PDA

View Full Version : Ubuntu vs. LinuxMint - What's the difference?



OldDirtyTurtle
November 23rd, 2008, 09:05 PM
OK - this may be a dumb question. As a recent Ubuntu convert, I'm wondering what the difference between Ubuntu and Mint are. I've played with the Mint LiveCD and it is a v-e-r-y familiar environment. The Mint homepage and DistroWatch says it is based on Ubuntu.

So what are the differences? Any advantages or disadvantages of one over the other?:confused:

Tomatz
November 23rd, 2008, 09:10 PM
Mint is basically Ubuntu with a tweaked GUI. You can do anything (and more) in ubuntu that you can in mint. Also mint is quite outdated.

If you dont like ubuntu's theme once you install it, start a thread and PM me with a link to it if you need any help installing a nice theme.

earthpigg
November 23rd, 2008, 10:29 PM
its takes a little extra time to install ubuntu-restricted-extras, get dvd support working, get flash installed, etc. all that stuff comes pre-installed in mint.

mint has an awkward replacement for applications -> add/remove programs. (but it still has synaptic [sp] if you prefer that.)

the few times ive tried mint, it used an older kernel which (i think) translates into not-quite-as-good hardware support... think wifi, hibernate on laptops, etc.

they are very similar. having tried both, i would not recommend switching from ubuntu to mint if you already have ubuntu installed, up and running, and set up how you like.

i personally would consider mint a bit more 'grandma ready.' i personaly consider them about on par for an intermediate user. use one, use the other... *shrug*. i'd hook grandma up with mint though, as i said.

their little tagline - 'from freedom came elegance' - is pretty accurate.

the terminal comes pre-installed with sexy colors, for example.

i gave mint a shot when i decided to do a fresh install for the heck of it, recently. it had a hardware problem with multiple monitors and compiz that ubuntu 8.10 did not have, so i went with 8.10 instead of fixing the problem.

OldDirtyTurtle
November 23rd, 2008, 10:29 PM
I'm quite happy with my Ubuntu experience so far. I've tweaked the colors of the Human theme to match one of the DestryUbuntu wallpapers by Luke Roberts. I've added Conky. I'm pretty much set right now as far as looks go.

Now, installing some proprietary software is another ballgame... :(

I'm just getting distro-curious. :)

Tomatz
November 23rd, 2008, 11:33 PM
IMO mint is quite ugly.

Here's my install:

binbash
November 23rd, 2008, 11:37 PM
I dont know Linux Mint 6 but last time i used linux mint (mint 5 vs hardy), the artwork was better than ubuntu.There was a nice custom mint menu which is based on ubuntu system panel.

earthpigg
November 23rd, 2008, 11:41 PM
IMO mint is quite ugly.

Here's my install:

any reason you couldn't make any distro look like that...?

tezer
November 23rd, 2008, 11:42 PM
I switched from Ubuntu to Mint because of more elegant appearance and easier interface - Mint menu has easy options for installing/uninstalling applications. I have ATI card and the drivers for it were ready immediately after install as well as all other drivers one needs.
The version of Mint I use (Mint 6 RC1) is pretty up to date - it's based on Ubuntu 8.10 - and very stable. It was ready just a week or two after Ububntu 8.10 was released.

Tomatz
November 23rd, 2008, 11:42 PM
any reason you couldn't make any distro look like that...?

None. I was just trying to show the guy that he does not have to install mint just for a nice theme.

OldDirtyTurtle
November 24th, 2008, 04:47 PM
I'm going to do a dual boot installation of Mint on my crappy test computer just to have something to play with. I like the idea of fiddling with different distros.

As for my main machine - I'll stick with Ubuntu-Intrepid for now.

Thanks for the input folks! The Linux world has been an exciting and fun experience for me so far. So much to learn! :)

mikewhatever
November 24th, 2008, 05:54 PM
The Mint homepage and DistroWatch says it is based on Ubuntu.

Mint's homepage doesn't say that, although Distrowatch does. Here's what I found on http://www.linuxmint.com/about.php.

It is a Debian-based distribution and as such it is very solid and it comes with one of the greatest package managers.

bigbrovar
November 24th, 2008, 07:01 PM
i definitely recommend linux mint for new users.apart from the fact that it comes pre installed with all the codecs u need. i also think that many vista users would feel at home with the mint memu which makes searching for applications very easy. i also think the art work is top noch. and the fact that it comes with thunderbird instead of evolution. i checked some of the features of the latest mint built after intrepid. and i was really impressed.. i think mint is finally starting become more than ubuntu with codecs..

Lazarus500
November 25th, 2008, 02:44 AM
Debian is to Ubuntu as Ubuntu is to Mint.

grazed
November 25th, 2008, 03:19 AM
Mint is basically Ubuntu with a tweaked GUI. You can do anything (and more) in ubuntu that you can in mint. Also mint is quite outdated.

If you dont like ubuntu's theme once you install it, start a thread and PM me with a link to it if you need any help installing a nice theme.

this is... i don't know how to explain.

ignorant, and just flat out incorrect.

It is not "just" a tweaked ui. It has codecs, flash, and the such all preinstalled. It has its own gnome menu system (mintmenu), it has its own synaptic front end, it has its own firewall, it has its own update manager, it has its own parental controls, it has a TON of system tweaks(right click for root in folders, right click to run in terminal, and so on) and much more AS WELL AS the completely redesigned artwork.

Mint is not outdated, the 8.10 based release is already at RC1. Mint also rolls out the SAME updates you get with each ubuntu update, let alone they include the ubuntu repos.

don't spout out nonsense to people that are actually interested if you have no clue what you're talking about.

EDIT: out of curiosity, what is this "more" you can do in ubuntu that you speak of?

Tomatz
November 25th, 2008, 11:08 AM
this is... i don't know how to explain.

ignorant, and just flat out incorrect.

It is not "just" a tweaked ui. It has codecs, flash, and the such all preinstalled. It has its own gnome menu system (mintmenu), it has its own synaptic front end, it has its own firewall, it has its own update manager, it has its own parental controls, it has a TON of system tweaks(right click for root in folders, right click to run in terminal, and so on) and much more AS WELL AS the completely redesigned artwork.

Mint is not outdated, the 8.10 based release is already at RC1. Mint also rolls out the SAME updates you get with each ubuntu update, let alone they include the ubuntu repos.

don't spout out nonsense to people that are actually interested if you have no clue what you're talking about.

EDIT: out of curiosity, what is this "more" you can do in ubuntu that you speak of?

WOW

So it has gstreamer bad and ugly codec packages. A (crud) frontend to iptables. Gnome "open in terminal" and a custom USP. Oh it also has a pointless add/remove packages from panel app and artwork from a soviet era nightmare.

You have no clue what YOU are talking about! Maybe you should learn about linux before you start spouting rubbish. These are not mint innovations, None of them! Oh and YES i have used/installed it!


EDIT: out of curiosity, what is this "more" you can do in ubuntu that you speak of?

Well as the current version of mint is based on Hardy, its pretty self explanatory. Must be hard for a new users like yourself having outdated packages.

Bottom line is, you can do everything in ubuntu that you can do in mint without the nags. Linux is about getting your hands dirty and creating your own experience. Its not about letting someone do it all for you (badly IMO).


:lolflag:

BigSilly
November 25th, 2008, 03:18 PM
WOW

So it has gstreamer bad and ugly codec packages. A (crud) frontend to iptables. Gnome "open in terminal" and a custom USP. Oh it also has a pointless add/remove packages from panel app and artwork from a soviet era nightmare.

You have no clue what YOU are talking about! Maybe you should learn about linux before you start spouting rubbish. These are not mint innovations, None of them! Oh and YES i have used/installed it!



Well as the current version of mint is based on Hardy, its pretty self explanatory. Must be hard for a new users like yourself having outdated packages.

Bottom line is, you can do everything in ubuntu that you can do in mint without the nags. Linux is about getting your hands dirty and creating your own experience. Its not about letting someone do it all for you (badly IMO).




Erm....honestly, no need to be quite so negative about Mint. It's a fine distro. I've used it myself for a while not so long ago, and really liked it. Ultimately, for me, it wasn't different enough to Ubuntu to warrant moving over to it, but I enjoyed it very much and will use it again. I love that it comes with all the extra stuff readily installed. It's easy enough for you or me to enable those things, but for many newcomers it's a Godsend until they figure things out for themselves. At the end of the day, for me I just prefer the blank canvas of Ubuntu, and I enjoy personalising it over time. Mint is really meant to be a ready-to-go OS. The KDE version is fantastic.

You might think it silly, but I started on a very easy Linux myself (Freespire), and from that went on to all sorts of other distros as my confidence grew. I would never turn my nose up at something like Mint, because in reality they do far more for Linux adoption than a bunch of whiners on a forum could ever hope to achieve. BTW I'm not referring to you there, but making a general statement. I love giving Mint discs to friends who are terrified of Linux, only to have them come back later telling me how easy it is, and they don't know what they were worried about. That person will go on to learn more and try other distros, because their first experience with Mint was so encouraging.

I think I detect a little bit of defensiveness over Ubuntu with this comparison, and it's really unjustified and unnecessary. They both offer very different things to very different users at completely different stages. Fundamentally they may use the same base, but to me they're very separate entities.

Tomatz
November 25th, 2008, 04:38 PM
Erm....honestly, no need to be quite so negative about Mint. It's a fine distro. I've used it myself for a while not so long ago, and really liked it. Ultimately, for me, it wasn't different enough to Ubuntu to warrant moving over to it, but I enjoyed it very much and will use it again. I love that it comes with all the extra stuff readily installed. It's easy enough for you or me to enable those things, but for many newcomers it's a Godsend until they figure things out for themselves. At the end of the day, for me I just prefer the blank canvas of Ubuntu, and I enjoy personalising it over time. Mint is really meant to be a ready-to-go OS. The KDE version is fantastic.

You might think it silly, but I started on a very easy Linux myself (Freespire), and from that went on to all sorts of other distros as my confidence grew. I would never turn my nose up at something like Mint, because in reality they do far more for Linux adoption than a bunch of whiners on a forum could ever hope to achieve. BTW I'm not referring to you there, but making a general statement. I love giving Mint discs to friends who are terrified of Linux, only to have them come back later telling me how easy it is, and they don't know what they were worried about. That person will go on to learn more and try other distros, because their first experience with Mint was so encouraging.

I think I detect a little bit of defensiveness over Ubuntu with this comparison, and it's really unjustified and unnecessary. They both offer very different things to very different users at completely different stages. Fundamentally they may use the same base, but to me they're very separate entities.


TBH mints OK, good for a new user. I just didn't like the way the guy spoke to me. Funnily enough, i just told a friend (windows user) to install it because i couldn't be bothered to help him set ubuntu up via IM.

:lolflag:

glotz
November 25th, 2008, 04:44 PM
Mint is Ubuntu with some added evil.

derekr44
November 25th, 2008, 05:08 PM
My steps to the dark side...

Mandrake --> Ubuntu --> Mint --> Arch

The dark side is good. We have cookies.

Mint was good in the sense that it had the codecs already added. You can edit Mint artwork no different than Ubuntu artwork... so I don't understand what the fuss is all about in this thread.

Eclipse.
November 25th, 2008, 05:20 PM
Mint is based on ubuntu same way ubuntu is based on debian.

Ubuntu has completely changed from debian however while mint is basically ubuntu with codecs (which ubuntu wouldn't get away with having installed by default), different artwork and a diffrent menu.

Last time I checked it still even used the ubuntu repos.lol

grazed
November 25th, 2008, 05:43 PM
TBH mints OK, good for a new user. I just didn't like the way the guy spoke to me. Funnily enough, i just told a friend (windows user) to install it because i couldn't be bothered to help him set ubuntu up via IM.

:lolflag:

well, what you said was vastly incorrect.

they have a ton of in-house programs built in. artwork, and tweaks. did you not say it was outdated? (completely untrue, as it is based in 8.04) and that it was just a UI tweak?

i think it's even worse that you said that intentionally knowing yourself that it is untrue.

intentionally lying to a new user that is genuinely interested, just because you don't like something yourself, is childish.

Tomatz
November 25th, 2008, 05:50 PM
well, what you said was vastly incorrect.

they have a ton of in-house programs built in. artwork, and tweaks. did you not say it was outdated? (completely untrue, as it is based in 8.04) and that it was just a UI tweak?

i think it's even worse that you said that intentionally knowing yourself that it is untrue.

intentionally lying to a new user that is genuinely interested, just because you don't like something yourself, is childish.

Unsubscribed (before i get infractions)


Sad how you cant even have an opinion on UF anymore :(

All mint is is ubuntu with a TWEAKED UI and a few packages installed by default! SIMPLE!

grazed
November 25th, 2008, 06:07 PM
off the top of my head... there is more. (anything with mint in front of it is developed by the mint team themselves)

-mint nanny, parental control
-mint wall, firewall
-mint installer, synaptic frontend
-mint update
-mint menu
-mint system center
-mint FTP with integrated right click support
-giver, file sending tool for networks
-mintdesktop
-right click tweaks for open as root, run in terminal
-numerous command line commands
-and of course, the artwork

i'm not trying to get you all angry about it, but isn't ubuntu just debian with packages installed too?

gn2
November 25th, 2008, 06:14 PM
~ they have a ton of in-house programs built in. ~

Can you list them please, with descriptions of what additional functionality they offer that is not available to a user of Ubuntu.

As far as differences between Mint and Ubuntu, Mint has no Network Install CD available, no Alternate CD available, only has Gnome as an officially supported version and has no officially supported 64-bit version.

grazed
November 25th, 2008, 06:21 PM
Can you list them please, with descriptions of what additional functionality they offer that is not available to a user of Ubuntu.

As far as differences between Mint and Ubuntu, Mint has no Network Install CD available, no Alternate CD available, only has Gnome as an officially supported version and has no officially supported 64-bit version.

http://linuxmint.com/download.html

their supported 64bit release is there, along with the main, and free editions. They also have community editions of KDE, Fluxbox, and XFCE. as well as a Debian based live cd (still in alpha I believe)

i made a partial list above your post of their extra packages, though i'm not sure what you mean by... "not available to a user of ubuntu"

everything is available to everyone, what isn't available in debian that isn't in ubuntu? etc...

gn2
November 25th, 2008, 06:42 PM
their supported 64bit release is there,

Apologies, I wrongly thought that the 64-bit was a community supported release.



i made a partial list above your post of their extra packages, though i'm not sure what you mean by... "not available to a user of ubuntu"

What I meant could be expressed as "what can the Mint applications do that cannot be done with applications from the Ubuntu repos?"

It was a rhetorical question, the answer is nothing.

Mint is an excellent distro, but lacks the flexibility of the various installation methods available in Ubuntu.

Tomatz
November 25th, 2008, 07:21 PM
but isn't ubuntu just debian with packages installed too?

It was...

Debian is no longer fully compatible with ubuntu (repos, etc). Where as mint is just ubuntu with some gnome ui tweaks. Sorry but that is all mint is, even the repos are the same (which is wrong IMO considering mint isn't paying for the bandwidth).

The desktop environment is not the OS.

grazed
November 25th, 2008, 07:39 PM
It was...

Debian is no longer fully compatible with ubuntu (repos, etc). Where as mint is just ubuntu with some gnome ui tweaks. Sorry but that is all mint is, even the repos are the same (which is wrong IMO considering mint isn't paying for the bandwidth).

The desktop environment is not the OS.

yeah, and I guess the other 30 distros based on it are just ui tweaks as well. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Ubuntu-based_distributions

come to think of it, i guess the next time someone mentions gOS, openGEU, gNewSense, or the rest of them, we'll just tell everyone it isn't worth it because hey, "It's just a UI tweak"

they haven't used their repos for ages. they mirror their own. but while we're on that topic...

i guess that nexenta, gOS, openGEU, and the large majority of all the distros based on it are "wrong" for using their repos as well.

give me a break.

Tomatz
November 25th, 2008, 07:56 PM
yeah, and I guess the other 30 distros based on it are just ui tweaks as well. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Ubuntu-based_distributions

come to think of it, i guess the next time someone mentions gOS, openGEU, gNewSense, or the rest of them, we'll just tell everyone it isn't worth it because hey, "It's just a UI tweak"

they haven't used their repos for ages. they mirror their own. but while we're on that topic...

i guess that nexenta, gOS, openGEU, and the large majority of all the distros based on it are "wrong" for using their repos as well.

give me a break.

Mint is just a ui tweak though. No matter what you say. You cant change that fact.

Extract from wikipedia:


Linux Mint is an operating system for personal computers, focusing on elegance. While Mint is mostly based on (and compatible with) Ubuntu, the design of the user interface is considerably different. These differences include:

A distinct user interface, including a simplified bootloader, desktop layout, theme, and the custom Mint menu.

Installation of plugins required to play common media formats out of the box

The Mint Tools, a collection of system tools designed to make system management and administration easier for end users.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linux_Mint


Discussion over.

lukjad
November 25th, 2008, 08:24 PM
*Sigh*
I declare this thread officially Flame War Thread (http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=870048) ready.

grazed
November 25th, 2008, 08:27 PM
Mint is just a ui tweak though. No matter what you say. You cant change that fact.

Extract from wikipedia:



Discussion over.

you do realize what you are quoting isn't the "ui"

do you know what a user interface actually refers to? the list of 10+ packages built by the mint team are not tweaks to the ui.

tweaking refers to changing an existing package, or altering gnome in some manner, etc. not creating a different means to update, custom firewalls, parental controls and so on. these are packages made by them from scratch.

it's up to you if you would like to learn the basics of the terminology. maybe you just don't understand what these words mean, but clearly mint is not just a ui tweak.

i don't even use mint, the only reason this whole discussion started is because you threw in a biased, incorrect opinion when someone asked for the differences.

Tomatz
November 25th, 2008, 08:28 PM
*Sigh*
I declare this thread officially Flame War Thread (http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=870048) ready.

Here is a good news article

HERE (http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=Yu_moia-oVI)

It will tell you more about Mint ;)

andrew.mckevitt
November 25th, 2008, 08:29 PM
Hey guys, here's a different spin on this thread,

I have four pcs (yeh! I know, lucky me).

My desktop, a dell running hardy
My sofa surfer, also a dell running hardy
A 'spare' laptop, an old sony vaio running mint elyssa
File and media server, an old compaq evo laptop with 1TB hd runnning mint elyssa.

There is a very good reason why the 'old' laptops are running elyssa, it's because they can! Both the sony and compaq would not run ubuntu, either wouldn't install, or ran very badly or slowly or not at all if it did manage the install. I tried various buntus and their alternate installers with limited success. From previous experience I found that mint worked really well on old laptops and elyssa is no different. Gui install is a breeze, fast boot time and the familiarity of ubuntu.

So if you have old hardware and your favorite distro refuses to play, try mint as an excellent alternative. Especially the sony with it's 256MB ram and 1.1GHz processor.

P.S.

I still prefer ubuntu though, :lolflag:

lukjad
November 25th, 2008, 08:31 PM
@Tomatz
I bet that was a Rick Roll Attempt, eh?

Tomatz
November 25th, 2008, 08:36 PM
@Tomatz
I bet that was a Rick Roll Attempt, eh?

Me? Never ;)

Therion
November 25th, 2008, 08:42 PM
Duh. Only one leaves you with clean, "kissably fresh", breath.

Dragonbite
November 25th, 2008, 09:20 PM
i definitely recommend linux mint for new users.apart from the fact that it comes pre installed with all the codecs u need.

I'm still confused how it can include all of the codecs and if there is no issue then why doesn't Ubuntu include the codecs?

darrenn
November 25th, 2008, 10:17 PM
Fight, fight, fight!

Therion
November 25th, 2008, 10:23 PM
... why doesn't Ubuntu include the codecs?
It's my understanding that the codecs and such that you ask about are not included because they are not "free" (as in keeping with the Ubuntu philosophy of free).
That recollection may, or may not, be correct however.

andrew.mckevitt
November 25th, 2008, 10:23 PM
Linux is about freedom of choice and choice of freedom. Ubuntu gives you the choice, mint has already made the choice for you.
Some software require eula, other software is 'free' from this etc.

Therion
November 25th, 2008, 10:31 PM
Ahhh... Here's the official word:


Ubuntu's commitment to only include completely free software by default means that proprietary media formats are not configured 'out of the box'.I knew I read that somewhere.

Source (https://help.ubuntu.com/community/RestrictedFormats)

Ubuntu Philosophy (http://www.ubuntu.com/community/ubuntustory/philosophy) re: Codecs et al

gn2
November 25th, 2008, 10:32 PM
I'm still confused how it can include all of the codecs and if there is no issue then why doesn't Ubuntu include the codecs?

Fear.

Tuning_In
November 25th, 2008, 10:36 PM
It is not "just" a tweaked ui. It has codecs, flash, and the such all preinstalled. It has its own gnome menu system (mintmenu), it has its own synaptic front end, it has its own firewall, it has its own update manager, it has its own parental controls, it has a TON of system tweaks(right click for root in folders, right click to run in terminal, and so on) and much more AS WELL AS the completely redesigned artwork.

Mint is not outdated, the 8.10 based release is already at RC1. Mint also rolls out the SAME updates you get with each ubuntu update, let alone they include the ubuntu repos.


This is why I love mint and believe that it is the right distro for me. My computer skills aren't exactly great and preinstalled codecs, flash etc helps me a lot.

derekr44
November 25th, 2008, 10:39 PM
Linux is about freedom of choice and choice of freedom. Ubuntu gives you the choice, mint has already made the choice for you.

And I'm guessing Ubuntu doesn't make the choice for you when it comes preinstalled with a bunch of applications, does it? Pot calling the kettle black.

andrew.mckevitt
November 25th, 2008, 10:47 PM
But they are 'free' applications, some are mighty useful too.

poebae
November 25th, 2008, 10:55 PM
Linux is about freedom of choice and choice of freedom. Ubuntu gives you the choice, mint has already made the choice for you.

That's a bit of a strawman argument.

In choosing Mint, I think the assumption is that the user knows that comes with it i.e. they're not having the codecs shoved down their throats.

By your logic, Ubuntu is forcing me to use Gnome, Firefox, Nautilus etc because they come pre-loaded, but that's obviously not the case because I have the freedom of choice to use K/X/Edu/Mythbuntu.

grazed
November 25th, 2008, 10:59 PM
i'm not going to comment anymore about the differences and what is right and what is wrong... but on topic...

i still can't believe how much popularity it has gotten with such a small developer base. from what i can tell clem does the majority of the work, and still the distro manages to hit the number 3 spot on distro watch, with the likes of openSUSE and fedora. o_O

it's like the linux version of david and goliath.

Twitch6000
November 25th, 2008, 11:22 PM
i still can't believe how much popularity it has gotten with such a small developer base.

Look at PClinuxOS :p, only two or three developers tops yet such a great Distro :).

earthpigg
November 26th, 2008, 12:49 AM
Linux is about freedom of choice and choice of freedom. Ubuntu gives you the choice, mint has already made the choice for you.
Some software require eula, other software is 'free' from this etc.

not true - when you go to the download page you are presented with an option: download the flagship .iso with the codecs, or the niche one without.


I'm still confused how it can include all of the codecs and if there is no issue then why doesn't Ubuntu include the codecs?

in America, the EU, and a few other places, it is a grey legal area to use the codecs without giving money to a company who, in turn, gives it to the folks that own the formats.

no one has been prosecuted for it, or gone to jail. no one can even say that it is indeed illegal - its just grey.

so, distros 'should' give you the option.

by using the codecs, you are saying "hai, i am absolutely certain that this is legal where i live."

making you go out of your way to download ubuntu-restricted-extras shifts the blame from Mark Shuttleworth and his millions to John Doe User (john doe user would not be worth filing suit against, mark would).

ubuntu gives you the option by forcing you to start without them and letting you get them later.

mint gives you the choice by letting you choose which .iso to download.

the end result is the same - blame for this 'grey' legal activity is shifted from the distro to you the individual.

mint has less to lose, so they can make it easier to get the codecs.

shuttleworth has half a billion or whatever to lose, he has to be more careful.

thats also why shuttleworth lets you pay $20 for those codecs if you want.

now, when/if he is sued, he can say:

"look, your honor, i gave him the choice. their system started without these codecs. at that point, they had the choice to declare that it was legal in their jurisdiction to use them without paying. or, they could have paid me and i would have paid the guys that own these codecs their share. john smith chose to lie and use codecs illegally."

.... except john smith aint rich, so its not worth going after him for money.



basically, all of our woes are due to evil lawyers.

speedwell68
November 26th, 2008, 12:53 AM
Erm....honestly, no need to be quite so negative about Mint. It's a fine distro. I've used it myself for a while not so long ago, and really liked it. Ultimately, for me, it wasn't different enough to Ubuntu to warrant moving over to it, but I enjoyed it very much and will use it again. I love that it comes with all the extra stuff readily installed. It's easy enough for you or me to enable those things, but for many newcomers it's a Godsend until they figure things out for themselves. At the end of the day, for me I just prefer the blank canvas of Ubuntu, and I enjoy personalising it over time. Mint is really meant to be a ready-to-go OS. The KDE version is fantastic.

You might think it silly, but I started on a very easy Linux myself (Freespire), and from that went on to all sorts of other distros as my confidence grew. I would never turn my nose up at something like Mint, because in reality they do far more for Linux adoption than a bunch of whiners on a forum could ever hope to achieve. BTW I'm not referring to you there, but making a general statement. I love giving Mint discs to friends who are terrified of Linux, only to have them come back later telling me how easy it is, and they don't know what they were worried about. That person will go on to learn more and try other distros, because their first experience with Mint was so encouraging.

I think I detect a little bit of defensiveness over Ubuntu with this comparison, and it's really unjustified and unnecessary. They both offer very different things to very different users at completely different stages. Fundamentally they may use the same base, but to me they're very separate entities.

This basically my opinion too. My 62 year old Father has a 3 year old Dell Laptop that was struggling under XP, it had become so slow due to over inflated M$ updates and the like, it was basically unusable. He was also a Linux sceptic. I showed him Mint 5, he was suitably impressed, he dual booted it. Very soon he was using Mint more than Windows. Because most of the bits he wanted were preinstalled it was less of a daunting learning curve. He got used to a Linux way of thinking. He was amazed how Mint breathed new life into an aging PC, he liked that, he didn't have to go and spend cash on upgrading, as his existing hardware was just fine. A few months down the line he has upgraded to Ubuntu 8.10 and has recently made the statement 'Windows is for mugs'. Mint is a great distro for noobs. Now the only time Windows is started in our house is in VirtualBox so I can write music to my Sony Minidisc. Thankyou Mint.:D

Dragonbite
November 26th, 2008, 02:50 PM
not true - when you go to the download page you are presented with an option: download the flagship .iso with the codecs, or the niche one without.



in America, the EU, and a few other places, it is a grey legal area to use the codecs without giving money to a company who, in turn, gives it to the folks that own the formats.

no one has been prosecuted for it, or gone to jail. no one can even say that it is indeed illegal - its just grey.

so, distros 'should' give you the option.

by using the codecs, you are saying "hai, i am absolutely certain that this is legal where i live."

making you go out of your way to download ubuntu-restricted-extras shifts the blame from Mark Shuttleworth and his millions to John Doe User (john doe user would not be worth filing suit against, mark would).

ubuntu gives you the option by forcing you to start without them and letting you get them later.

mint gives you the choice by letting you choose which .iso to download.

the end result is the same - blame for this 'grey' legal activity is shifted from the distro to you the individual.

mint has less to lose, so they can make it easier to get the codecs.

shuttleworth has half a billion or whatever to lose, he has to be more careful.

thats also why shuttleworth lets you pay $20 for those codecs if you want.

now, when/if he is sued, he can say:

"look, your honor, i gave him the choice. their system started without these codecs. at that point, they had the choice to declare that it was legal in their jurisdiction to use them without paying. or, they could have paid me and i would have paid the guys that own these codecs their share. john smith chose to lie and use codecs illegally."

.... except john smith aint rich, so its not worth going after him for money.



basically, all of our woes are due to evil lawyers.

Now that covers multimedia codecs, but what about Flash being installed out-of-the-box? It is 100% legal to install but I thought it's non-Free (freedom) status made it a no-go with the GPL since you could not provide all of the source code!?

And what about PCLinuxOS which is based out of Texas? I don't think they've broken off of the USA (yet).

Therion
November 26th, 2008, 05:06 PM
If you're looking for an Ubuntu distro that comes prepackaged with codecs, Java and Flash support, I can suggest Super Ubuntu.
The current version is Intrepid based and it's updated every month so you get all the official updates and such.
Sadly, no 64bit version though...

http://hacktolive.org/wiki/Super_Ubuntu

Tomatz
November 26th, 2008, 05:10 PM
Now that covers multimedia codecs, but what about Flash being installed out-of-the-box? It is 100% legal to install but I thought it's non-Free (freedom) status made it a no-go with the GPL since you could not provide all of the source code!?

And what about PCLinuxOS which is based out of Texas? I don't think they've broken off of the USA (yet).

I dont think you are allowed to redistribute flash. This is why the package in the repos just contains a script to download libflashplugin.so from adobe.

Reinstall it from a terminal and you'll see what i mean ;)

aysiu
November 26th, 2008, 06:27 PM
Someone linked to this before, but I think a lot of people in this thread missed it somehow, so I'm re-posting it.

Legal restrictions are only one small factor involved in what to include and not include.

Here are some excerpts from Ubuntu's philosophy statement (http://www.ubuntu.com/community/ubuntustory/philosophy):
Our philosophy is reflected in the software we produce and included in our distribution. As a result, the licensing terms of the software we distribute are measured against our philosophy, using the Ubuntu License Policy.

When you install Ubuntu almost all of the software installed already meets these ideals, and we are working to ensure that every single piece of software you need is available under a license that gives you those freedoms.
For Ubuntu, the 'free' in 'free software' is used primarily in reference to freedom, and not to price - although we are committed to not charging for Ubuntu. The most important thing about Ubuntu is that it confers rights of software freedom on the people who install and use it.

Therion
November 26th, 2008, 06:30 PM
Someone linked to this before, but I think a lot of people in this thread missed it somehow...
Because I hyperlinked it (d'OH!) instead of quoting it all.

earthpigg
November 26th, 2008, 07:53 PM
Now that covers multimedia codecs, but what about Flash being installed out-of-the-box? It is 100% legal to install but I thought it's non-Free (freedom) status made it a no-go with the GPL since you could not provide all of the source code!?

imo, it's no different then closed-source binary blurbs in the kernel.

beyond my humble opinion and onto what i understand to be true:

some distros (ubuntu, debian) care about the 'philosophy' side of freeeedooooooooooooom.

others (Mint) dont care at all (or care very little, in comparison), and focus on functionality and ease of use as #1 priority.


back to my personal opinion... i want the OS itself that i use to be as free as possible. that is the thing i need to have a use for my computer.

things i dont need, but want, i dont mind being non-free. flash, commercial vidya games, dvd stuff, etc.

ill care about the legal grey area mumbo jumbo when a) it stops being 'grey' and is declared 'illegal' and b) i start seeing john doe end-users being punished.

charlieddayton
February 26th, 2009, 02:03 AM
IMHO I prefer Linux Mint. Started Out on Ubuntu 6.04 but recently I migrated to Mint. Here are the reasons Why I made the change, and also the reasons that did not influence the change. I hope this information can help the original poster.

Why I like Mint more than regular Ubuntu:

1. Mint Tools: A collection of Mint specific tools, like backup, MintDesktop, MintAssistant, etc.

2. The Mint Menu: I find it easier to use than the standard Gnome one.

3. A bit friendlier comunity (less flame wars).

4. It is faster than regular Ubuntu! ( I don't have Idea why, if someone more technical can explain plese do so):
http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=article&item=ubuntu_derivative_perf&num=1

Reasons that did not influence my chanche to Mint:

1. Artwork and themes (some people wronlgy call it GUI). Linux Mint uses a modified Gilouche Metacity theme. I can install that in regular Ubuntu.

2. Build in Codecs: I can easily install Restricted extras and medibuntu in Ubuntu, it takes less than 5 minutes.


Something that is a mixed bag in Mint for me is the software intall/remove system. To unistall a program you right click it on the menu an choose remove, but to install you have to go the the Mint site and istall it like a Windows/Mac program by downloading a file. Still I can use synaptics but the add/remove in Ubuntu is more to my liking. The only benefit of this web install system is that there are people reviews for the software.

Also I wish there was an Atom optimized Mint Netbook Remix!


And to the flamers and fighters: Both Mint and Ubuntu are siblings, both support Ubuntu and the spread of Linux as a desktop platform. Don't fight over wich one is better, No linux version is better than other. A distro is better for an individual based on his/her needs but it does not makes it better for everyone.