Linux which Distro ?

[MacBH928]

I am baffled why a Mac user would recommend Mint to anyone. It arose as some people didn't like the direction that Gnome was taking with GTK 3, so it basically froze the UI at GTK 2. It has an incredibly ugly 1990s interface, and uses a very old kernel so won't run well on hardware less than 2 years old, and is insecure.

There are two games in town when it comes to a modern Linux desktop. Gnome (GTK 4) and KDE (Plasma). Both are very nice looking in their own way, but also very different from each other.

Mint has the reputation to be the most stable and "just works" out of all the linux distros. yes the GUI is ugly imo and I have no idea why they would not change it to something more modern looking.

 

[tornado99]

Mint has the reputation to be the most stable and "just works" out of all the linux distros. yes the GUI is ugly imo and I have no idea why they would not change it to something more modern looking.

Reputation from where though? This seems to be the common response from Mint users. Some computing magazine/blog has nominated Mint as the best (which might have been true 10 years ago when Gnome and KDE were in a mess), and that has just kind of perpetuated unchallenged.

To give one concrete negative. Gnome and now KDE have both moved to a Wayland compositor, which gives those lovely double-buffered windows with no tearing when you scroll or drag, that we are used to on OS X. Mint is not Wayland-compatible, and possibly never will be. As far as I can see Mint's DE (desktop envrionment) Cinnamon only has 1 main developer as opposed to hundreds for the main two DEs.

 

[millerj123]

Reputation from where though? This seems to be the common response from Mint users. Some computing magazine/blog has nominated Mint as the best (which might have been true 10 years ago when Gnome and KDE were in a mess), and that has just kind of perpetuated unchallenged.

To give one concrete negative. Gnome and now KDE have both moved to a Wayland compositor, which gives those lovely double-buffered windows with no tearing when you scroll or drag, that we are used to on OS X. Mint is not Wayland-compatible, and possibly never will be. As far as I can see Mint's DE (desktop envrionment) Cinnamon only has 1 main developer as opposed to hundreds for the main two DEs.

Yeah, I went looking, but couldn't find evidence supporting Mint being the best other than ZDNet, and that's only "for beginners". It is well regarded, but Techradar suggests: Nitrux, Zorin, Pop!, Kodachi. Itsfoss suggests Ubuntu followed by Mint. Are you a gamer, are you experienced, etc etc.

 

[MacBH928]

Reputation from where though? This seems to be the common response from Mint users. Some computing magazine/blog has nominated Mint as the best (which might have been true 10 years ago when Gnome and KDE were in a mess), and that has just kind of perpetuated unchallenged.

To give one concrete negative. Gnome and now KDE have both moved to a Wayland compositor, which gives those lovely double-buffered windows with no tearing when you scroll or drag, that we are used to on OS X. Mint is not Wayland-compatible, and possibly never will be. As far as I can see Mint's DE (desktop envrionment) Cinnamon only has 1 main developer as opposed to hundreds for the main two DEs.

well people online kind of agree that Mint is the least friction distro, it just works with least amount of trouble. Otherwise why does it have a loyal fan base? I doubt its cinnamon that looks kind of the worst between all the other DEs. I am not sure what Mint does in the background that makes it work smoothly over other distros.

As for wayland, I do not understand it but I hear its problematic and causes issues especially with gaming.

This is what I gathered from reading online and not my own experience.

 

[sgtaylor5]

For me, Linux usability comes down to "Does it have the software I need to run my business?". I need two things; accounting software for the laptop and a good robust rich text notes app I can use on my laptop and my iPhone. As far as I can see, GNUcash is it for the business accounting, and I know, from experience, I do not want a Markdown-based notes app (that's just a personal preference, and I've tried them all over the years). For the few documents I write, LibreOffice or Collabora Office is all I need. EDIT: XFCE is the DE I like the most.

On the Mac side, I'm using Corona (business accounting) and Keep It (robust rich text notes). They both do what I need them to.

 

[tornado99]

I am not sure what Mint does in the background that makes it work smoothly over other distros.

What does this even mean? Sounds like some kind of marketing speak.

 

[MacBH928]

What does this even mean? Sounds like some kind of marketing speak.

Most people you talk to online say Linux Mint gives the least amount of trouble while working with it , as they say "it just works" so thats what I am asking , what is Linux Mint doing that makes it "just works" over other distros. For example, I heard many people have issues with other distros like Pop_OS , OpenSUSE(I assume due not having proprietary codecs/drivers pre-installed).

One example here is the Linus Challenge where he tries linux as a daily driver and you can see the guy who picked Mint had a smoother sailing of Linux who picked Pop-OS and Manjaro

 

[tornado99]

Linux Mint does not have some special set of drivers that work with more hardware than other distros. The majority of distros auto-install all the proprietary stuff, and they're getting it from the same sources. In fact, many things such as wifi and intel/AMD graphics are built into the kernel itself.

Mint wouldn't even start on my Lenovo laptop, and I later discovered that's because it uses a kernel which lags 2 years behind the current release. So rather than "it just works', how about "it didn't boot".

And I wouldn't take anything Linus tech tips says seriously. It seems to be an entertainment channel.

As I said earlier, Mint's reputation is because PC magazines like ZDNet are too lazy to understand how Linux works and just re-hash a Mint article every few months.

 

[MacBH928]

Linux Mint does not have some special set of drivers that work with more hardware than other distros. The majority of distros auto-install all the proprietary stuff, and they're getting it from the same sources. In fact, many things such as wifi and intel/AMD graphics are built into the kernel itself.

1-How do you explain then that many people feel Mint is the more user friendly and favorite it over others like Manjaro, Slackware, and MX Linux? Why would any one choose Mint over simply Ubuntu?

2-Why would a two year kernel would not run modern hardware? I believe if you get a copy of Windows 7 it will run on any modern hardware. My understanding its the opposite, modern software does not work on older hardware like Windows 10 might not boot on a laptop from 2004. Don't people prefer to run the LTS version which is more stable than the rolling releases and LTS are two year olds usually?

3-I do not believe distros auto-install proprietary stuff. I know if you run Debian or OpenSUSE it doesn't have proprietary software and you should install it manually. In fact, there is a version of Debian called non-free if you want it pre-packaged with the proprietary software. And where are those same sources they are getting it from? I thought each distro has its own repositories? genuinely asking.

4-Here is a question, if all distros are basically linux what makes one different from the other? just pre-packaged software and pre-configured aesthetics? Isn't it much more difficult to run Arch or Gentoo over Mint?

 

[kschendel]

1-...

2-Why would a two year kernel would not run modern hardware? I believe if you get a copy of Windows 7 it will run on any modern hardware. ...

3-...

4-Here is a question, if all distros are basically linux what makes one different from the other? just pre-packaged software and pre-configured aesthetics? Isn't it much more difficult to run Arch or Gentoo over Mint?

2: An older kernel can't run a device that it doesn't know about. For instance, Win 7 doesn't understand many USB 3 chips. A two year old kernel likely wouldn't be able to drive say a Ryzen 5600G APU, at least not in any mode other than simple framebuffer fallback Newer software will run older hardware unless the hardware support has been deleted, which is something that generally happens more quickly in the Windows world than the Linux world.

4: Installers and desktop / window manager are the main points of distinction. A distro like Debian or Arch might be harder to install for a linux novice; you're likely to get more choices and a less ideal default setup, assuming that there's a default at all. Desktop / window managers also tend to vary quite a bit. The stuff underneath is all pretty much the same across most distros.

 

[millerj123]

1-How do you explain then that many people feel Mint is the more user friendly and favorite it over others like Manjaro, Slackware, and MX Linux? Why would any one choose Mint over simply Ubuntu?

2-Why would a two year kernel would not run modern hardware? I believe if you get a copy of Windows 7 it will run on any modern hardware. My understanding its the opposite, modern software does not work on older hardware like Windows 10 might not boot on a laptop from 2004. Don't people prefer to run the LTS version which is more stable than the rolling releases and LTS are two year olds usually?

3-I do not believe distros auto-install proprietary stuff. I know if you run Debian or OpenSUSE it doesn't have proprietary software and you should install it manually. In fact, there is a version of Debian called non-free if you want it pre-packaged with the proprietary software. And where are those same sources they are getting it from? I thought each distro has its own repositories? genuinely asking.

4-Here is a question, if all distros are basically linux what makes one different from the other? just pre-packaged software and pre-configured aesthetics? Isn't it much more difficult to run Arch or Gentoo over Mint?

I have the feels that this is a fools errand.
1. You claim this, but as has been referenced, only ZDNet says it, although I found one more who claim it's good if you come from a Windows background. Who are you talking to?

I would use one that has features I want and support for my hardware, although mostly "they" have been suggesting you use whatever your smarter friend uses, so they can help get you up to speed

2. Windows 7 is a more or less complete OS. The kernel is but one part of a full system. Not sure what you mean by LTS.

3. Not sure what you mean by proprietary. They all start with a kernel, add an update system (Yum or apt-get or make or...) and GUI and...and...and. They will use their own repositories. What things do you think you are adding from the repository?

4. No. Distros are Linux with tweaks and software added. Which Xterm(GUI), which upgrade system, what comes pre-installed, etc, etc.

My experience is that my work says "we are using version x.x.x of distro y.y.y" and that's what I have to contend with.

For home use, you don't appear to be willing to put in the time and effort to get up to speed, so why not just learn the command line on MacOS? MacOS _is_ Unix, since they ponied up the money.

 

[MacBH928]

2. Windows 7 is a more or less complete OS. The kernel is but one part of a full system. Not sure what you mean by LTS.

What is an Ubuntu LTS release? | Ubuntu

This article was updated in September 2021 to reflect the new Ubuntu lifecycle. Come April 23rd 2020, Ubuntu 20.04 LTS will be available. It will be the first LTS version of Ubuntu since the 18.04 release, and in this blog, I want to answer the common question, what is an LTS? For a deeper look […]

ubuntu.com

@kschendel​

thanks for the clarification , I always assumed something is always changed in the background as reading online I find people claiming distro x gave them trouble with problem y and distro x was more compatible , or distro so and so is more stable. I thought the background thing is always tempered with in each distro.

As for installers, I do not understand people's problems with it as I installed Debian in a VM and Debian is supposed to be a difficult one but I found it as easy installing any app on Windows the only issue I had when it gave me a choice where to install the bootloader in the UEFI or somewhere else which I do not understand but someone guided me through it.

Maybe what I said is not exactly correct but I am sure you know what I am talking about.

 

[tornado99]

I'm going to let

1-How do you explain then that many people feel Mint is the more user friendly and favorite it over others like Manjaro, Slackware, and MX Linux? Why would any one choose Mint over simply Ubuntu?

2-Why would a two year kernel would not run modern hardware? I believe if you get a copy of Windows 7 it will run on any modern hardware. My understanding its the opposite, modern software does not work on older hardware like Windows 10 might not boot on a laptop from 2004. Don't people prefer to run the LTS version which is more stable than the rolling releases and LTS are two year olds usually?

3-I do not believe distros auto-install proprietary stuff. I know if you run Debian or OpenSUSE it doesn't have proprietary software and you should install it manually. In fact, there is a version of Debian called non-free if you want it pre-packaged with the proprietary software. And where are those same sources they are getting it from? I thought each distro has its own repositories? genuinely asking.

4-Here is a question, if all distros are basically linux what makes one different from the other? just pre-packaged software and pre-configured aesthetics? Isn't it much more difficult to run Arch or Gentoo over Mint?

3. Manjaro does, to give one example of a major distro. Long gone are the days when you couldn't play an mp3 because the purists wanted everything to be open-source.

4. Not much to be honest. It's very easy for a novice to see a different wallpaper and icons and think that the difference between 2 distros is as wide as between OS X and Windows. In reality you have 1) a choice of kernel (recent or older) 2) a choice of DE: GNOME, KDE, XFCE, Cinnammon (Mint) 3) Arch-based or Debian-based. Everything else is all pulled from the same sources. There really isn't any "magic sauce" going on in the background of Mint.

The value in choosing a distro actually comes in how the people behind it manage the constant stream of Linux updates. Mint is way too conservative, often lagging the most recent versions of software by months or years. Wheres pure Arch can be too much the other way - sometimes unstable and sometimes crashes.

Very occassionally a Distro might write a few apps of their own such as Elementary OS, but that is rare.