Ubuntu or Linux Mint?

By nrjperera
in Linux

 Share

Battle of two Linux Distros  

60 members have voted

  1. 1. Ubuntu or Linux Mint


Recommended Posts

Collaborator

nrjperera

Posted
Posted

ubuntu_vs_linux_mint.jpg

I've tried them both and love them both. Having trouble deciding which one's the best and to settle down with. Ubuntu's Unity is not a problem to me, I like it. But Mint's Cinnamon is also gorgeous.

I've decided to use an open source OS on my new laptop. and I need to pick one from these two. I know this topic has been discussed before. But the latest releases of Ubuntu and Linux Mint have greater improvements than ever before. So, I'm in trouble.

Help me decide which one's the best.

Most votes win.

I appreciate all your help in advance :)

Link to comment
https://www.neowin.net/forum/topic/1158614-ubuntu-or-linux-mint/
Share on other sites
Mentor

(Account no longer active)

Posted
Posted

Note: you're not really comparing OSs here; just window managers.

Linux is all about customization. Install different window managers (GNOME/KDE/XCFE/LXDE), experiment, then decide. You have much more customization options than on Windows/Mac on Linux. Don't forget to install Compiz too (for desktop effects).

No one could guess the version of Linux I'm running just by looking at my desktop...

Either distro would do the job for me. The first thing to go if I were to install Ubuntu is GNOME 3/Unity - I'm not a fan of it. I mainly use LXDE because of its speed and efficiency.

Window managers can be installed through the Software Center.

Alternatively, you could try out a few Ubuntu variant Live CDs:

Kubuntu (KDE):

800px-Kubuntu-13.04-cat.png

Xubuntu (XCFE):

800px-Xubuntu_13.04_English.png

Lubuntu (LXDE):

800px-Lubuntu_13.04_English.png

  • nrjperera and 4CxbqFxVnstmA
  • Like 2
Grand Master

Max Norris

Posted
Posted

Between these two choices for out of the box desktops (you can run them on other distros) I'd go with Mint, although neither would be my first choice. Not liking where Unity is headed along with a few questionable moves by Canonical. Much prefer the direction Cinnamon is going, namely the destupidification of the Gnome desktop along with a few nice additions thrown in. Probably be a bit friendlier on the laptop's battery too as a guess.

Mentor

devilotX

Posted
Posted

I have to vote for ubuntu because Mint doesn't really like upgrading to new versions, it's more of a wipe/reinstall thing, which isn't horrible.

if you're going Mint, Go Debian Edition!!!!

but Ubuntu LTS is a great OS, and there are options for unity haters, even the the gnome-fallback session is quite nice.

Grand Master

4CxbqFxVnstmA Veteran

Posted
  • Veteran
Posted

I've liked Unity for a long time. I just stay with LTS versions for the most part, especially as Ubuntu have really reduced support periods for non-LTS versions.

But you could have more than one desktop on a system of course, and choose as you go. In theory I would love KDE and I do like it. I use several KDE-native programs on Unity. Maybe I should give KDE another try....

Collaborator

nrjperera

Posted
  • Author
Posted

I just saw some previews of elementary OS. It looks amazing.

But it's still in Beta and I didn't see any big community for it. And I really can't afford to deal with bugs and issues, since I will be doing some serious work on the computer.

I only have very limited free time and it's not enough to experiment with all these Linux distros.

That's why I'm asking you guys to make the decision.

And no, it's not a stupid idea. I trust you guys :)

Mentor

Karl L.

Posted
Posted

Like others have mentioned, the best thing to do is to try several different distros before you decide which to install. Since you are new to Linux, sticking with an Ubuntu base is probably the best choice. Ubuntu is polished, easy to use, and very well supported. While I don't mind Ubuntu's Unity desktop environment in its current form, I agree with Max Norris that I don't really like where it is headed. I encourage you to download the latest Kubuntu and Xubuntu discs to try the KDE and XFCE desktop environments before you make your final decision. Both distributions are as highly polished as Ubuntu, and they exclusively use software that is in the Ubuntu repository - essentially they are Ubuntu, not derivatives.

While it is true that Linux Mint is based on Ubuntu and compatible with Ubuntu repositories, I would never recommend it to anyone because of the high level of technical debt the project has incurred. While many people agree that Linux Mint looks very nice, the Linux Mint developers have taken on a huge number of internal development projects - far beyond their resources. They consistently make poor technical decisions, which includes flagrantly ignoring recommended Debian packaging policy as if they know better than the APT developers. While things mostly work in each release of Linux Mint, their technical debt is becoming more visible with each release as more bugs are found in internally developed software (such as Cinnamon and MDM), the release cycle gets longer, the support window get shorter, and there continues to be a complete lack of an officially supported upgrade path between releases.

Grand Master

Kreuger

Posted
Posted

I personally like LXDE over all the rest and therefore use Lubuntu. Since Mint can't be bothered to keep up to date with LXDE, I don't bother to use it. I like Mint. OOTB it's much nicer, more appealing than Ubuntu. But for some reason, I never keep it. I can't even explain why. And it's weird because I really hate Ubuntu for a number of reasons but I can't be bothered to switch to anything else.

Grand Master

Haggis Veteran

Posted
  • Veteran
Posted

I'd go with Mint. Cinnamon == teh best. I run Debian Wheezy with Cinnamon as the DE with nice dark GTK Themes, and Faenza icons. Would never know it was Debian by looking at it.

screenshot please

i could not get cinnamon to look decent :(

Grand Master

Growled Member

Posted
  • Member
Posted

That looks really fine, firey. :)

For me, Mint is the best choice. I use and like almost all of their default choices. The only thing I needed not found on the default install was Chromium, and that was an easy fix. It's not really about the DE for me, even though I do like Cinnamon much better than Unity. I just don't like the fuss and bother of having to hunt things down that I need. Plus, Mint works superbly.

However, if I wanted a slim and trim install I would go with Ubuntu mini and add just what I wanted.

Mentor

Karl L.

Posted
Posted

Current Debian Desktop

Are you running Wheezy or Sid? I noticed that Cinnamon is not in Wheezy, but it is in Sid. The system information in your screenshot also says that you are running Linux 3.9, which hasn't been backported to Wheezy yet. If you are running Wheezy, I would be interested to know how you got it running. Did you use a repository, compile everything from source, or backport the packages yourself?

Grand Master

firey

Posted
Posted

Are you running Wheezy or Sid? I noticed that Cinnamon is not in Wheezy, but it is in Sid. The system information in your screenshot also says that you are running Linux 3.9, which hasn't been backported to Wheezy yet. If you are running Wheezy, I would be interested to know how you got it running. Did you use a repository, compile everything from source, or backport the packages yourself?

It's Wheezy. Had to add the linux mint repository which has cinnamon and all its dependencies. As for the 3.9 kernel I downloaded the source from git and built it. Then recompiled the required modules, setup grub to include the 3.9 kernel and removed the 3.2 entries, then ran a cleanup to remove all the 3.2 references/modules/headers.

I'm not that skilled at linux to be back-porting. But having run arch for a long time I am pretty used to building from source.

Mentor

Karl L.

Posted
Posted

It's Wheezy. Had to add the linux mint repository which has cinnamon and all its dependencies. As for the 3.9 kernel I downloaded the source from git and built it. Then recompiled the required modules, setup grub to include the 3.9 kernel and removed the 3.2 entries, then ran a cleanup to remove all the 3.2 references/modules/headers.

I'm not that skilled at linux to be back-porting. But having run arch for a long time I am pretty used to building from source.

Your rationale makes sense, but if you are comfortable compiling from source, you should have no problem backporting a package. The basic procedure for backporting a package is documented here, and the procedure for compiling a new (Debianized) kernel is here. Although compiling an upstream kernel release is not hard in most cases, especially for well supported architectures like AMD64, it is probably easiest to use the normal backporting procedure to backport an up-to-date kernel from Unstable or Experimental. If you would like to try your hand at backporting, I recommend that you try the procedure below. I have much more Debian packaging experience and am also willing to assist you if you need it.

Basic Backporting:


# Install the basic Debian development packages
sudo apt-get install build-essential devscripts

# Find the package you wish to backport.
# If this is an official backport you must follow the official guidelines at: http://backports.debian.org/Contribute/
#
# 1. Navigate to http://www.debian.org/distrib/packages in your web browser
# 2. Under "Search package directories"
#   a. Type the name of the package you wish to backport in the "Keyword" field
#   b. Select "Testing" or "Unstable" from the "Distribution" dropdown box
#   c. Click the "Search" button
# 3. Select the package
# 4. Under "Download Source Package" on the right-hand side of the page, copy the link location for the package ".dsc" file

# Download and extract the package source. Replace the package name in this example as necessary.
dget http://ftp.de.debian.org/debian/pool/main/c/cinnamon/cinnamon_1.7.4-2.dsc
dpkg-source -x cinnamon_1.7.4-2.dsc

cd cinnamon-1.7.4

# Create a unique revision by add "~yourusername1" to the package name.
# This is another example of something that would be slightly different with an official backport.
# Example: cinnamon_1.7.4-2~firey1
debchange -R

# Install any missing build dependencies.
# The command below will print any missing dependencies, which you can then (hopefully) "sudo apt-get install".
dpkg-checkbuilddeps

# Build the package.
dpkg-buildpackage -us -uc

cd ..

# Install the package.
sudo dpkg -i *.deb
[/CODE]

Grand Master

firey

Posted
Posted

snip

Seems pretty easy, basically let the OS do it all for me. For the 3.9 I just followed this guide:

http://verahill.blogspot.ca/2013/04/403-kernel-39-on-debian-wheezytesting.html

Which is really just downloading source and compiling.

For cinnamon I just added the repo, and an apt-get install update/upgrade then apt-get install cinnamon. To get 1.8 I had to do a dist-upgrade.

This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share
Go to topic listing