OS question

Post Reply New Topic

Those of you who have used both Linux Ubuntu, and Linux Mint--could you please tell me which you liked better, and why?

I am currently using Ubuntu on an old PC with a dial-up connection. I have a new refurbed machine with Win7 on it waiting in the wings, until I have the energy and time to clean the place up. I don't like to have even service people over when it is so messy, and I will need someone to come hook me up with DSL, as my new PC is too narrow to take my old dial-up modem board from the old machine.

I am wondering if I should just go with only Win7 on the new machine, or if I should partition it, and add Linux, as well. Although I have been using Ubuntu for several years, I am not thrilled with it, and have heard that Mint is easier to use. For the record, I am not a computer geek. Also, I used to use Windows before a relative switched me over to Linux. He said it was better. After using it for several years, I have my doubts about that. Although there have been no full crashes, there have been many minor hangs, that need the PC to be shut off over night before I can use the thing again without problems. I have never warmed up to this OS. I use my PC for letters, sometimes making simple tables for things, and going on the I-net. I am not a big gamer, so I don't need the PC resources for that, but I do occasionally try out a new game, or on rare occasions, treat myself to a game day.

I would appreciate input from those who have used both Ubuntu and Mint to help me make up my confused mind. I don't want to ask the relative who set me up with Linux because he has turned out to be a more forgetful and befuddled person than I am. This is a guy who will put a bowl of food in the microwave, and then leave the house and drive away. He is a computer geek, but now sends very mixed messages. He first hooked me up with Windows years ago because, according to him, that was the best system for me. Then He decided he didn't like it and switched himself, and later me to Linux--Red Hat for him and Ubuntu for me. Now he says I should have Windows again, and that Linux isn't so great, because there aren't enough good, free apps for it.

Input from others would enable me to better sift through the pros and cons, to make up my mind about whether I should just have Win 7, or should partition and also have Linux, as well as which Linux to use.

--Thanks for your help.

Ubuntu is not noted for its stability, but they have "long term releases" (currently 10.04 Lucid Lynx) if you want slightly older software that's well-tested and less buggy.

Mint basically is Ubuntu "under the hood." Think of it as an Ubuntu "remix" in terms of user experience and default configurations. It's very popular and is definitely worth a try.

Another important decision is which "desktop environment" to try: Gnome, Unity, KDE, Xfce, etc.

A final thought is that your minor problems with Ubuntu may have been due to a hardware driver or such. You might have a much nicer Linux experience on your new computer than the old one.

Windows just because of gaming. I even searched for best OS for gaming and one of the first things that comes just compares different versions of Windows.http://benchmark3d.com/best-operating-system-for-gaming

I think your choice in OSes very much matches your personal use. Business, Personal, Servers, desktop, Gamer, Coder, Hacker, Surfer, etc.

I have Debian and Fedora used for some fairly heavy mail and web server use, but I wouldn't use them for a desktop. I have a couple of Ubuntu VMs I have used the desktops as testing and they work very well. My primary machine is Windows, because I have found, over the years, a great many pieces of software that work better then any others for their purposes, but arn't available for other OSes, including MS Office.

I would have no problem using an iPad, or a Mac if I had a compelling software reason. I think I am going to get an iPad shortly.

For me, OS choice is all about the Apps, so I would make a list of the apps you are going to want/need and make a decision on OS based on that.

My Personal opinion is that Windows has the most software available and therefore is the most flexible, and Macs are not far behind. Perhaps you could run windows with a Ubuntu VM (or that version of Ubuntu that runs under windows that I have not been able to get working yet)

Happy Hacking!

I am quite new to Linux and have only used Mint, not Ubuntu. There are a few glitchy things that irritate me, but they can usually be fixed by logging out and then logging back in again (mercifully a much faster process than on Windows). If not then there is almost always some advice online. One benefit of Mint is that if their own forums don't have a solution, a solution for Ubuntu will usually work. I still have a dual boot on my laptop with Windows 7 and am actually using that now because I needed iTunes to install iOS 5 on my iPhone. Within 2 minutes of logging in I realized how little I miss it. Everything is so much slower and a lot of stuff just seems, well, clunkier. And another thing--I was just told I need to restart my computer after installing a software update. Something else that doesn't happen in Linux.

One thing I like about Linux is that although it might not have as much software choice as Windows, just about everything is free. Being extremely cheap, I like that. A lot. And it is so much easier to install software on a Linux machine with a software and package manager than on Windows. Personally I'd recommend sticking with Linux (I'm still thinking I should experiment with different distros myself, so I can't give more specific advice than that--but I have been quite happy with Mint).

I am currently using Arch Linux, I am rather happy with it too. I have been increasingly experimenting with FreeBSD, which I rather like. I love UNIX and UNIX-like OSs because of their power and flexibility.

I usually prefer Debian. If the choice is between Ubuntu and Mint, pick one at random. There is that little difference between them.

I'm planning on installing the next PC-BSD (FreeBSD for n00bs) when it comes out. The 9.0 kernel is supposed to finally add support for my wireless card.

At the end of the day, the pro-con list is rather irrelevant. (Moreso, seeing as you don't game).

Just use you what like and what is easy. Don't let people bully you into the concept of MAC/LINUX/WINDOWS is better because of XYZ.
Generally speaking, Linux will be harder to use than windows and seeing as you stated that you didn't like it and aren't a computer nerd... If you have Windows installed on the machine, just use it. If you don't like, download a few live CDs and see how you go with them.

At the end of the day the only thing that matters is your preference.

Amongst a few other things, one of the things that I hate about Mint is the fact that it supports itself via targeted advertising in it's default web search page, which appeared to be a custom Google search. This is somewhat spyware-ish, and made me question if there was more going on with it 'under the hood' so to speak. I'm currently running 10.04 Ubuntu, and I really can't say that I'm blown away by the cool factor, but it seems to work fairly well, and doesn't have the resource or vulnerability issues current Windows versions, so all is relatively good.

I wouldn't mind trying Arch if they ever decided to release a Gnome 2.x version, but I doubt that will happen any time soon.

Quick question, what sort of delays do you notice in software releases (ie, how close were KDE4.7 for arch and FreeBSD released?)

How is the "binary compatibility" with Linux? I assume it is heavily relied on?

Wouldn't that go against the idea of having Arch in the first place?

Although, this might interest you: https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/MATE

I seem to be getting distracted by Puppy Linux.

Oneiric Ocelot is gruesome.

Is Natty Narwhal any good? Or should I go with Ubuntu 10.4 (lucid)? I still have distro disks floating about.

I prefer FreeBSD over PC-BSD, because I have run into many issues with the PC-BSD installer, I prefer to use a text installer anyway and I also prefer to use a command line to set up my system because its easier, its more powerful, and s**t actually works. So if you some day feel confident to use a text installer and set your system up with command line, I would recommend you try it that way.

That would defeat the purpose of Arch Linux and the whole idea behind Arch Linux. Arch Linux is a rolling release distro, just as Gentoo is and its designed for people who want bleeding edge software and kernels.

Well Arch Linux keeps up rather quickly, depending on what software it is it can be a day or two. I would say that Arch Linux keeps up with the latest stuff more than Gentoo does. FreeBSD is different because sometimes they have to patch it because of the different libraries on FreeBSD compared to Linux, and they have to test it heavily too.

What do you mean by "Binary Compatibility"? In FreeBSD? Well in FreeBSD there is a lot of software you can install with out the the need for Linux binary compatibility.

That's how I do it in Linux, but I don't know my way around BSD quite as well so I would prefer to start out doing things the "easy" way.

Not quite what I meant, I meant KDE 4.7 was released at the end of July. We started seeing updates popping up here and there within a week or so (supported or otherwise).

How long did it take for 4.7 to show up in FreeBSD?
Is there generally a delay between software releases on Linux and FreeBSD? What sort of delay would it be?




I mean, you have the ability to install RPMs on FreeBSD right? Does something handle dependencies or do you have to go at it by hand for the most part?