Your thoughts on Linux Mint

[nengracia]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

Hmm... Mint... how can I explain it. OH YES! Eyecandy galore!

[Bölvaður]

For most people it is great!

[HappyFeet]

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]

Linux Mint is not only about codecs and themes. There's also some extra tools I have never seen the point on.

[vinutux]

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