PDA

View Full Version : Differences between Mint9 and Ubuntu 9.10/10.04



mr-woof
June 25th, 2010, 08:57 PM
I'm wondering if anyone has any ideas on what the differences between the two operating systems? The reason I'm asking is I have an old Fujitsu Siemens laptop (1.5 celeron, 512mb ram, 40gb) nothing special and getting old now.

It's currently running ubuntu 8.10, it'll install 9.04 but keeps crashing, 9.10 onwards won't load at all. So I've been looking for a replacement tonight, I've just installed Mint 9 tonight and it's fine, so far no problems.

Any ideas on any possible differences, why the newer versions of ubuntu don't like my poor old laptop? :)

Nick_Jinn
June 25th, 2010, 09:02 PM
Mint has the proprietary codecs and drivers that Ubuntu excludes for some odd reason. You can get these drivers in Ubuntu, but its extra work.

Some people think that Mint is what Ubuntu should have been.....unfortunately the Mint devs dont seem to share the ambitions of Ubuntu as far as competing with Windows and becoming the most popular operating system (A worthy goal that might make the future of technology more progressive and free), and yet the changes they have made is exactly what would help Ubuntu accomplish its goals.

rollin
June 25th, 2010, 09:04 PM
FWIW in my experiments I found ubuntu 10.04 much heavier on RAM than 9.10. Open a few apps including FF with add-ons and it really grinds IMHO.

If you like Mint (I do too), try a search for Mint Xfce. Like the lightweight distro Xubuntu, Mint have upped their game and have been putting out versions with Xfce so you get all the eye candy and speed too. May be the right thing for you. Just my 2c.

Nice login BTW!

mr-woof
June 25th, 2010, 09:05 PM
is there any way of pinning down what drivers are installed on your system?

mr-woof
June 25th, 2010, 09:12 PM
cheers rollin, mr-woof rocks :)

ubunterooster
June 26th, 2010, 12:58 AM
is there any way of pinning down what drivers are installed on your system?
System>administration>hardware drivers?

For me mint KDE is equal to Ubuntu Gnome; Mint Gnome is lighter than both. But change the green; it literally is painful to me.

phrostbyte
June 26th, 2010, 01:03 AM
Mint includes a bunch of software that may violate the more draconian interpretations of patent and copyright law. For this reason, its use is legally questionable in most parts of the developed world (yes, including Europe).

OLDMANHOOK
June 26th, 2010, 10:35 AM
Mint is what Ubuntu should be it Works Install play your MP3's DVD's Still have Gimp Wireless works better Less Video Problems on some computers when Ubuntu crash Mint will Run I use both While the so called copyrghted software is one of the things that make Mint better You can Install the USA/Japan ISO, Don't Include the Extras--As long as it's Free use what best for YOU

mr-woof
June 26th, 2010, 11:52 AM
thanks for the replies guys, I know about the added extras of Mint but I'm still not sure why it'll run when ubuntu 9.04/9.10/10.04 wont.

Is mint9 based on 10.04?

ubunterooster
June 26th, 2010, 12:05 PM
It is based on 10.04. As for why it works when Ubuntu does not, I still have no idea.

[posted via Mint because Ubuntu only shares my Samba files at dialup speeds]

mr-woof
June 26th, 2010, 12:19 PM
hmm strange, I had a feeling it's something to do with the graphics chipset on the laptop. I've tried puppy/dsl before and they won't load, unless you mess about with the graphic settings.

There are no hardware drivers installed on the mint laptop, I can't have any of the funky effects.

ubunterooster
June 26th, 2010, 01:02 PM
You have to install the hardware drivers. Administration>hardware drivers. (will not work in a liveCD)

Nick_Jinn
June 26th, 2010, 01:30 PM
Mint includes a bunch of software that may violate the more draconian interpretations of patent and copyright law. For this reason, its use is legally questionable in most parts of the developed world (yes, including Europe).


Which is why it is better in many peoples opinion.


Do you honestly care if your operating system is not in compliance with those draconian laws? I dont. I dont expect them to come busting down my door because I am watching DVDs on my laptop either. If a cop examined my laptop I doubt they would find anything remarkable or obviously illegal about it either.


If you choose to voluntarily follow those laws or kick yourself in the shin, by all means do it.


Its easy enough to get Ubuntu to do the exact same things, but its just a little easier and a little less work out of the box for noobs, which makes it a better choice over Ubuntu for newcomers without necessarily being a worse choice for experienced users.

I have to give credit to Ubuntu though, since Mint is barely its own distro outside of a few tweaks and unique tools. Mostly its Ubuntu customized for convenience and functionality.

phrostbyte
June 26th, 2010, 01:44 PM
Which is why it is better in many peoples opinion.


Do you honestly care if your operating system is not in compliance with those draconian laws? I dont. I dont expect them to come busting down my door because I am watching DVDs on my laptop either. If a cop examined my laptop I doubt they would find anything remarkable or obviously illegal about it either.

You never know these days. If Mint ever becomes very popular I wouldn't be surprised if it gets sued out of existence. Mint obviously violates patent law in a number of countries (MP3/H.264 codecs). Even worse, its DVD playback is arguably a violation of the DMCA in the USA, and the European digital copyright directive in the EU. This is not vague legal issues. If it ever got taken to court it's very likely they'd lose.



If you choose to voluntarily follow those laws or kick yourself in the shin, by all means do it.

Its easy enough to get Ubuntu to do the exact same things, but its just a little easier and a little less work out of the box for noobs, which makes it a better choice over Ubuntu for newcomers without necessarily being a worse choice for experienced users.

I have to give credit to Ubuntu though, since Mint is barely its own distro outside of a few tweaks and unique tools. Mostly its Ubuntu customized for convenience and functionality.

I hope you understand what "illegal" means. It means that under the law Mint probably isn't even allowed to exist. If you run a business based on illegal activity, you business is living on borrowed time. Canonical doesn't really want that, they'll never fix bug #1 doing things outside of copyright and patent law. I'm not sure how you can't see this.

Nick_Jinn
June 26th, 2010, 01:56 PM
Mint is not intended for servers anyway. It is specifically intended to be used for desktop users and not servers.


Also, I am skeptical of your borrowed time comment. I think that our government thrives on illegal activity of its own. I think that people watching DVDs on their linux laptops is not a big concern for anyone besides Microsoft as it benefits even those who sell DVDs as well as the consumers.


Most Ubuntu users download these illegal codecs anyway. I am yet to hear of the feds tapping on someones door because they downloaded medibuntu so they could watch a DVD or listen to an MP3.


Also, you can backup your files in an office environment and even switch from Mint back to Ubuntu without losing your files or any compatibility.





I honestly dont see what you are worried about. I think the vast majority of users download Medibuntu if they feel like it anyway, its just a little less work in mint for new users who expect that basic functionality in their OS.



And I dont think that Mint is illegal....they just might owe royalties if they were based in the US (They are not) if they were actually making any money. They might be making a trivial amount from the search engine.

sxmaxchine
June 26th, 2010, 02:07 PM
it based on ubuntu with a few tweaks and comes with the multimedia codecs pre installed, i think it comes with more drivers and stuff but i dont know a great deal about mint.

beastrace91
June 26th, 2010, 02:10 PM
Odds are the reason your hardware runs under Mint and not Ubuntu is because they have a slightly different kernel from Ubuntu. Where is Ubuntu's default general supports a large amount of hardware, Mint's supports even more (this is good and bad depending on how you look at it). Remember - this is not Windows. Most of your hardware will not have a "restricted driver", most drivers are just built right into the kernel (in a perfect world they all will be like this some day).

As for the other difference, check the link in my sig for "Why Linux Mint over Ubuntu" :)

~Jeff

phrostbyte
June 26th, 2010, 02:20 PM
Mint is not intended for servers anyway. It is specifically intended to be used for desktop users and not servers.

How does this matter exactly?



Also, I am skeptical of your borrowed time comment. I think that our government thrives on illegal activity of its own.

It is a bit different. It doesn't matter if the government does something illegal, they have sovereign immunity. Canonical does not. You do not.



I think that people watching DVDs on their linux laptops is not a big concern for anyone besides Microsoft as it benefits even those who sell DVDs as well as the consumers.

You should look up the DeCSS case. There is a reason Canonical doesn't even allow libdvdcss in universe. There is already a court order in the USA about this.



Most Ubuntu users download these illegal codecs anyway. I am yet to hear of the feds tapping on someones door because they downloaded medibuntu so they could watch a DVD or listen to an MP3.

You are right, I think the codecs are a lesser issue then the DVD playback. No Linux-related entity has been taken to court yet over it. But they are still a potential legal issue, something Canonical must avoid.




I honestly dont see what you are worried about. I think the vast majority of users download Medibuntu if they feel like it anyway, its just a little less work in mint for new users who expect that basic functionality in their OS.

I've been around the Linux community since 1998. There is always someone like this "what you are worrying about", then we get sued. We must always follow the law, otherwise it will blur the lines between the warez community and the FOSS community. The last thing we want is to be confused with the warez community. And it is reasy to confuse, the difference between us is warez doesn't care about the law and FOSS does. Really that's the main difference, a lot of the philosophy is the same.




And I dont think that Mint is illegal....they just might owe royalties if they were based in the US (They are not) if they were actually making any money. They might be making a trivial amount from the search engine.

Mint is illegal to the point of obviousness in the USA and other countries. It's not vague legality. There are big organizations that are asserting rights of H.264 and MP3 for instance. This isn't some kind of submarine patent threat.

Nick_Jinn
June 26th, 2010, 10:29 PM
How does this matter exactly?

Look. I dont want to fight with you. This issue isnt important enough for me to get worked up over. You are probably a cool guy even if I disagree with you.


In my opinion, it matters because when a server goes out your site goes down. If its just a work environment for office stuff, saving and backing up your system isnt such a big deal. I was addressing your point about how the end is imminent if your business is based on an OS with 'illegal drivers' in the US.....they are perfectly legal in Ireland and much of the world though.

Again, I dont care enough to fight about it. Its just my opinion.



It is a bit different. It doesn't matter if the government does something illegal, they have sovereign immunity. Canonical does not. You do not.

There are two issues here.....It is NOT illegal everywhere, and also that the government likely doesnt care enough about users who install Mint on their HD.

And they do have a bit of immunity as they are in Ireland where its not illegal, and there is also a degree of protection in that they are not selling the OS.

I imagine it could lead to a legal battle if they wanted to sell the OS for profit inside the US, but I really dont forsee they getting sued as they are now.




You should look up the DeCSS case. There is a reason Canonical doesn't even allow libdvdcss in universe. There is already a court order in the USA about this.

I have not read the case. However, those are not individuals in trouble. Also, were they based in the US, or did they attempt to sue someone internationally?



You are right, I think the codecs are a lesser issue then the DVD playback. No Linux-related entity has been taken to court yet over it. But they are still a potential legal issue, something Canonical must avoid.

Fair enough, but its not illegal EVERYWHERE, and if its legal somewhere it should at least be available in Multiverse in my opinion.

That would make it much easier for the noobs without too much liability....and nobody is going after individual users.



I've been around the Linux community since 1998. There is always someone like this "what you are worrying about", then we get sued. We must always follow the law, otherwise it will blur the lines between the warez community and the FOSS community. The last thing we want is to be confused with the warez community. And it is reasy to confuse, the difference between us is warez doesn't care about the law and FOSS does. Really that's the main difference, a lot of the philosophy is the same.

Mint is illegal to the point of obviousness in the USA and other countries. It's not vague legality. There are big organizations that are asserting rights of H.264 and MP3 for instance. This isn't some kind of submarine patent threat.


Its not illegal everywhere, and its not illegal in the country they operate from....they also are not selling the OS for profit, and finally it would be VERY difficult to prove damages when DVD playback actually helps the movie industry rather than competes with it....its not in their interest to stop them, and there isnt enough royalty to go after. It wouldnt make any sense to sue, even if they could.


But I suppose you have some valid concerns. I just think it should be in multiverse. People install it anyway. Ubuntu isnt directly responsible for Multiverse. I think keeping it out of multiverse is going a little too far.

Just my opinion.

Old Marcus
June 26th, 2010, 10:53 PM
Unless you are in the US or Japan, you're fine.

And btw, this is the third or fourth Mint/Ubuntu thread I have seen in a month. Hasn't it already been done to death?

Legendary_Bibo
June 26th, 2010, 11:16 PM
Wait I'm confused. So getting codecs, and the libdvdcss to make my hardware function like it's supposed to is illegal? :confused:

earthpigg
June 26th, 2010, 11:33 PM
Wait I'm confused. So getting codecs, and the libdvdcss to make my hardware function like it's supposed to is illegal? :confused:

if it comes pre-installed by default, it's the distros fault.

if you choose to install it, you choose to assume legal liability. and ignorance of the law is no excuse.

Legendary_Bibo
June 26th, 2010, 11:42 PM
if it comes pre-installed by default, it's the distros fault.

if you choose to install it, you choose to assume legal liability. and ignorance of the law is no excuse.

Why is it illegal?

earthpigg
June 27th, 2010, 12:28 AM
Why is it illegal?

read what phrostbyte wrote in this thread.

also, look here (http://www.linuxmint.com/about.php) at the Linux Mint Team. I conjecture that the folks over at Linux Mint are well aware that, due to idiotic laws, their product is illegal in many areas.

Clem, the head honcho, is Irish.

following that is one person listed as American, and one listed as Aussie.

afterwards, the entire design team has chosen to leave their nationality anonymous. This proves nothing, but certainly is interesting.

After the Israel-Palestine-LinuxMint (http://abriefhistory.org/?p=774) fiasco, we can hardly imagine that the anonymity is because the Mint team is apolitical.