Can someone Red Pill me on Mint?

>light and attractive
>installs easy
>not gentoo

Why isn't Mint a good daily driver?
>INB4 babbies first..
I used ubuntu, Lubuntu and tried Sparky.

Other urls found in this thread:

otso.neocities.org/essays/ubuntu.html
twitter.com/SFWRedditVideos

Got nothing Sup Forumsents?

install debian instead

It's really good, it's based on Ubuntu LTS so you get a pretty stable system.

Cinnamon is the most stable and functional DE out there. With it you get all the pretty effects of Gnome 3, and yet it consumes less memory than Gnome and is WAY less buggy.

However, it is based on Ubuntu, so you get all the quirks of Ubuntu, i.e poor config conventions. Also, Cinnamon is not really ricer friendly so no showing off on desktop threads.

Some years ago their servers were hacked and their installation files contained malware. That success scared the people and made them question about how much mint devs care about the security of their of os.
Also mint devs test the packages of their repo by hand, causing them to be more outdated in comparison with other repos.
I recommend it if you are new on Linux and want something that just werkz but don't like ubuntu's ideals. But if you like to have the most recent version of everything choose something arch based, like manjaro or antergos

these fucking threads are always confusing me . SOME PEOPLE SAY " YES MINT is good for beginers " the somoen else comes and says " nO IT S SHIT, UBUNTU IS BETTER , MINT had malware in it " then AGAIN SOMEONE else comes and says " IGNORE THESE TWO , BOTH UBUNTU AND MINT SUCKS FOR BEGINEERS INSTALL SOMETHING ELSE " and finally ALWAYS someone saying INSTALL GENTO .

Linux from Scratch is best

My first and it was fantastic.

It beats Ubuntu canon because you don't get Ubuntu's bullshit Amazon shill.

Lacks:
- low hardware requirements as of late
- noticed that some Ubuntu packages such as Docker occasionally have a hard time installing

I recommend Star Linux or Archbang for beginners.

Some people don't like mint for having more outdated packages in comparison to Ubuntu and for being hacked years ago and being used to distribute malware in their isos.

Other people don't like Ubuntu because canonical developed things like unity, mir or snap instead of collaborating with existent projects, and because for some time shipped Ubuntu with amazon results in their search bar.

And other people just like to promote their favorite distro or just shitpost.

to, dr: try all distros on a virtual machine and choose wathever you want

I use Mint simply because "just werks". I'm tired of distro hopping having to customize everything.
Man, I got shit to do, and as much as I like customizing it, there just isn't enough time to customize other distros to fit.

BUT, Linux Mint sucks in that it's way, way downstream. So you're not getting the latest software with support. If you're a beginner or wants something that just works, just go for Ubuntu. At least it's so popular that you're bound to have people who can solve your problem. OR if you have time in your hands, just opt for Debian Sid.
Mint is okay for those who don't want to customize, and wants Cinnamon as default DE.

>>INB4 babbies first..
it literally is though

nothing wrong with that, it's just boring to use, especially if you just want to rice or configure shit.

...

?

Oh yes, I forgot to mention: Nemo is a piece of garbage. Sorry user.

...

>2000+ packages

THIS.
Mint is not a great choice. Debian and Ubuntu are both better choices

Debian autistically complains about nonfree firmware, and because of this it's unironically harder to install than Arch.

> light and attractive
This doesn't depend on the distro, but on the DE you're using. People mistake these two separate things too often. Mint comes with Cinnamon, which is a decently light DE, but it's less light and provides less customization options than XFCE; moreover Cinnamon's default file manager is Nemo, which works well but it has some bugs that imo makes it worse than both Thunar (preinstalled in XFCE), Nautilus (preinstalled in Gnome and Unity) and Dolphin (preinstalled in KDE). As for the OS itself, Mint is based on Ubuntu, so see

this

you know there is ISO with nonfree firmware available if you want it, right? debian is easy

This. no reason to use Cinnamon when XFCE exists.

>Debian autistically complains about nonfree firmware
edit sources.list. takes 2 seconds, not difficult
>it's unironically harder to install than Arch.
No its not, thats fucking autistic.
>set up wifi
>username and password
>partition
>let it install
literally four fucking steps, how is that hard m8?

Of course, but it's inexcusable to push the ISO without it as default everywhere while almost hiding the one that contains nonfree firmware, which, whether you like it or not, is needed for some devices. Unacceptable for such a popular distro.

...

Good luck editing sources.list when you can't even install it.
Yes, it's unironically harder to install than Arch.
Those 4 steps almost never managed to install everything properly, there was always something breaking.

It's biggest flaw is that it's boring.
This is the truth, most people don't really use Linux for reliability or stability, people use it because it's fun to mess around in the configuration files and to accidentally break everything down.

No matter what distro, i have never been unable to install it. Ive had cases where i need to live boot and chroot to fix it, but thats not difficult.
do you have shit, unsupported hardware or something?
or are you dumb as shit?

I actually agree with this though. Triskel exists, no need for debian to go all stallman-esque

my third, it's ok.

Had Slackware first, taught me a lot about Linux, then Debian and now this

>set up wifi
no need, install on ethernet

>light and attractive
Neither light or attractive (whatever you do with Cinnamon - it looks like shit). And their rices of Greybird and Arc themes are awful.
>installs easy
As any mainstream disto
>not gentoo
But Gentoo is great! Time consuming but great.
>Why isn't Mint a good daily driver?
Downstream Ubuntu with outdated packages? Nah, thanks.

You can have other DE's than cinnamon

I don't find it inexcusable, Debian doesn't simply want to push nonfree software by default, hasn't that been their policy always? People who want nonfree software still have easy access to it. It's easy to find the nonfree ISO or the specific firmware package Debian usually asks for in installation if it is network related and needed for installation

you can but most of the people settle down on Mint only because of Cinnamon. All their other flavours are useless and starting to die (like KDE one),

sellanen kallu sieltä
>käyttöjärjestelmä suomeksi
>mint
>ei avaa sivua https yli
yrjistä jesselle

yes, but that is not your problem

This
Debian has been my daily os for 5 years now

It's more shit on shit

>What I'm trying to convey here, is that Ubuntu seems to be broken to the core and breaks more every step of further development it does the moment it forks off Debian testing/sid. It has adopted a development model not suitable for producing a robust distribution. And that brittlenes trickles down to numerous Ubuntu derivatives such as Mint, Zorin and Netrunner.
>Mint in fact has adopted its own update cycle where it attempts to further test packages from Ubuntu repositories and groups them by their safety. Layers upon layers of testing and things still just break.
otso.neocities.org/essays/ubuntu.html

I use Mint on my desktop and thinkpad, works great no problems for 2 years now.

> thinkpad
Opinion discarded

kinda of a bullshit of an essay.
This thing was a mistake from Canonical, though:
>sometimes running a LTS can be even worse decision. Ubuntu 14.04 LTS, which is to be supported for 5 years, does not have a long-term support kernel.