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.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Linux which Distro ?
- Thread starter Washac
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
Last edited:
I'm going to let
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.
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.
There is value in conservative distros such as Linux Mint, because it runs perfectly on the nearly decade-old hardware in this house...
Thanks for the info. I am going to guess you meant most distros choose Arch or Debian as base because there are still slackware, OpenSUSE, and Fedora which are independent and I have no idea why no one choose those as base.
I have to agree on the differences between distros. Seeing how many there are I too thought each was a fork of the other with its own independent system and to put it short "an independent OS with Linux as base" . I later learned they are just pre-configured Linux.
Your comment implies that you tried various other distros and they crashed on a regular basis, or are you just assuming that would be the case?
I run Manjaro on a decade-old machine and it has always run perfectly. Manjaro is a rolling-release distro which only lags official releases by a few weeks, rather than years.
I have to agree with some of the above posters. I have been testing out a few Linux distros recently for this very goal (to dual boot with an iMac) and I am liking the look and feel of Manjaro Gnome, EndeavourOS-Apollo, Pop!OS, and a newcomer to me called Nitrux. I am currently testing them all in Oracle Virtual Box. I like the idea of trying out VB on the iMac and see how the distros run first. Good luck with your choice!
M
M
I have tried a number of different distros, and they don't work well on a 2015 iMac. Linux Mint Cinnamon and Ubuntu Mate (both almost identical, except that Ubuntu is a tad faster), using Kernel 4.15, work best on my hardware.
I prefer to stick with Ubuntu-based distros because I use software that is difficult or impossible to get going on other Linux platforms. And even then, such as with Peppermint 11, I run into problems.
I do not understand this in Linux, when new apps comes out why they do not update immediately? Thats the case with MacOS, Windows, iOS, and Android. When an app update comes out you can get it now.
Is this because every distro needs time to "package" the software in their repositories? I do not assume its a stability concerns since new feature+bugs fixes come bundled with software updates.
Whats different about Manjaro Gnome and Pop OS? I believe its just basic GNOME for the most part.
I am interested in this, which software is this? from what @tornado99 says all linux distros should be the same with the exception of kernel, DE, and pre-packaged software so why a linux software linux works on Ubuntu based linux but not others?
Not all distros are the same. Not even all the Ubuntu distros (Gnome, Mate, Cinnamon, Budgie, Kubuntu, etc) have the same libraries of the same version.
Cairo-Dock, for example, will run on some Ubuntu distros, but not others. LyX will compile and run on some Linux distros, but not others.
If a package requires a particular version of a library file, and your distro has a later version, it won't install.
To follow on, there are two main ways to package Linux programs for distributions: RPM from Red Hat and DEB from Debian; there's also Arch's method (escapes me now). Most Linux distributions are derived from either Red Hat or Debian, because these two distributions are very slow to update (emphasizing stability over speed - lots of testing before release over the various channels). Most derived distributions update every six months; the LTS (Long Term Support) channel updates every three to five years. That's why programs don't update instantly in Linux.
"Most techs and software designers are drenched in change; most users hate change at any cost. -- sgtaylor5"
"Most techs and software designers are drenched in change; most users hate change at any cost. -- sgtaylor5"
Why is this a problem on Linux but not on Windows and MacOS? MacOS/Windows always has the latest and everything is pretty stable. This is very problematic for Linux user to see an app available for Linux but won't run on their specific Linux distro, making it even worse there are 100s of distros so the user is completely lost.
I believe appimages will fix this though?
I believe they test their own distribution and not test all apps available for Linux, so while their distribution is late for release why is the app/software late for release?
This might be true for software that is already fully featured but there are apps that needs a lot of work especially on the GUI side of things and many years later they have not fixed it. Look how raw something like Clementine looks like compared to say something like iTunes, or Gimp to Photoshop. Apps like Krita has something closer to the right idea.
A lot of people say FOSS apps are just as good as proprietary ones, but if we assumed both apps are FOSS which one would you choose? I hardly think anyone will pick Gimp over Photoshop, LibreOffice over MS Office, OpenShot over Adobe Premier. I can say this for some FOSS apps like VLC, FireFox, and Handbrake. I would for example choose FireFox over Safari or Chrome.
I wish if the FOSS community could work more together to bring one killer app solution than each forking his own uncomplete attempt at it. On the proprietary side of things there is usually 1 or few dominant standards like Premier or Avid for video editing, Chrome for browser, MS Office for office suites. On the FOSS side there are 10s of alternatives nearly none of them on par or complete solution as the proprietary ones not to mention the abandoned ones.
Actually the quote I made was relating to how fast they update their apps in a distribution and how slowly LTS channels get updated. Most users I've seen detest updates. On the other hand, I've never seen a finished piece of software!
I absolutely totally agree that there's far too much fragmentation in Linux distributions (there are thousands of them) and fragmentation (forking) within apps in a category for there to be "the year of the Linux desktop". No concentration of effort for fit and finish; the developers are too busy trying to finish the planned feature set. Most of them are unpaid volunteers, anyway.
I absolutely totally agree that there's far too much fragmentation in Linux distributions (there are thousands of them) and fragmentation (forking) within apps in a category for there to be "the year of the Linux desktop". No concentration of effort for fit and finish; the developers are too busy trying to finish the planned feature set. Most of them are unpaid volunteers, anyway.
Actually, from what I've seen, they test their own distribution and all of the apps available for their distribution in their specific software repository. Most people who are running Linux get their applications from the software repository managed by the developers of their installed distribution. That's why apps don't get updated until the distribution gets updated.
Who says professionals do prefer Quark and Indesign? I did not find any market studies?
I know LaTeX is the standard in academia. From my experience there are a lot more users using LaTeX than Quark/Indesign. But that may just be me