end user who did it.

Unfortunately, this is the way of the world.

With Microsh*t and Appl* copy writing everything in sight, the true business maverick is stifled(and sometimes only when they become successful and have money that they find themselves being sued).

This stuff is so complicated, I don't think any judge or jury could make an informed decision anyway.

So it's CYA (cover your as?)

#2, it's not free as in speech.

You cannot control your named OS if nvidia(drivers), sun(Java), adobe(flash), etc. won't give you the source code to control. How do you really know what they're doing in the code?

Again, we need it, so make it easy to get, but don't include it.

CYA (cover your , ya you know what I mean)


I think Canonical is doing pretty good at it.

Bruce

Actually even if Linux Mint was as big as Ubuntu It still wouldn't get sued! it's completely legal to have all those codec's installed within most of the world (excluding the US and I believe Japan?)

besides mint also has a codec free version;)

markharding557
June 5th, 2009, 10:02 PM
mint is a customised ubuntu nothing more

Groucho Marxist
June 5th, 2009, 10:06 PM
After trying out Linux Mint, I found that it's a bit advanced than Ubuntu:

Some of the most basic parts of an Ubuntu environment have been preloaded like gparted, compizconfig, media codecs, etc.

Realizing that Linux Mint 7 (Gloria) is built around Ubuntu 9.04, why didn't Ubuntu do more?

For some strange reason, my hilariously old Dell Optiplex GX1 computer seems to run Linux Mint 7 smoother than it ran Xubuntu. On a different note, as much as it's convenient to have the proprietary media codecs preinstalled, the process of manually obtaining the information is not terribly difficult.

arcdrag
June 5th, 2009, 10:08 PM
Linux Mint is far better from the casual user's perspective. Its prettier, and they have a far weaker stance on proprietary software which means moving from Windows to Linux Mint is easier than Windows to Ubuntu.

Its an awesome distro for my wife's laptop since all she likes Windows and and I like not constantly having to deal with Viruses and such...but I don't care for it much on my desktop.

arcdrag
June 5th, 2009, 10:18 PM
I have to kindly make a point with your post. I love ubuntu and this and the following is my opinion, dont take it personally.

This thought and attitude is the exact reason ubuntu/linux will never be viable versus ms and apple. Chances are, if you are using a linux distro then you have some tech capabilities. 95% of the people in the world and 85% of the computer owners in the world have NO tech experience. There is a reason why tech support people ask whether or not the apparatus is plugged in. These people are the ones that have to have their OS work out of the box. I have noticed on this forum a pervasive attitude that 'if they cant figure it out themselves, then ubuntu isnt for them'. I've seen this attitude in the general forum and the Brainstorming forum. It is what is throttling linux. Ubuntu should have as close to perfect functionality and compatibility as can be managed straight out of the box. One thing I have noticed is the repositories and synaptic etc is old hat for most people here, but for a person coming from windows it is a little daunting. They are taken for granted. Another is the driver issue. Honestly, considering the repositories arent the first place people will look, perhaps we should have driver search and retrieve program with an icon on the desktop. That would be simple and a gentle reminder that ubuntu is different. Anyway, thats my opinion. Get upset if you like, most likely these thoughts have already been considered, but its my spin.

Well put.

My 2c...when making the transition to Linux I found myself searching online help forums and texts constantly. Most of the time my fix ended up being "go to the terminal and type this in" or "add this line to the end of this configuration file"

Fact of the matter is that most users don't need to know how it works, thy just need to be able to use it to do online shopping,email, or word processing (to name a few)...just like they don't need to know how their car engine works in order to drive it. If I'm under the hood of my car constantly then I'm not going to say "Man this is awesome I get to learn how this works!" Instead I'm going to trade in that car for one I can just put a key into and drive.

That's how I feel about terminals in Linux. They need to be there in order to allow the power users to do the real work under the hood...but there should always be a simple solution via gui in order to provide the user abstraction from all of the processes that they care nothing about.

aysiu
June 5th, 2009, 10:22 PM
It's not just for legal reasons Ubuntu doesn't include those codecs:
http://www.ubuntu.com/community/ubuntustory/philosophy

nickcollie
June 5th, 2009, 10:46 PM
I have to kindly make a point with your post. I love ubuntu and this and the following is my opinion, dont take it personally.

This thought and attitude is the exact reason ubuntu/linux will never be viable versus ms and apple. Chances are, if you are using a linux distro then you have some tech capabilities. 95% of the people in the world and 85% of the computer owners in the world have NO tech experience. There is a reason why tech support people ask whether or not the apparatus is plugged in. These people are the ones that have to have their OS work out of the box. I have noticed on this forum a pervasive attitude that 'if they cant figure it out themselves, then ubuntu isnt for them'. I've seen this attitude in the general forum and the Brainstorming forum. It is what is throttling linux. Ubuntu should have as close to perfect functionality and compatibility as can be managed straight out of the box. One thing I have noticed is the repositories and synaptic etc is old hat for most people here, but for a person coming from windows it is a little daunting. They are taken for granted. Another is the driver issue. Honestly, considering the repositories arent the first place people will look, perhaps we should have driver search and retrieve program with an icon on the desktop. That would be simple and a gentle reminder that ubuntu is different. Anyway, thats my opinion. Get upset if you like, most likely these thoughts have already been considered, but its my spin.

Absolutely.
If there is a distro out there that makes linux more accessible to more people that is a good thing surely. For Mint, for Linux for Open Source in general. Making it easy to get in to Linux is a good thing. People can then make a decision about whether they want to look under the hood or not.
If one doesn't make it easy to get in to, and in fact quite often actively make it difficult, this forum is going to be full of cardigan wearing oddballs with no friends. No offense to cardigan wearing oddballs.....

Nik

XubuRoxMySox
June 5th, 2009, 11:05 PM
Fact of the matter is that most users don't need to know how it works, thy just need to be able to use it to do online shopping,email, or word processing (to name a few)...just like they don't need to know how their car engine works in order to drive it. If I'm under the hood of my car constantly then I'm not going to say "Man this is awesome I get to learn how this works!" Instead I'm going to trade in that car for one I can just put a key into and drive.

You truly speak for the majority of computer users out there - the ones we are hoping to reach.

It is curious in the extreme that some of the very people who go "Yippieeeee" every time Linux is mentioned in some mainstream publication are the same ones who hold ordinary computer users in such low esteem.

Linux is certainly "ready for the desktop," but much of the Linux community is not ready for the desktop user.

-Robin
http://img37.imageshack.us/img37/9238/lmbsig.png

lancest
June 5th, 2009, 11:33 PM
I don't prefer Mint's policy of naming it's versions in female names. Animal names are better. :) I had some friends use Mint who complained it was too feminine. Also since I believe Ubuntu is the gateway to Linux, I would prefer users learn Ubuntu since it is the real Gnome desktop innovator (IMHO).

schauerlich
June 5th, 2009, 11:54 PM
mint is a customised ubuntu nothing more

Ubuntu is a customised Debian, and nothing more.

Debian is a customised GNU/Linux, and nothing more.

GNU/Linux is a customised Unix-like system, and nothing more.

A Unix-like system...

SuperSonic4
June 6th, 2009, 12:03 AM
Don't really see the point - it's just a more bloated version of ubuntu. I prefer to build my system from the ground up rather than remove stuff.

nitehawk777
June 6th, 2009, 12:28 AM
I don't prefer Mint's policy of naming it's versions in female names. Animal names are better. I had some friends use Mint who complained it was too feminine

Change the color to dark blue (or brown,..etc. etc.)...and change the name of it to "Bruce".....;)

kamitsukai
June 6th, 2009, 12:37 AM
Actually I have to admit I dislike the naming policy as well but I'm not going to hold it's name against it xD

mr-woof
June 6th, 2009, 01:07 AM
I've just installed mint 6 tonight on my old laptop and it's just finishing the upgrade to 7, so I'll see what it's like tomorrow.

arcdrag
June 6th, 2009, 01:12 AM
Don't really see the point - it's just a more bloated version of ubuntu. I prefer to build my system from the ground up rather than remove stuff.

To be fair, you're the complete opposite of the target Linux Mint audience.

dspari1
June 6th, 2009, 01:12 AM
Don't really see the point - it's just a more bloated version of ubuntu. I prefer to build my system from the ground up rather than remove stuff.

...and ubuntu is a more bloated version of debian. You should be using debian with that same logic. ):P

Regenweald
June 6th, 2009, 01:19 AM
To be fair, you're the complete opposite of the target Linux Mint audience.

Very true :) I use Gnome-core and install what i need when i need. Mint would not be for me or anyone like...

nitehawk777
June 6th, 2009, 01:21 AM
..and ubuntu is a more bloated version of debian. You should be using debian with that same logic.

LOL !!!
I built Debian Lenny on my main computer,...then I didn't want to go through all of that on my second 'puter,....so I put Linux Mint on it. Best of both worlds. ;)

bryonak
June 6th, 2009, 01:41 AM
Ubuntu is a customised Debian, and nothing more.

Debian is a customised GNU/Linux, and nothing more.

GNU/Linux is a customised Unix-like system, and nothing more.

A Unix-like system...

One thing I really dislike about the Mint project is the lack of giving credit where it's due.

Sure Ubuntu is a modified Debian, yet they put much more effort into the fork than Mint does (which of course depends on the available resources). This implies that Mint should give at least as much credit to Ubuntu as Ubuntu does to Debian, based on the amount of original work they did.

Now if we compare Ubuntu's extensive Debian credit page (http://www.ubuntu.com/community/ubuntustory/debian) to ... well, there is none at Mint's site.
Last year, they didn't even write that they're an Ubuntu derivative anywhere on their site, but just stated compatibility with Ubuntu's repos as if it were an achievement of their own.
Currently they have nothing but a DistroWatch summary on their about page (http://www.linuxmint.com/about.php)... which states that Mint is forked from Ubuntu, but is written in a way which implies that Mint is now independant.

Also when browsing the Mint forums, I often come across derisive posts about Ubuntu... yet Mint's existance depends on it (much more than Ubuntu on Debian).

So much for the sympathy arguments. There is also that political stuff, but I don't regard it as very significant, especially since he recalled it.


Now for the technical side:
The menu is nicely done and consolidating application installation with mintinstall is a very good idea.
The theme is a matter of taste (I like bright ones, preferably white).
It's obviously a little bit more "bloated" because of the additional programs, but if that improves the experience for non-technical useres, more power to them!
Since Mint doesn't optimise/tune the lower level components, I guess the people who claim it's faster have tried Ubuntu 8.10 and then Mint 9.04.

The codecs... I find it wrong to breach the law, even if its "only" in the US and Japan.
Without the codecs there aren't many significant things (preinstalling gparted doesn't make sense) that Mint offers over Ubuntu. Well, mintinstall might count (I prefer aptitude ;)), but thats one script difference, which you can install in Ubuntu anyway.


Thought experiment:
Everyone can make a better distro than Ubuntu.
Just take the current Ubuntu release, change the wallpaper to something most people will agree is more beautiful than the default background and call it SuperOperatingSystem.
Or install an additional application the majority of people will find useful.

Sometimes I get the impression that Mint is doing little more than that... well they are adding a handful of Python scripts, so it's not just installation of third party programs.
And they modifiy the artwork themselves, so there is some effort.

Now don't get me wrong, there is absolutely nothing bad about releasing a distro in such a way. Many distros are doing little original work.
The only thing that makes me dislike Mint is what I described above: credit.
Their forums are full of ... well, I perceive it as arrogance.

Mainly for this reason I don't recommend Mint to new users (or anybody else...).



EDIT:
Just for contrast...
OpenGEU is based on Ubuntu, and their start page (http://opengeu.intilinux.com/Home.html) honors Ubuntu.
EasyPeasy (http://www.geteasypeasy.com/) even has the title of their site set to "Ubuntu for Netbooks".
CrunchBang (http://crunchbanglinux.org/) makes it very clear that they're an Ubuntu derivate.
etc...
Now compare this with Mint... they avoid putting "Ubuntu" on their start page, you have to dig through the site to even find a mention (on the about page...)

.Maleficus.
June 6th, 2009, 02:36 AM
Mint has nothing I want that I can't get myself. It also comes jam-packed with crap I don't want or need, and is therefore a horrible choice for me.

schauerlich
June 6th, 2009, 02:47 AM
Thought experiment:
Everyone can make a better distro than Ubuntu.
Just take the current Ubuntu release, change the wallpaper to something most people will agree is more beautiful than the default background and call it SuperOperatingSystem.
Or install an additional application the majority of people will find useful.

Most current FOSS software is a customised version of someone else's work. Forks start because people have different ideas of what the software should do. Linux Mint's maintainers have different ideas than Ubuntu's maintainers on a relatively small amount of things, so it makes sense for Mint's maintainers to use a cohesive, well supported, popular distribution as a base on which to implement their ideas.

Linux Mint is in the spirit of FOSS: taking existing software, making changes to it for your own benefit, and then releasing those changes for the benefit of the community. Questions of credit for the work, in the end, are merely squabbles that neither side will be entirely happy with. I suggest people call Ubuntu "Ubuntu GNU/Linux" if the issue of giving credit where credit is due is truly that important to them.

Jackelope
June 6th, 2009, 04:13 AM
What I'd really like to know is whether Mint is actually faster than Ubuntu. I burned Jaunty and Gloria CD's tonight, and could not see a noticeable speed increase either way. Tho Mint did use about 50-70 extra MBs of ram than Ubuntu. But everyone says its "faster." What am I missing?

HappyFeet
June 6th, 2009, 04:17 AM
I'm sure that Ubuntu users can peacefully co-exist with Mint users much more easily than Debian users can with Ubuntu users. If you don't believe me, go to the Debian forums and announce that you use Ubuntu and love it. You will either be ignored or flamed until you start crying like a home sick little girl. I quit going there. They take fanboyism to an epic level. But don't get me wrong, I have used and love Debian also, as they all have their place.

uberlube
June 6th, 2009, 04:30 AM
My first taste of Linux was with Ubuntu but i can honestly say I didnt use it for very long (Not because I didnt like it moreso that my old CPU was ful of crappy hardware that took too long to get configured correctly). After the first week I decided to switch to other flavours to get a taste of using .RPM and YAST and such. I found I felt more at home with apt and sort of stumbled across Mint around the time I made the decision to switch back. I can honestly say that it was love at first boot and Ive never felt the need to try anything else ever since. I whole heartedly respect Ubuntu for without it we would have no Linux Mint (well....im sure that it would probably be named Fedora Mint if that were the case) but I have to say that Clem has taken my enjoyment of Ubuntu to the next level. I dont have to spend time getting all my codecs working after every clean install, it looks sexy OOTB, and he has developed some very handy innovations (mintinstall, etc.). Also Clem and the CE gang are freely available to talk to about new ideas and bug reports and are quite open minded. Im happy where Im at.

HappyFeet
June 6th, 2009, 05:48 AM
I don't share your enthusiasm for mint's ability to provide codecs, and a few other things, but to me, ubuntu is too easy. Codecs and scripts are not important. But Mint makes for a great live cd. That's what I give it to most people.

DeadSuperHero
June 6th, 2009, 06:48 AM
I don't care much for Mint. It has codecs preinstalled and...what else?

schauerlich
June 6th, 2009, 07:44 AM
I don't care much for Mint. It has codecs preinstalled and...what else?

Some drivers, some tools like mintUpdate and mintInstall, a theme, mintMenu, and the surprising ability to actually work sometimes. YMMV.

gn2
June 6th, 2009, 09:47 AM
The codecs... I find it wrong to breach the law, even if its "only" in the US and Japan.

But Mint doesn't break any such law, they have the "Universal" version for people in those countries.

The Toxic Mite
June 6th, 2009, 09:54 AM
Oh, God!

I am really getting sick of people who make these "rant threads".

Linux Mint is Linux Mint. That's all I have to say

learningcurb
June 6th, 2009, 09:56 AM
In terms of UI, Mint's MintMenu is a pretty nice piece of UI work. It reminds me of KDE's menu but in a Gnome enviroment. MintInstall is also nice, it's like Add/Remove Programs but with a rating system.

However, I'd rather stick with a reliable distribution like Ubuntu, but I think Ubuntu should take a close look at some of Mint's UI improvements and consider incorporating them.

bryonak
June 6th, 2009, 01:24 PM
Questions of credit for the work, in the end, are merely squabbles that neither side will be entirely happy with.

Credit is very important.
Maybe not so much for the users, but it is for FOSS devs.
In FOSS, we don't have licenses that require money for specific use cases, we don't have trade secrets, NDAs or similar. We don't hear "You got your money, now shut up!". We don't have direct, tangible compensation for sharing our work.
All we have is recognition, fame, "bragging rights"... credit.
Of course we also have the fact that we help building a communitiy in which we can use a plethora of other software... still prestige within the community is important.

Just for example, the author of Fink turned away from FOSS because the two largest distributors of his software wouldn't give him due credit.
Or take the Screenlets project, which was seriously crippled for many months because the lead devs couldn't agree on credit issues.
Yes it seems childish at first, but it's the main (or at least most direct) compensation for sharing.


Most current FOSS software is a customised version of someone else's work.


Depends. GNOME is mostly original. As is KDE (AFAIK written from scratch). Or Firefox. The whole point of the GNU project is that it's not derived. The kernel is obviously orignal too. etc...

I know, that's not what you meant.
The point is, when you as a FOSS developer base your work on someone other's, you should give tribute.
As example, see Sun's OO.org -> Novell's go-OO. Ubuntu uses go-OO by deafult, yet the splash screen at every start gives full credit to Sun (that is, Novell didn't change it).

Now distributions mainly distribute (package) other software, and they preserve recognition.
In your menu, you see "Firefox", not "Ubuntu Web Browser". You see "OpenOffice Word Processor", not "Ubuntu Word Processor".
So when repackaging a program, you keep it's name and it's creator's "advertisement".

But what do you do when repackaging a distribution? In my opinion, you shouldn't go about renaming as much as possible and feigning independance when it's not reality.
This very much reminds me of a school kid that has come across some free web forum software and replaces all author instances in the source with their own name in order to brag in front of their colleagues (witnessed this years ago ;)).

The other Ubuntu derivatives I mentioned are giving recognition in an appropriate way. Most FOSS projects are, for that matter... it's expected behaviour.


I'm sure that Ubuntu users can peacefully co-exist with Mint users much more easily than Debian users can with Ubuntu users. If you don't believe me, go to the Debian forums and announce that you use Ubuntu and love it. You will either be ignored or flamed until you start crying like a home sick little girl. I quit going there. They take fanboyism to an epic level. But don't get me wrong, I have used and love Debian also, as they all have their place.

What I'm more interested in is how much derisive postings about Debian you find on the Ubuntuforums. I'd claim less than Ubuntu mockery on Mint's (and way less than that after normalising by user numbers...).
On the other hand, I imagine that Mint bashing here would see a sharp rise if Mint was going to get a multitude of Ubuntu's install base (i.e. much more "success"). That's human nature.


But Mint doesn't break any such law, they have the "Universal" version for people in those countries.

But then it isn't the "complete Mint experience". Which is the very thing that Mint claims over Ubuntu (just read those upgrade threads there).

Besides, it never took me more than a few minutes of my attention to get the codecs I need installed in Ubuntu. Though that probably doesn't apply to new users.

kamitsukai
June 6th, 2009, 01:27 PM
Ther's been great thought put into this "there would be no mint if ubuntu didnt exist" bit thats why some people have been working on a mint which is based on debian (currentley stalled?...dunno lol) but I love being able to use ubuntu repositories in mint =]

I also started out with ubuntu but when I tried mint the first thing which got me hooked was that it was a ubuntu that really did "just work"

and now I've gorwn to love the mint menu and all the little mint add-ons (thats what they really are) and I think in a few years time mint will be completley different from ubuntu it will still be a fork of ubuntu but it will be so customised and slick you wont be able to see the simmilarities =]

kamitsukai
June 6th, 2009, 01:31 PM
But then it isn't the "complete Mint experience". Which is the very thing that Mint claims over Ubuntu (just read those upgrade threads there).

Besides, it never took me more than a few minutes of my attention to get the codecs I need installed in Ubuntu. Though that probably doesn't apply to new users.

yer but there's an Icon under the Sound & Video section of the menu you just click that and it will install everything! it even tells you that after you've installed the universal mint;)

learningcurb
June 6th, 2009, 06:32 PM
Does Mint ever send any of it's custom applications upstream to Ubuntu? I am pretty sure they do not which is too bad since MintMenu is a nice progam. Maybe you could simply download Mint packages and install them on an Ubuntu system though I'm not sure if that would cause instability.

mamamia88
June 6th, 2009, 06:49 PM
i don't like mint menu thats the first thing i got rid of when i installed mint. gnome-menu better organized and if i need to search for an app thats what gnome-do is for

aysiu
June 6th, 2009, 06:54 PM
Does Mint ever send any of it's custom applications upstream to Ubuntu? I am pretty sure they do not which is too bad since MintMenu is a nice progam. Maybe you could simply download Mint packages and install them on an Ubuntu system though I'm not sure if that would cause instability.
I would imagine the source is open for those apps, but I'm not sure if Ubuntu would even accept those changes, regardless.

For the end user, it doesn't make much of a difference, as you can just add the Mint repositories to Ubuntu and install those things on an otherwise vanilla Ubuntu.

HappyFeet
June 6th, 2009, 06:57 PM
But then it isn't the "complete Mint experience".

Is that anything like the Jimi Hendrix Experience?

Anyway, mint has its place. I recommend it to lazy newbs who can't be bothered to configure anything. If I am doing the installing for them, then I will install Ubuntu. There's really nothing in mint that is "must have".

jbruced
June 6th, 2009, 07:04 PM
Actually even if Linux Mint was as big as Ubuntu It still wouldn't get sued! it's completely legal to have all those codec's installed within most of the world (excluding the US and I believe Japan?)

besides mint also has a codec free version;)



I think being sued for millions of dollars anywhere (US, Japan, Canada wherever) probably wouldn't be such a good thing ;-)

There are companies out there that do no research and coding anymore, all they do is collect royalties and look for targets to sue.

Why did M$ sue Garmin and not Linux Mint? Linux Mint does offer and support a fat16 file system doesn't it?

schauerlich
June 6th, 2009, 07:12 PM
Anyway, mint has its place. I recommend it to lazy newbs who can't be bothered to configure anything.

Or non-"newbs" who are tired of having to hack their OS to get it to work properly, like the linux environment, and just want to get ish done.

If technical skill required to properly set up an OS was directly proportional to the technical skill of the user, why doesn't Linus use Gentoo? Sometimes, you just want to use your computer.


And when it comes to distributions, ease of installation has actually been one of my main issues - I'm a technical person, but I have a very specific area of interest, and I don't want to fight the rest. So the only distributions I have actively avoided are the ones that are known to be "overly technical" - like the ones that encourage you to compile your own programs etc.

Yeah, I can do it, but it kind of defeats the whole point of a distribution for me. So I like the ones that have a name of being easy to use.

http://linuxpoison.blogspot.com/2008/07/linus-torvalds-uses-fedora-core-9.html

Sure, I can set up an arch system. I have before. But sometimes, I just want to use my computer, and not have to fight with it. That's why I use Mint. I'll continue to use distributions like Debian and Arch, but not as my main OS. They're fun to learn on, but in the end, I just want to do what I want to do and not wrestle with the rest.

HappyFeet
June 6th, 2009, 07:26 PM
Or non-"newbs" who are tired of having to hack their OS to get it to work properly

What hacking are you talking about? I don't have to hack anything on my computer to run ubuntu, and neither have my friends. I think you are being overly dramatic to prove a point. If you like mint, use it. But don't make it seem like ubuntu is akin to arch or slackware.

HappyFeet
June 6th, 2009, 07:30 PM
But sometimes, I just want to use my computer, and not have to fight with it.
What "fighting" are you talking about? Ubuntu does, and always has worked perfectly for me and people I know. Why do you persist on being an antagonist? If I had to "fight" to use anything, I would not use it. Ubuntu could not be much easier.

schauerlich
June 6th, 2009, 07:33 PM
What hacking are you talking about? I don't have to hack anything on my computer to run ubuntu, and neither have my friends. I think you are being overly dramatic to prove a point. If you like mint, use it. But don't make it seem like ubuntu is akin to arch or slackware.

In this context, hacking means "Going to unnecessary measures to get something to work when it ought to work in the first place." I'll admit it was hyperbole.

arcdrag
June 6th, 2009, 07:36 PM
What I'd really like to know is whether Mint is actually faster than Ubuntu. I burned Jaunty and Gloria CD's tonight, and could not see a noticeable speed increase either way. Tho Mint did use about 50-70 extra MBs of ram than Ubuntu. But everyone says its "faster." What am I missing?

Its not noticeably faster or slower for me on my laptop...but I haven't actually done any benchmarks or anything on it. Personally, as others have stated, its Ubuntu with a handful of custom themes and apps and a list of default installs that better fits the needs of the casual pc user.

XubuRoxMySox
June 6th, 2009, 07:42 PM
"Hacking" and "fighting?" Okay, configuring. Searching, installing, tweaking, whatever you want to call it.

On some computers, Ubuntu simply doesn't "just work" as promised. I had to spend the first couple of days searching the forums and tech sites for what drivers I needed, locating .deb repositories and files, downloading them to a pen drive and transferring them to my Ubuntu computer. It was three days of hacking/fighting/configuring/whatever-you-want-to-call-it before my Ubuntu finally "just worked." Admittedly, I was a total newbie and it prob'ly wouldn't take three days for most people... but I dare say, most newbies would have tried for an hour or two and then gave up, gone back to Windows and walked away grumbling, "Linux sucks."

Just because you didn't experience any difficulty doesn't mean no one else will, especially those of us who can't run out and buy new hardware to make a computer adaptable to an operating system.

It's the other way around. The OS should adapt to the computer whenever possible, not force computer owners to spend money on new hardware to adapt the machine to the OS.

-Robin

HappyFeet
June 6th, 2009, 07:45 PM
In this context, hacking means "Going to unnecessary measures to get something to work when it ought to work in the first place." I'll admit it was hyperbole.

You then, must define "unnecessary" differently than I do. Perhaps you should buy a pc with mint preinstalled so you won't have to spend the 30 min "hacking and cracking" to get your computer the way you want it. I myself don't need to be spoon fed, but obviously there are people out there that can barely tie their own shoe laces, let alone install the medibuntu repos and add their own codecs. (oh, the horror) ):P

I'm not bashing mint or anyone that uses it, but when someone makes it seem like ubuntu makes you jump through hoops to do anything, then it's obvious you don't have patience for anything that requires effort.

HappyFeet
June 6th, 2009, 07:56 PM
It's the other way around. The OS should adapt to the computer whenever possible, not force computer owners to spend money on new hardware to adapt the machine to the OS.

-Robin

Then maybe ALL distros should just disband and start supporting mint only. It is obviously perfect and the solid choice for everyone in the world. What was I thinking when I installed ubuntu? I must be crazy. I am very sorry for disagreeing with you, as you speak the truth and everything I say is obviously FUD. Mint FTW!

BTW, I'm not responding anymore, as I need time to go around the web and tell all that will listen that ubuntu is not the way to go, and mint will rule the world. Forgive my insolence.

schauerlich
June 6th, 2009, 07:59 PM
You then, must define "unnecessary" differently than I do. Perhaps you should buy a pc with mint preinstalled so you won't have to spend the 30 min "hacking and cracking" to get your computer the way you want it.

I installed Mint three days ago, and it worked fine. My main problems with Linux in general that kept me from using it full time were poor dual monitor support and poor wifi support. Both of these worked fine when I installed Mint. That made me happy. I like it when things work they way they ought to.


I myself don't need to be spoon fed, but obviously there are people out there that can barely tie their own shoe laces, let alone install the medibuntu repos and add their own codecs. (oh, the horror) ):P

I don't need to be spoon fed either. Like I said, it's not that I can't set up Ubuntu (or Arch for that matter) properly, it's just that I don't see why I should have to.


I'm not bashing mint or anyone that uses it,

I found your last quote pretty condescending.


but when someone makes it seem like ubuntu makes you jump through hoops to do anything, then it's obvious you don't have patience for anything that requires effort.

I consider adding a repository and installing software that for most people is a basic functionality they expect out of their computer to be unnecessary.

The only thing testing my patience right now is the widespread ignorance and blatant fanboyism that seems to permeate these forums. And yet I continue to post here. I honestly wonder why.

Wait, I know...
http://xkcd.com/386/

XubuRoxMySox
June 6th, 2009, 08:02 PM
I myself don't need to be spoon fed, but obviously there are people out there that can barely tie their own shoe laces, let alone install the medibuntu repos and add their own codecs. (oh, the horror) ):P

I'm not bashing mint or anyone that uses it, but ... it's obvious you don't have patience for anything that requires effort.

And that attitude is what keeps newbies from Linux. The hypocrisy here absolutely amazes me:

The very people who jump for joy and go "Yippieeeee" every time Linux is mentioned in a mainstream publication; the ones who encourage the increased popularity of Linux - are all too often the same people who chase newbies away with attitudes like yours.

Look at it this way. I want to buy a car. I just want to turn the key and drive it. While I understand that there are some basics to learn when buying a new car (how and when to check and add oil, coolant, tire pressure, etc), I want the darn thing to "just work," so I can spend my time using the car to do what I bought it for. It doesn't mean I'm lazy or stupid if I am not willing to study all the tech manuals to do my own tune-ups and brake adjustments at home. I have the same attitude towards major appliances, elevators, airliners, trains, and buildings. And computers. And I won't apologize for it.

MOST computer users these days buy their computers the same way. They want to run applications, not the OS.

As I've said in other threads, it ain't that Linux isn't ready for the desktop, it's that so much of the Linux community is not ready for the desktop user.

-Robin

mamamia88
June 6th, 2009, 08:06 PM
i agree just because you want everything to work as well as possible out of the box and don't want to spend a few hours making things work like they should after a clean install does not mean you are lazy.

zakany
June 6th, 2009, 08:08 PM
I put Mint on a bootable thumb drive. I like it.

Sarai the Geek
June 6th, 2009, 08:20 PM
Wow, chill out ladies, seriously. You are turning what was an enlightening dialogue into a histrionic slugfest, and it's not appreciated.

For the record, though, it's a bit insulting to refer to Mint users as "lazy newbs"- I am neither lazy nor a newb- I spent six months on Ubuntu before switching to Mint, and it isn't any easier to use than Ubuntu (not that Ubuntu is in the slightest bit difficult to use). The main reason I decided to try out Mint was because I liked the tighter knit community and easy communication with the devs. If you have an idea, you can log onto irc and often Clem or another of the devs will be right there, willing to talk with you about it!

kamitsukai
June 7th, 2009, 12:13 PM
I think being sued for millions of dollars anywhere (US, Japan, Canada wherever) probably wouldn't be such a good thing ;-)

There are companies out there that do no research and coding anymore, all they do is collect royalties and look for targets to sue.

Why did M$ sue Garmin and not Linux Mint? Linux Mint does offer and support a fat16 file system doesn't it?

yes but Linux mint is based in ireland which is part of the Eu hence no software patents it's up to the end user which version they use just like with ubuntu

keplerspeed
June 7th, 2009, 01:16 PM
Wow, certainly getting a bit animated guys... Why are we arguing over more or less... THE SAME DISTRO!!! Lol, I have used mint and ubuntu, but I use ubuntu now because I like it. I like mint. But I like ubuntu more.

However, my partner uses mint. Why? I dunno, i think I was using mint at the time when we installed it on her laptop.

Both distros are very very similar, with equivalent learning curves. Stop winging and enjoy your OS!

.Maleficus.
June 7th, 2009, 01:34 PM
For the record, though, it's a bit insulting to refer to Mint users as "lazy newbs"
It may be a bit insulting but really, you can't honestly say the majority of people using Mint (or Ubuntu for that matter) are Linux power-users. There are a handful but for the most part, they are the n00bs of Linux. It's fine, everyone needs to start somewhere, but it's true nonetheless.

uberlube
June 7th, 2009, 01:46 PM
It may be a bit insulting but really, you can't honestly say the majority of people using Mint (or Ubuntu for that matter) are Linux power-users. There are a handful but for the most part, they are the n00bs of Linux. It's fine, everyone needs to start somewhere, but it's true nonetheless.
Im a power user and Ive been using Mint for a LONG time. Im sick of purists coming around poisoning our discussions with their narrow minded views and opinions. People use distros for different reasons, whether it be a guy who wants to spend the extra time setting up a distro such as Arch or the guy who uses Mint because he wants to contribute to a project that he sees has a future.

.Maleficus.
June 7th, 2009, 01:52 PM
Im a power user and Ive been using Mint for a LONG time. Im sick of purists coming around poisoning our discussions with their narrow minded views and opinions. People use distros for different reasons, whether it be a guy who wants to spend the extra time setting up a distro such as Arch or the guy who uses Mint because he wants to contribute to a project that he sees has a future.
As I said, there are Mint power users, but not a whole lot. And I realize people use different distros for different reasons, I don't use Ubuntu or Mint because I don't like them. They don't bring anything to the table I can't do myself and have lots of stuff I don't need.


And I'm far from a Linux purist.

adrianx
June 7th, 2009, 02:25 PM
I seem to be having more problems with Jaunty than Gloria at the moment. Not that I'm saying Mint is better.... maybe Jaunty is slightly more bleeding edge?

Anyway, I'm becoming more and more distro-agnostic nowadays. The distro wars are getting a bit silly, seeing as there are more than enough Windows vs. Linux vs. Mac arguments.

Linux is Linux.

bryonak
June 7th, 2009, 09:36 PM
The discussion on page 9 and 10 gets slightly awry... a bit more understanding of the other's viewpoint would be really helpful, without such sarcasm/overstatement/ad hominem counters ;)

From my perspective Ubuntu isn't noticeably harder to use than Mint... but feel free to discuss.
When looking at the code base the two distros are, like keplerspeed said, almost identical (the difference vanishes even in comparison with Debian <-> Ubuntu).


yer but there's an Icon under the Sound & Video section of the menu you just click that and it will install everything! it even tells you that after you've installed the universal mint;)

Oh, I didn't pay attention to that... So we can summarise that Mint offers a simpler way to install codecs. In Ubuntu Rhythmbox and Totem ask for specific codec collections on demand while Mint offers a batch installation.


Is that anything like the Jimi Hendrix Experience?


I really had to go and look that up... well, my mother might give you an answer :P


I seem to be having more problems with Jaunty than Gloria at the moment. Not that I'm saying Mint is better.... maybe Jaunty is slightly more bleeding edge?


Hmm, could you elaborate on how that would be possible?


Like I said, I do dislike Mint's inter-community behaviour.. But that's no reason to badmouth the project!

calrogman
June 7th, 2009, 09:41 PM
One of the best distros for showing off with, I personally recommend it.

adrianx
June 7th, 2009, 10:48 PM
Hmm, could you elaborate on how that would be possible?
Well, for some reason in Jaunty my HP printer gets re-detected every time I switch it off (and sometimes when I switch it on) :confused:. I have one hal device URI and at least 4 USB device URIs (and counting) for the same printer. Network printing does not work for me in Jaunty. Not so with Mint 7, using the exact same steps. B.t.w. I have added a "me too" to a bug report, but have not had any reply. Apparently the problem was fixed already in Hardy... not for me, it wasn't. :)

Also, the modsetting thing doesn't really work with my ATI HD 3200 card. In Jaunty it switches from bootsplash (I think it's called), to black screen to console to GDM. In Gloria, I don't see the black screen and console output before switching to GDM. Not yet, anyway. Bear in mind that I use the same propriety driver on the same hardware for both distros. The xorg.conf files are also identical.

jamieh
June 8th, 2009, 12:21 AM
I used Mint back in the days of Bianca, but I like Ubuntu better, it just seems a bit snappier.

mamamia88
June 8th, 2009, 12:30 AM
never mind found in synaptic

drawkcab
June 8th, 2009, 03:34 AM
ok, just installed mint on my mom's laptop...mint 7 is pretty slick

eolson
June 8th, 2009, 03:48 AM
My experience was Ho-Hum! Went back to Ubuntu. That being said, it's that way with most distro's. Other than the look and feel, they're all the same under the hood. You bring up a terminal and work from the command line and linux is linux is unix is unix is linux for the most part. Some differneces, but minor.

pbpersson
June 8th, 2009, 03:53 AM
if a distro takes that first few steps away from people then its like teaching a baby to walk, they will be fine every time they have their shiny feature full backpack(Mint) and someone holding their hand(Whoever introduced them to Linux) but as soon as the hand holder is gone the baby falls over.


Ubuntu does TONS of stuff for us out of the box. If I was told to run Gentoo or some other "complicated" Linux I would be lost.




If a user is hidden from these aspects of linux then how will they ever grow into a well informed competent individual? They wont, they will just sit around complaining that their Doom3 cd doesnt autorun.


If the owners of cars are isolated from hand-cranking their engines to start them and electric starters are added to every car, when the starter breaks they will just sit around complaining that their cars won't autorun
;)

Perhaps hiding the user from the complicated inner workings of machines is what progress is supposed to be about.

pbpersson
June 8th, 2009, 03:57 AM
I seem to be having more problems with Jaunty than Gloria at the moment. Not that I'm saying Mint is better.... maybe Jaunty is slightly more bleeding edge?


To create Gloria they started with Jaunty and added more things to it. If you are having problems with Jaunty, maybe you are missing some stuff.

pbpersson
June 8th, 2009, 04:04 AM
95% of the people in the world and 85% of the computer owners in the world have NO tech experience. There is a reason why tech support people ask whether or not the apparatus is plugged in.

I was working in the tech department of a software development firm and some customer called and said, "A message appeared and said my hard drive is full, is that true?"

Now....this is like calling the manufacturer of your car stereo and asking them if your gas tank is empty.

I wish that people out there would get a clue! :confused:

Bios Element
June 8th, 2009, 04:07 AM
I actually started a review on mint. Quit two days in after I decided the Mint team simply didn't have the end users best intrests in mind. #1 issue being the firefox/google search stupidity. I shouldn't have to dig around on blogs to find a patch to put firefox BACK the way it started. I'm actually surprised that mozilla is letting it slide since their crappy google custom search (for ad money) makes the firefox brand look bad.

arcdrag
June 8th, 2009, 04:45 AM
Thats the first big learning curve which is very small, if a distro takes that first few steps away from people then its like teaching a baby to walk, they will be fine every time they have their shiny feature full backpack(Mint) and someone holding their hand(Whoever introduced them to Linux) but as soon as the hand holder is gone the baby falls over.


Surprisingly, people once used almost the exact same argument when the automatic transmission was invented. They thought it would be impossible to learn how to drive a car if you didn't know how to manually shift gears.

Twitch6000
June 8th, 2009, 05:03 AM
Wow this age old argument...

Is it just me or am I seeing ubuntu fans getting jealous of ubuntu..

Just like alot of debain fans are of ubuntu...

Oh well I am off to try fedora :P.

kamitsukai
June 8th, 2009, 11:13 AM
I actually started a review on mint. Quit two days in after I decided the Mint team simply didn't have the end users best intrests in mind. #1 issue being the firefox/google search stupidity. I shouldn't have to dig around on blogs to find a patch to put firefox BACK the way it started. I'm actually surprised that mozilla is letting it slide since their crappy google custom search (for ad money) makes the firefox brand look bad.

There's nothing wrong with that! just because you didn't like it, it's not hard to change it to the standard plug-in if you wish but considering the the lead developer Clem has used the proceeds to take a 6 month sabbatical from his main job to work harder on the mint project I think it is well worth it

Bios Element
June 10th, 2009, 05:15 AM
There's nothing wrong with that! just because you didn't like it, it's not hard to change it to the standard plug-in if you wish but considering the the lead developer Clem has used the proceeds to take a 6 month sabbatical from his main job to work harder on the mint project I think it is well worth it

Yes it is. Firstly, I tried their official "plug-in" patch. Doesn't work. It's a hacky way to fix a problem that shouldn't exist. Simple as that. And I'm still amazed that Mozilla isn't cracking down on that seeing how adamantly they demand Firefox be exactly as they ship it.

EDIT: Oh, And just because "I" don't like it? I've yet to see ANYONE post saying they prefer the crappy custom search besides the devs and obviously they make money from it. So no need to act like I'm alone in this.

Sarai the Geek
June 10th, 2009, 06:32 AM
Yes it is. Firstly, I tried their official "plug-in" patch. Doesn't work. It's a hacky way to fix a problem that shouldn't exist. Simple as that. And I'm still amazed that Mozilla isn't cracking down on that seeing how adamantly they demand Firefox be exactly as they ship it.

EDIT: Oh, And just because "I" don't like it? I've yet to see ANYONE post saying they prefer the crappy custom search besides the devs and obviously they make money from it. So no need to act like I'm alone in this.

Of course, no one has posted that they prefer the default search- it's unsightly and unhelpful. No one likes it!

But it's not the Mint devs' fault, they're just trying to make money so they can improve the operating system. Mint isn't like Ubuntu, we don't have a cush corporate sponsor willing to pay any and all bills: we have to raise the money to host the servers and spread the word solely through donations and advertisements. So Google offers to give us a bunch of money, which we can use to maybe actually pay our devs a little bit for their hard work, or perhaps get rid of some of those horrible advertisements on the home page... would anyone in their right mind turn that down?

A problem with a firefox plugin is really not a great reason to cast aside an entire operating system. Even if you can't get their "hack" to work, editing the .xml file as they instruct should work. Or, if you don't want to go through the work, how about downloading firefox from the Ubuntu repos that are enabled by default in Mint? A few clicks in synaptic and you get the Ubuntu version, it's really not that difficult.

I don't mean to be inflammatory here, but I do rather think that sort of attitude is contrary to the spirit of the Linux community. Despite what you may imply, I hardly think the Mint devs are in this for the big fat paycheck and plush benefits- that stuff is best left to the Microsoft employees... :)

CrazyArcher
June 10th, 2009, 08:06 AM
Mint works better for me than Ubuntu. Fewer bugs, smoother ride.

YoungQuiz
June 10th, 2009, 08:22 AM
i'd rather use ubuntu anyday.....it's perfect for me.

i recommend ubuntu to people who are computer savvy

and i recommend mint to people who think my laptop is cool lookin and want to try linux.

kelvin spratt
June 10th, 2009, 09:01 AM
If ever there was a thread to persuade people to ditch Linux and go back to windows this is the formula to use. By slagging of Linux Mint you are slagging off Ubuntu and Linux in general,
Windows if you have not forgotten is based on the principle of not the best not the most secure but a simple operating system that anybody can use thats why it is used by the masses.
So by slagging off other Linux distros that strive to make Linux a bit more friendly all you achieve is sending people back to Windows.
By the way I use Arch/freebsd + Mint for its ease of use

gn2
June 10th, 2009, 09:07 AM
Surprisingly, people once used almost the exact same argument when the automatic transmission was invented. They thought it would be impossible to learn how to drive a car if you didn't know how to manually shift gears.

In the UK if you sit your driving test in a car with an auto box you are not allowed to drive a manual box car until you re-sit your driving test in a manual.

schauerlich
June 10th, 2009, 09:25 AM
In the UK if you sit your driving test in a car with an auto box you are not allowed to drive a manual box car until you re-sit your driving test in a manual.

That sounds annoying and unnecessary. Not unlike most British things...

gn2
June 10th, 2009, 09:27 AM
That sounds annoying and unnecessary. Not unlike most British things...

Don't let that worry you, there's plenty about you uppity colonials that annoys us too! :D

XubuRoxMySox
June 10th, 2009, 09:56 AM
By slagging off other Linux distros that strive to make Linux a bit more friendly all you achieve is sending people back to Windows.

The same thing could be said about any environment or distro that aims to make Linux easier and simpler. I really don't think it's a popularity contest anyway. Making Linux simpler and easier is just the natural next step in the evolution of the OS. Making it kid-friendly and including educational resources (Edubuntu), for example, is a good thing, and it certainly doesn't "send" people to Windows. Quite the opposite. Making it easy for seniors, and accommodating special needs (Orca, for example) is laudible. Having an alternative to Windows that offers better security and freedom from hassle and expense absolutely does not "cause" people to opt for the more insecure hassle.

User-friendliness is simply the normal next step in the evolution of Linux. It has been a long time in coming, and most of us welcome it.

-Robin

kelvin spratt
June 10th, 2009, 10:20 AM
[quote=dixiedancer;7431982]
User-friendliness is simply the normal next step in the evolution of Linux. It has been a long time in coming, and most of us welcome it.


My sentiments entirely

aysiu
June 10th, 2009, 04:04 PM
Windows if you have not forgotten is based on the principle of not the best not the most secure but a simple operating system that anybody can use thats why it is used by the masses. Silly me. I thought it was corporate bullying practices and the inertia of a monopoly. Extend, embrace, extinguish--I guess you could call that "simple."

By the way, every day I see Windows users who cannot use Windows. Every day. And this has been at multiple workplaces. If it's so simple anyone can use it why do I constantly have to explain things to people (how to create columns in a Word document, how to do a mail merge, how to change the homepage in Firefox, how to install a program, how to get a shortcut back on the desktop)?

Adler
June 11th, 2009, 03:32 AM
Hi All,

As soon as Linux Mint 64-bit goes final I'll grab it. I'd used openSuSE 11.1, now Jaunty 64-bit.

I think Mint is a great distro.

Best Regards,

JJMacey
Phoenix, Arizona

Bios Element
June 11th, 2009, 03:41 AM
I don't mean to be inflammatory here, but I do rather think that sort of attitude is contrary to the spirit of the Linux community. Despite what you may imply, I hardly think the Mint devs are in this for the big fat paycheck and plush benefits- that stuff is best left to the Microsoft employees... :)

No it's not. I never implied they make tons of cash off it. However killing a users experience of firefox to make a few bucks and refusing to tell them how to disable it (Their broken work-around is not a fix.) IS contrary to the spirit of the Linux community.

schauerlich
June 11th, 2009, 04:09 AM
No it's not. I never implied they make tons of cash off it. However killing a users experience of firefox to make a few bucks and refusing to tell them how to disable it (Their broken work-around is not a fix.) IS contrary to the spirit of the Linux community.

There's a way to disable it, it's in the same blog post (http://www.linuxmint.com/blog/?p=142) where it's announced.

Even the GNU Project has no problem with people making money off of free software (http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/selling.html).

Worse comes to worst, just go to firefox.com and download the .deb of the latest build. Problem solved.

Sarai the Geek
June 11th, 2009, 04:59 AM
No it's not. I never implied they make tons of cash off it. However killing a users experience of firefox to make a few bucks and refusing to tell them how to disable it (Their broken work-around is not a fix.) IS contrary to the spirit of the Linux community.

As I understand it, the custom search's usability problems stem from restrictions placed by google, not a design flaw. It's a typical my-way-or-the-highway attitude from a large proprietary company, but that's the world we live in. Besides, as I said earlier even if you couldn't get the fix listed on the blog to work remember: it's linux! There's at least five other ways to do it that have been mentioned here...

madjr
June 11th, 2009, 05:10 AM
i love mint 7

a little discrepancy is having 3 media players/frontends ... (clem should just stick with one, probably vlc or mplayer+front end)

Bios Element
June 11th, 2009, 05:33 PM
There's a way to disable it, it's in the same blog post (http://www.linuxmint.com/blog/?p=142) where it's announced.

Even the GNU Project has no problem with people making money off of free software (http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/selling.html).

Worse comes to worst, just go to firefox.com and download the .deb of the latest build. Problem solved.

I already mentioned it and it didn't work for me. I never said I had a problem with them making money, Dear god read the post. I have a problem with them killing FF over it.


As I understand it, the custom search's usability problems stem from restrictions placed by google, not a design flaw. It's a typical my-way-or-the-highway attitude from a large proprietary company, but that's the world we live in. Besides, as I said earlier even if you couldn't get the fix listed on the blog to work remember: it's linux! There's at least five other ways to do it that have been mentioned here...

And if I have enough knowledge to fix what shouldn't have been broken, I have enough knowledge to configure ubuntu the way I want without even bothering. See what I mean? It kinda defeats the point.

k3ttc4r
June 11th, 2009, 05:46 PM
well, i've been using mint for a while. it's great - a tad more polished than ubuntu, in my opinion. really great for beginners, just pop in the liveCD, install, and you're set to go, you won't need to do anything more.. just great.

i recently switched to arch, though, the pretty much opposite end of the spectrum, because i DID wanna do everything myself :D

so yeah, Mint is great for beginners or i-just-want-a-running-system-with-the-least-work-possible guys ;)

XubuRoxMySox
June 11th, 2009, 06:18 PM
... killing a users experience of firefox to make a few bucks and refusing to tell them how to disable it (Their broken work-around is not a fix.) IS contrary to the spirit of the Linux community.

Pft. This easy-does-it newbie easily figured how to rid Firefox of that Mint default in Google. I went to Synaptic Manager and uninstalled the "mintsearch" or whatever they called it (it's description say it "improves" Google searches, lol). Done.

It certainly did not improve Google searches, but neither did it particularly take anything away from Google or Firefox.

-Robin

schauerlich
June 11th, 2009, 07:29 PM
I already mentioned it and it didn't work for me. I never said I had a problem with them making money, Dear god read the post. I have a problem with them killing FF over it.

It's quite easy to remove it from FF. There's no need to get angry...

khelben1979
June 11th, 2009, 07:58 PM
Never tried it. I experienced their podcast to be little interesting, but as for the distro: no, I'll keep my Debian.

XubuRoxMySox
June 12th, 2009, 01:17 PM
Well, I have to admit I was wrong. For the life of me I couldn't uninstall that Mint search engine yesterday. Even uninstalling Firefox and downloading it again and reinstalling didn't work. The only effective workaround may be to choose a different search engine in Firefox. The only way to avoid the "Mint search" is either that or actually go to the Google site and input your serach from the site instead of the search bar in Firefox.

This should really only be an issue if you object to Mint making a profit from your Google searches. That search engine is the biggest source of revenue for the project, as Clem describes here (http://www.linuxmint.com/blog/?p=142). There may indeed be good reason to object, but that's a whole 'nother issue.

I would recommend Freespire (http://freespire.org) for people who want "Ubuntu plus codecs, drivers, and proprietary software" without any legal issues or moral dilemmas to gnaw at their conscience.

-Robin

Sarai the Geek
June 12th, 2009, 06:40 PM
I would recommend Freespire (http://freespire.org) for people who want "Ubuntu plus codecs, drivers, and proprietary software" without any legal issues or moral dilemmas to gnaw at their conscience.


I looked at their website and it's all well and good- considered giving it a try, until I saw what Ubuntu they use as base: 7.04? They use a version of Ubuntu that is two years old? Perhaps their website just needs updating?

jbruced
June 13th, 2009, 12:00 AM
yes but Linux mint is based in ireland which is part of the Eu hence no software patents it's up to the end user which version they use just like with ubuntu

Thanks for pointing that out, I had read the details on their website in the past, but had totally forgot its Irish roots, and I don't know Irish/European law either.

Though Mint's codecs still could be concidered illegal in various countries, most users don't care, but a company trying to penetrate this industry to make a profit might.

All opinion, no one wrong, no one right.

Old Marcus
June 13th, 2009, 12:06 AM
In Gloria, the google toolbar still uses the mint google, but they have added extra links along the top that link to more than google does, so it is a little more useful.