Considering switching to Linux Mint 8 and have questions [Archive]

lavaeaglex

04-17-2010, 09:26 PM

Linux Mint 8 Helena: Very elegant OS but not flashy, well organized in a cognitive manner with out displaying to much at the same time. Very customizable and very sturdy. Based on Ubuntu and works with almost every Ubuntu package.

Support community is somewhat small.

Ubuntu 9.10 Karmic Koala: Very strong community support, easy to use and get to use to very sturdy. Almost everything linux works with this for the most part seamlessly.

Personal Preference: Linux Mint 8 Helena
I developed web pages on this OS and played games (yes games, Warsaw, alien arena, openarena...) very fun to play and learn with.

I have used both operating systems moderately, same applications are available to both of these OS's

primefalcon

04-18-2010, 06:51 AM

Either Linux Mint or Ubuntu are both very good choices for a first time user.... Mint probably more so because of it's pre-installed codecs... So all I can say is good choice!

My own personal preference is Ubuntu.. Mostly due to the gigantically huge community of users

cs_student

04-20-2010, 01:59 AM

I really suggest you go with ubuntu 10.04. I think it's still in beta, but it's stable enough for you to use. It has a new non-brown theme (so it looks nice). It's also very easy to use for a beginner to linux. You will be able to install things easily by point & click. It also has the largest community in case you run into any unforeseen difficulties (which is now every uncommon if your using it for just everyday tasks). I recently installed 10.04 on my friends little brothers computer (because his windows install was failing). He could still play wow just fine under wine. He could also easily do his normal tasks. I talked to him the other day and he said he's much happier with linux as opposed to Windows, and he was amazed at how the alternative has always been there and he had never heard of it before.

I personally use Arch linux, as it gives me the utmost control to minimize bloat and access packages which I don't need. However, the first distro I used was Ubuntu, and I found it very easy to use. You should be able to accomplish everything via gui now (if that's what floats your boat).

Though you can do everything in the gui, I recommend you to try out using the cli, as I personally prefer it over guis. If you decide it's not your cup of tea, you can always do everything via a gui.

Also, you can always dual boot windows and ubuntu (you choose between the two during boot up). You should keep this in mind as well if you absolutely need windows for something (which there is nothing I can think of).

Best of luck to you,

cs_student

James D

04-21-2010, 12:04 AM

Thanks for all the great responses

NBK*Twitch

04-21-2010, 02:27 AM

I highly suggest not using anything debain or ubuntu based.

They use very insecure methods,use laggy software,and ubuntu in this case has evil software.

If you are coming from windows I highly suggest Opensuse or Mandriva.

Both are very stable,have a control center like windows,have a great community for help,and the upgrades will not break your system.

If you need more info on why not use ubuntu and related watch these videos -

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tqQMqQxf-Ik

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FIE-p4yJt1Q

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PVIP2W_iCNk

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xZs1429nbyo

Note I do not hate linux,I hate the users. I mainly attack on ubuntu due to its fanboy filled community.

Ubuntu can still be a great OS,but loads of editing is needed to make it worth editing.

cs_student

04-21-2010, 02:55 AM

Ubuntu is a fine distro. It does have some bloat, but such is the case when you want utmost plug-and-play hardware support and great software support. Many of the dependencies are there because a large majority of users will need theme within some point in time. Most distros don't allow you to just click install and have wine work great. This is the entire point of ubuntu.

Your right they have a lot of bloat, but that's not a valid argument as to why a regular user shouldn't use it.

FYI: I also am in favor of eliminating bloat (I run arch), but I still suggest ubuntu to regular users.

Also, compared to arch/slackware/gentoo distros like Mandriva and OpenSuse have tons of unneeded bloat IMO

It really just depends on what you consider unneeded. In my opinion, many of the graphical user interfaces are just unneeded bloat.

NBK*Twitch

04-21-2010, 03:00 AM

Ubuntu is a fine distro. It does have some bloat, but such is the case when you want utmost plug-and-play hardware support and great software support. Many of the dependencies are there because a large majority of users will need theme within some point in time. Most distros don't allow you to just click install and have wine work great. This is the entire point of ubuntu.

Your right they have a lot of bloat, but that's not a valid argument as to why a regular user shouldn't use it.

FYI: I also am in favor of eliminating bloat (I run arch), but I still suggest ubuntu to regular users.
Ubuntu is not the only distro that has one click install.

Opensuse
Fedora
Mandriva
Debain
PClinuxOS
Slitaz

and more also have it.

Wine can run on any linux distro.

Speaking of its dependency handling.. It freaking sucks. It brings in way to much stuff that is not needed. Look at what it brings in with wine. Only distro I know of that allows you to not install un needed dependencies is Opensuse. This is why some people like slackware due to you not needing to worry about unneeded dependencies.

primefalcon

04-21-2010, 04:26 AM

NBK*Twitch

04-21-2010, 04:31 AM

Ubuntu also has around 90% of the Linux Marketshare, which means any aps that are more likely to be available either in the repo's or as a one click .deb install.

Ubuntu is also more gui friendly than nearly all Linux distro's out there (maybe only superseded by Mint, which even has the restricted codecs to play formats like mp3 and wav pre-installed), And Mint is Ubuntu based anyhow...

The fact is Ubuntu has GUI's to do just about every thing, you may call this bloat, but not everyone likes using the command line (personally I love the command line), and Ubuntu focuses on ease of use for everyone.

Ubuntu is not the only distro with gui. Infact it lacks gui in some ways.

Opensuse And Mandriva have a way to do anything via gui by default. While Ubuntu does not.

Saying ubuntu has 90% linux marketshare is just an opinion. Heck awhile back redhat said fedora has most.

Btw if someone calls having a gui bloat,then they need their brain checked.. I consider bloat being big programs like gimp being installed bloat. When a program like picasa or tuxpaint should be installed instead.

On the topic of packages being available for ubuntu.

There are alot of programs that only make rpms. The reason being they said they need a standard package and most agreed to just go with rpms.

Which is not a bad thing thanks to alien.

oracleguy

04-21-2010, 07:22 AM

They use very insecure methods,use laggy software,and ubuntu in this case has evil software.

Evil software? Do tell.

Speaking of its dependency handling.. It freaking sucks. It brings in way to much stuff that is not needed. Look at what it brings in with wine. Only distro I know of that allows you to not install un needed dependencies is Opensuse. This is why some people like slackware due to you not needing to worry about unneeded dependencies.

Heh, you should try Gentoo then.

Btw if someone calls having a gui bloat,then they need their brain checked.. I consider bloat being big programs like gimp being installed bloat. When a program like picasa or tuxpaint should be installed instead.

A GUI is bloat when it isn't needed. Any server that has a GUI can be considered bloat since you don't need a GUI on a server. All my Linux servers don't have any GUI, not even X installed.

You can't really compare GIMP and Picasa together, they serve very different purposes. They do some of the same things but have different target audiences.

primefalcon

04-21-2010, 08:34 AM

Hahaha this is one definite thing with Linux people, we do get passionate about Operating Systems, who knows in 5 years both might be history and haiku might be ruling the roost (jk'ing btw)

Ubuntu is not the only distro with gui. Infact it lacks gui in some ways.

Opensuse And Mandriva have a way to do anything via gui by default. While Ubuntu does not.

Like what?

Saying ubuntu has 90% linux marketshare is just an opinion. Heck awhile back redhat said fedora has most.

Actualy no... while not anywhere near 100% accurate, my own web logs I keep plus those of distro watch third party stat trackers do show a very large Ubuntu bias in the Linux market-share that's fact, while 90% for ubuntu alone might of be a little exaggeration, if you use the Ubuntu based distributions... it's not....

Bryan Lunduke actualy put together some interesting statistics that you might find interesting to look at http://lunduke.com/?p=1023

Btw if someone calls having a gui bloat,then they need their brain checked.. I consider bloat being big programs like gimp being installed bloat. When a program like picasa or tuxpaint should be installed instead.

Pretty just just what oracle guy just said

On the topic of packages being available for ubuntu.

There are alot of programs that only make rpms. The reason being they said they need a standard package and most agreed to just go with rpms.

Which is not a bad thing thanks to alien.
A lot more only make debs, though both debs and rpms are both common on most

NBK*Twitch

04-21-2010, 07:22 PM

Evil software? Do tell.

Heh, you should try Gentoo then.

A GUI is bloat when it isn't needed. Any server that has a GUI can be considered bloat since you don't need a GUI on a server. All my Linux servers don't have any GUI, not even X installed.

You can't really compare GIMP and Picasa together, they serve very different purposes. They do some of the same things but have different target audiences.

The Evil Software I am pointing to is Computer Janitor. It removes packages you installed. When you see a program name like computer janitor you would think its like ccleaner...

Here is an example - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qEP0UQAGzSM

Here is an example of how insecure it is - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9HxFGQ8OpYw

That video shows how ubuntu and others that have the 15 minute timeout with sudo are very insecure.

@primefalcon. It misses gui's for alot of config. For example it has no gui by default for editing the bootloader,editing run level,and editing services.

Another thing it misses is a default gui for its firewall.

While others such as Opensuse and PClinuxOS do have one.

Might I also note it doesn't have anything like apparmour or selinux by default.

Now you say from your logs ubuntu is the most used. That is great,but those are your own webstats. It does not cover every user.

Atleast redhat tried to back their stats up with proof.

oracleguy

04-21-2010, 07:54 PM

Here is an example of how insecure it is - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9HxFGQ8OpYw

That video shows how ubuntu and others that have the 15 minute timeout with sudo are very insecure.

So what your saying is Ubuntu suffers from the exact problem every computer system has and it can be easily exploited through user ignorance. Whoop-tie do.

As for sudo you have to have the timeout and set at a reasonable amount of time otherwise people wouldn't use it. Security is a balance between keeping unauthorized people out and actually making it livable for the people who are authorized.

NBK*Twitch

04-21-2010, 07:59 PM

So what your saying is Ubuntu suffers from the exact problem every computer system has and it can be easily exploited through user ignorance. Whoop-tie do.

As for sudo you have to have the timeout and set at a reasonable amount of time otherwise people wouldn't use it. Security is a balance between keeping unauthorized people out and actually making it livable for the people who are authorized.
Uhmm incorrect. Sudo does not need a timeout. People will still use it.

Do you really think ubuntu is the only one out there...

Sudo having a timeout is a flaw. That is why about every other distro does not use a timeout.

If you did that on a server do you realize how fast it would get hacked?

Infact Windows doesn't have a timeout on its UAC either...Yet people still use it.

oracleguy

04-21-2010, 09:05 PM

Uhmm incorrect. Sudo does not need a timeout. People will still use it.

Do you really think ubuntu is the only one out there...

Sudo having a timeout is a flaw. That is why about every other distro does not use a timeout.

If you did that on a server do you realize how fast it would get hacked?

Infact Windows doesn't have a timeout on its UAC either...Yet people still use it.

1) I never claimed Ubuntu was the only distro out there, in fact I suggested a different distro you might enjoy in a previous post.

2) That statement is as bold as the 90% Ubuntu usage, have you actually tried all the others? I have used other distros other than the Ubuntu family of distros that have the timeout by default.

3) I've used plenty of servers that have a sudo timeout and they've never been hacked. If you are running a server you are hopefully competent enough to not execute files you don't trust. Assuming that, a sudo timeout then does not make the server any easier to hack. You are more likely to suffer a break in via a security flaw in the kernel or some daemon you already have running (BIND, OpenSSH, Apache, Postfix, NTP, Samba, etc.).

You might not not know this but you can limit what commands can be executed through sudo, you don't have to allow all commands. And you can assign different users and groups different sudo configurations.

I would hope you wouldn't be running an Ubuntu desktop distro as a server anyways. At the very least use their server version. (Though I personally would use a different distro for a server)

You are clearly very set in your views and I'll leave you to them.

NBK*Twitch

04-21-2010, 09:11 PM

Yes you can edit sudo to make it limited. Yes there are others that have a sudo timeout. I am not denying that. I am focusing on ubuntu for reasons already stated.

Yes I have tried and used many distros. Most of which sucked eggs.

I have tried slackware,arch,ubuntu.debain.linuxmint.fedora,pclinuxos,slitaz,slax,yoper,gentoo,sabayon,and alot of very small user base distros like dream linux.

The point I am trying to make is ubuntu isn't as good as people claim it to be.

I hear almost always from the ubuntu fanbase that it just works. Which it did for me back in 7.10. However when 8.04 came out my sound died. This is very common in the ubuntu world. I am not saying it doesn't happen elsewhere because it does. Fedora did it to me aswell.

The main point I am trying to make is telling the truth of ubuntu or any linux distro.

So instead of a newbie going in trying it,thinking everything will work and be easy. They know problems will be there.

As for sudo I have already provided a video showing how it CAN be insecure with a timeout.

If it makes you feel better I can just tell you the flaws of linux in general. Like not having a stable api. Or xorg having little to no backwards compatibility ..

cs_student

04-22-2010, 02:26 AM

I say we just lock this thread as it's becoming a pointless flame war.

primefalcon

04-22-2010, 03:46 AM

I don't really want to get into this any further myself.... my point of view is Ubuntu is a good beginner very user friendly OS which is what was asked (I am not a beginner and I still do like it myself), discussions or arguments about what's the best rarely if ever go anywhere. None are perfect, a lot are good for specialized purposes. and yes GUI's themselves at all are bloat in a dedicated server enviro IMO as well