Mint 18.2: Still the best Linux desktop | Hacker News Reader

Mint 18.2: Still the best Linux desktop

zdnet.com

46 pointsCrankyBear56 comments

I've never understood the love for Mint. All it is is Ubuntu with a Gnome 2 style desktop and things already configured for Linux newbies. I installed it long ago and it was way buggier than Ubuntu.

Right now on openSUSE Tumbleweed with Gnome Shell, couldn't be happier. And if I were to give a vote for most 'desktop ready' system, I'd go with Fedora (the only thing I dislike about openSUSE is how PackageKit and YAST are always fighting over updates and stuff, they need to just get rid of one, but then again the thing I love about openSUSE is YAST).

Since 17 or so it's seemed extremely stable to me. It also tends to have drivers for just about anything, but that's also true of Ubuntu. It is sort of configured for Linux newbies, but it's also configured to just be A Desktop with as little crud as possible, besides that necessary to maintain its broad compatibility and ease of installation.

Its popularity came around the time that Canonical started doing things like inserting a 'shopping lens search' into default installations' desktop UI, pushing insane and bulky window managers, bucking Wayland to make their own X replacement, and generally making people uneasy about their monopoly on 'easy' Linux OSes.

So Mint is a solid 'No-Frills Give Me A Linux Now' installation. Sometimes you don't want to spend hours tinkering, okay? The last time I installed Fedora (21 and 22), it was consistently a ghastly, slow and buggy nightmare that approached a stage 3 Gentoo install by the time something functional was up and running. I was floored at how bad it was on such a popular distro, and once installed, it was also a lot of effort to get simple things like yum working properly. It could have just been me, but this was fairly standard hardware; I came away with the impression that it was not even close to an easy or pleasant install experience for a broad range of users, and nothing I'd be interested in using again.

It kept "normal" desktop paradigm when everyone around was submitting to (IMO insane) design experiments everywhere. Then it was the only Linux distro that was handling HiDPI correctly and made it look better than Windows on retina displays.

If you mean "normal" as similar to Windows 95, then there was a very good reason to experiment with alternatives: the US patent system.

Maybe. But experimenting sounds different than enforcing something on the end user. BTW, OS/2 had that Win95 taskbar look first.

OS/2 did not have the Start menu. Here is Microsoft's "TaskBar with Start Menu" patent: http://www.google.co.uk/patents/US5920316

A lot of that experimentation has been like efforts in trying to reconfigure the fundamentals of bicycle. Should pedals be pedals and should they be really at shoulder level, maybe the wheels should be side by side and one bigger than the other, steering wheel or touchscreen instead of handlebars .. Meanwhile, bicycles work.

The inventor of the start menu and taskbar disagrees with you:

https://www.windowscentral.com/creator-first-start-menu-thin...

I've been using WindowMaker since before Ubuntu even existed, and I fundamentally cannot understand switching distros because of a default UI. The first thing I do when I install any distro is install a brace of packages, WindowMaker among them, and create a good environment for myself. I could not care less about the intricacies of the default UI because if I'm using it for more than a trivial amount of time, something's probably gone very wrong.

To me, it sounds like not buying Ford because the Ford on the lot is red and you like blue, except even less sensible because it sometimes costs money to get "special" colors for cars.

I'm very much in the second camp in this blog post:

https://utcc.utoronto.ca/~cks/space/blog/sysadmin/TwoEnviron...

I have an environment I drag everywhere I can, and I come to actively dislike systems like Macs where I can't turn them into my system. I always feel like a guest, and not a well-liked one, and I'm never going to be happy as a guest on my own home system.

These considerations are made on the basis that some users are not explicitly aware that they are using a window manager, nor do they know what one is or that they could change it or how the could change it.

You're right though that it's odd that some users who _do_ know those things will distro hop for that reason.

Totally. (Disclaimer: Ubuntu user since, forever..)

I see Mint as a well-polished distribution, among a rather - you have to admit - humongous set of competition.

Mint is a good newbie Linux. Its good looking, works for most users I've seen actually put it to use, and is unique that way.

I'm rather inclined (as a Linux user) too boot Mint every now and then, and have a look.

I like that it's Debian/Ubuntu based so I can follow instructions for almost anything on the internet. For example, the other day I was looking into VPN solutions and ended up going with IPVanish (I may try out a different one next month)... good luck finding OpenSuse instructions. It's just Ubuntu and if you're lucky, there's an RPM for Fedora/CentOS.

I like Cinnamon. Going forward with GTK3 but not with Gnome3. Nice easy to use interface.

Finding software for openSUSE is easy thanks to OBS [1]. And their Wiki pages have great instructions for setting up just about anything.

[1]: https://build.opensuse.org/

The problem I have with Mint is that a dist-upgrade is not possible. You can try it, and break everything in the process. They officially recommend a clean wipe and install. Or at least this was the case a few releases ago.

I went through last 2 or 3 dist-upgrades (do not remember, since it was pretty mundane and quick too, thanks to ssd) without a hitch

That's no longer the case, you can dist-upgrade to 18.2 from 18.1 or 18.0. See: http://blog.linuxmint.com/?p=3306 for the how-to.

Good! Let's hope they make this possible for major releases as well.

> I've been using Linux Mint for years now as my main desktop.

It's amazing considering he signed himself under article reporting Mint containing malware.[1] Fool me once..

[1] http://www.zdnet.com/article/has-your-linux-mint-desktop-bee...

EDIT:

I dug a few more.

http://www.infoworld.com/article/2703044/does-linux-mint-nee...

https://www.reddit.com/r/linux/comments/1osyn5/linux_mint_cr...

Just stay away from this train wreck of mismanagement.

The desktop that has the maximum number of core developers - including kernel, desktop, ux and userland is Fedora. And it shows.

Meh... and this army of developers still hasn't figured out how to ship a distro with a proper font rendering. Having to do [1] is insane. And every time you bring this up, there's always "looks fine to me" or "a matter of taste" argument. Nope it's not.

[1] https://www.reddit.com/r/Fedora/comments/5ea3bx/font_renderi...

I understand your frustration, but the difference between freetype and freetype-freeworld is exactly one define:

FT_CONFIG_OPTION_SUBPIXEL_RENDERING

I'm sure you know why Fedora didn't enable that. It's not because they wouldn't want it.

Sorry, I don't know why. Care to explain?

Apparently https://freetype.org/patents.html

Didn't know about that. Thanks for the link.

When is the last of the ClearType patents due to expire? Is the patent expiry date based on the Publication date/Filing date/Priority date + a fixed number of years?

I didn't know about this before myself, so I'm afraid I'm not in a position to help clarify your questions.

It's not a matter of figuring out. It's an issue with patents.

Fedora is actually pretty strict about free software.

Also you can check out Fedy which makes those steps much easier.

For an experienced Ubuntu user, who knows how to configure their system to their liking, including switching the DE if desired - what exactly would be the benefits of migrating to Mint?

Not having to do all that....

I wouldn't migrate to it just to migrate. Migrate to it when you would have migrated anyway.

> Not having to do all that...

I maintain a script that configures a pristine installation of Xubuntu to my exact preferences.

Migrating to Mint wouldn't save me the trouble of writing / updating the script. While I'm sure Mint works out of the box (IMHO, so does Ubuntu), it won't bundle the exact shortcuts and settings tailored to my workflow.

I don't even need to switch desktop, I just use Xubuntu that runs XFCE out of the box (and kindly discards the Canonical commercial / user-intelligence "features"). Not sure why a programmer would need anything more than XFCE as their DE, but you can also get an Ubuntu "flavour" (i.e. edition) for any of the popular DEs, including Mate.

> Migrate to it when you would have migrated anyway.

Indeed, I suppose Mint would be at the top of my alternative list if I absolutely had to get off Ubuntu for any reason (which seems implausible). Otherwise, seems like it's a more newbie-friendly (and somewhat bloated) rendition of Ubuntu.

There is very little difference between Mint and straight Debian. I prefer Debian because it's more stable and has a continuous rolling release cycle.

Ubuntu pissed a lot of people of when they forced Unity down our throats. This is why many moved to Mint in the first place.

Maybe it's time to label "Ubuntu Mate" as the new default Ubuntu, and the current one Ubuntu Gnome3.

Ubuntu Mate comes with the nice Gnome 2 look&feel but based on GTK3.

...when they forced Unity down our throats.

Alternative desktop environments such as Xubuntu, Lubuntu and Kubuntu have always been available on Ubuntu. Unity was never forced down anyone's throat; it was made the default; that's all.

Manjaro (Arch) w/xfce is pretty great, too.

https://manjaro.org/

It is indeed. It finally made a Debian defector out of me.

Eh, I don't know. I like Arch but it can be a lot of work. For my main dev machine, I use Ubuntu to just get shit done, particularly given the fact that many open source projects have a Debian package if not an Ubuntu PPA.

Arch did make me a bit more open-minded about systemd. I still think it's a bad move architecturally, but it does make a lot of things more convenient.

I remember reading (this was around when version 17 launched) about a couple serious issues people had with Mint. Have these been fixed/addressed?: 1) the mixing and/or renaming of Ubuntu and Debian packages - resulting in the maintainers just blacklisting upstream packages when something breaks because of this (even security updates! which, if I remember correctly, were set to 'optional' by default which is just stupid) 2) Mint, at least at the time, didn't publish any CVEs (what the hell is with that? seems nutty)

what about the time that they published ISOs with a back door for a while? That was a classic, aslo handled really well as I'm sure you can imagine.

Not really, I am pretty happy with Ubuntu in what concerns using GNU/Linux.

No longer have any patience to play around with distributions.

Some issues with 18.2:

- Nemo has huge issues handling icon spacing in HiDPI mode; this is a major regression and the reason I only upgraded one of my computers to 18.2 until this is resolved

- Cinnamon still freezes/stops responding/windows disappear with alpha barely above 0 on Intel HD either randomly or when switching to another logged in user

Mint 18.2 ran like a champ on my work desktop. This is an older Dell XPS 8300. It has a 3.4GHz quad-core Intel Core i7 processor, 8GBs of RAM, and an AMD/ATI Radeon HD 5770 graphics card.

This fellow has a very different idea of what an "older" computer is than I do.

No, it's not.

Used it for years due to the hype. Switched to Fedora & Gnome - delighted ever since

Arch Linux is best Linux!

Is this for real? Do people really use Mint?

Mint's pretty great. I use it because it's basically a lightweight Ubuntu.

What does it remove from ubuntu?

I'd like to know this as well

I don't know, and TBH I don't care, it just seems like the mint ui is more responsive, and it feels more intuitive to me (but that's likely a personal preference)

How does it compare with xubuntu (xfce) or lubuntu (lxde)?

That’s what I setup for my siblings whenever I can. I’m starting to get bored of doing full upgrades from scratch for them, but I only do them once or twice a year.

For Archlinux users like myself of course I could care less about Mint, but it cannot be denied that “normal” users appreciate intuitive and good-looking interfaces.

Install Debian instead and you will never have to do a "full upgrade" again.

Just installed my second Mint machine for desktop work yesterday. Really cannot complain. The difference in desktop responsiveness between this 7 year old Mint machine versus a brand new PC or Mac is night and day.

Every modern OS needs a major GUI refactoring, I swear. It takes a full minute for my Mac to open control panels. Mint can do it in microseconds... Silly that this is the case.

It's what I installed on my parents' computer. Cinnamon by default has the Windows look and feel; it comes with codecs available out of box, and it just works.

I think the article is over the top, but in terms of thoughtless lowest common denominator user experience I don't think there's a better choice. I use it on several machines accordingly.

I don't know about now, but a year or so ago it was the most popular distro yeah.

Elementary OS seems to be on the path to take over for best desktop distro though.

I don't know if "people" do. I have since about 2009, although not exclusively, and using Mate instead of Cinnamon.

I think it's funny that they mention running it on a "vintage" 2011 Lenovo. I've got it running on a 2009 Lenovo Netbook and a 2002 IBM R-series laptop too.

Best distro is the one people complain most about because they use it most. That would be vanilla Ubuntu. Also you have to appreciate the irony now that they are returning to Gnome there are people out there unhappy about that just as there were people unhappy about switch to Unity.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com