Ubuntu vs Linux Mint

[mr john]

I'm interested that a topic about probably the most competing distro gets buried in recurring

Anyway, this makes me curious to try Mint and see what all the hype is about. If it's good I'll stay and if not then I will stick with Ubuntu and Windows 7 (or Windows 8 with the metro theme turned off.).

I really wish the topic could be discuss openly on the main forum though. The last thread specifically about Mint was locked on August 26th. So it's really not that much of a recurring subject compared to some other topics you see on here. I'm not accusing anyone of censorship or quietening competitors, but it doesn't look good. From a technical perspective that worries me, because I might miss out hearing about some new technologies or Linux news. I've always used these forums to discover from real people what is going on in the Linux world.

[Version Dependency]

I really wish the topic could be discuss openly on the main forum though. The last thread specifically about Mint was locked on August 26th. So it's really not that much of a recurring subject compared to some other topics you see on here. I'm not accusing anyone of censorship or quietening competitors, but it doesn't look good..

You aren't searching if you can't find topics about Mint. There are several posts a day that mention Mint on these forums. Even searching just for thread titles with "Mint" in the title, there's a couple of them daily. This forum is probably the most relaxed forum in regards to discussing other distros (we even have a sub-forum just for this)...and alot of people even ask Windows/Mac support questions here.

[TenPlus1]

The main difference between Ubuntu 12.10 and Linux Mint 14 is that Mint uses it's own desktop manager called Cinnamon which is a custom gnome3 interface and looks very nice indeed and has installed a forked version of Nautilus file manager called Nemo...

Both Mint's Cinnamon and Ubuntu's Unity have their own special features and tweaks available but Mint comes pre-installed with certain codecs and flash as well as a host of custom utilities for updates, themes and a few other nifty tools...

The one thing I don't like about Mint is that certain ppa's do not work since they look for Ubuntu naming (precise, quantal etc.) and certain lines have to be edited manually for Mint to see them properly and install software...

Mint also has other flavours like XFCE (Xubuntu), KDE (Kubuntu) and Mate (Gnome 2) which look similar but each have their own features...

[Peripheral Visionary]

I'm interested that a topic about probably the most competing distro gets buried in recurring

"Competing distro?" I don't think that's a good word for it, since almost all Linux distros are free (as in cost) simply offer different default settings, default applications, default desktops, etc. And most of that stuff is interchangeable anyway.

Mint Xfce 9 was my first Linux distro and it was wonderful! But as my mentor and I explored Linux a bit more, we decided that - for us at least - the wonderful "safety net" that Mint had for it's update manager and the way they set up Synaptic Package Manager was too confining. It's great for beginners and probably prevents a lot of problems that beginners might ordinarily find in Ubuntu though, if you set updates to "Level One" only (security and "Mint Approved" updates). But I can do that in Ubuntu as well, and it is my default choice (LTS versions only, security updates only). The Mint backup utility is awesome too.

Mint Xfce was imaginative, simple, and pretty! I loved it. When they stopped basing Mint Xfce on Xubuntu and went to the Debian-based version, it became troublesome to install and harder to figure out, and a lot of stuff broke often enough for us to "run home" to the Ubuntu-based stuff that always worked reliably and trouble free on his computer. We looked at RPM distros and Slackware derivatives, Debian, Mepis, Crunchbang, SalixOS, and PCLinuxOS (KDE and Xfce). All have their own brand of awesomeness and each contributes a great deal to the party. That's what's so cool about having so many distros to choose from! So much invention and innovation, it's wonderful! But competition? I don't really see that. I just see contribution, growth, and further experimentation to make Linux better and better. Even epic failures are beneficial to Linux as a whole, and those who are willing to take the big risks (developers) deserve our respect and thanks, no matter what distro we're using.

Last time I checked, Mint's "main Edition" is Ubuntu-based, and all the other flavors are built on Debian (someone correct me if I have that wrong). When they switched the Xfce edition from a Xubuntu base to a Debian base it was supposed to become this awesome rolling-release beauty, but for me it was a lot of trouble and I ran back to Mint 9 Xfce, then Xubuntu. But I'm sure that Mint will have it's Xfce edition running wonderfully before very long, and I'll have a second look at it when my Xubu 12.04 reaches EOL.

[Linuxratty]

The only way to find out really is try both.

Moved to cafe.

That's how I see it. Mint is nice btw..I most likely will put it on the white box.

[Mikeb85]

Mint is nice if you like the Windows 95 design paradigm.

Ubuntu is better if you like a more modern design.

Under the hood they're very similar.

[sffvba[e0rt]

I'm interested that a topic about probably the most competing distro gets buried in recurring

This section is for:

Recurring Discussions Some discussions seem to come up over and over. This is a place for those sorts of topics.

This is one of those discussions and as such has been moved to the appropriate sub-forum.


404

[monkeybrain2012]

The difference is superficial unless you use Mint Debian version. Mint is just Ubuntu with codecs preinstalled and maybe a few tweaks which you can probably do it yourself. You can get all the Mint preinstalled codecs by just installing Ubuntu-restricted-extras and the medibuntu packages, it takes only a few minutes. Its 90-ish Windows like interface may appeal to the conservative types coming from Windows (and only use Windows XP or earlier) , I find it really ugly and I personally hate the Mint menu.

[exploder]

There are huge differences between Mint and Ubuntu now and it goes far beyond codecs. Ubuntu uses Unity, Mint uses Cinnamon these desktop environments are completely different. Mint uses Nemo as it's file manager, Ubuntu is using Nautilus 3.4. Mint made it's own fork of Nautilus and restored all of the functionally that it had in Gnome 2x. Ubuntu uses Compiz for compositing, Mint uses Muffin (a fork of Mutter).

Also, there is the Mint Mate Edition. Mate is a Gnome 2x fork that revived the desktop environment that so many wanted to continue using. The Mate project has even managed to fix many of the long standing bugs in Gnome 2x.

Saying that Mint is Ubuntu with codecs could not be any farther from the truth than saying that Ubuntu is Debian with codecs.

I happen to like Mate, Unity and Cinnamon. But Mint is Mint and Ubuntu is Ubuntu.

[mikewhatever]

There are huge differences between Mint and Ubuntu now and it goes far beyond codecs. Ubuntu uses Unity, Mint uses Cinnamon these desktop environments are completely different. Mint uses Nemo as it's file manager, Ubuntu is using Nautilus 3.4. Mint made it's own fork of Nautilus and restored all of the functionally that it had in Gnome 2x. Ubuntu uses Compiz for compositing, Mint uses Muffin (a fork of Mutter).
...

Interesting. Lets examing the "huge differences" a little closer.
Unity is a shell for Gnome3, Cinamon is a fork of Gnome Shell, also a shell for Gnome3. Both are based on Gnome3 and use the same toolkit and libraries.
Nemo is a fork of Nautilus, basically Nautilus 3.2. The differnces are mostly cosmetic, even the name is from the same freaking book.
The two are also binary compatible. In fact, both use the same Ubuntu repositories and much of the same software: browsers, players, editors, picture viewers, codecs, utilities and so on.

...and now, finally, the only real difference is the window manager.