Should Mint replace Ubuntu as GNU plus Linux's flagship distro?

[Kudistos Megistos]

For a few years, Ubuntu has been the unofficial flagship GNU plus Linux distro, the one that newcomers are expected to use first and the one that gets shown as an example when people are talking about GNU plus Linux. However, it seems to me that Mint might actually be the better flagship. It is designed with switchers from Windows in mind (and these people are surely the target audience for GNU plus Linux evangelists) and it comes with codecs preinstalled. One of the things that is bothersome with Ubuntu is dealing with crappy Totem player and having to install all the proprietary codecs because the open-source philosophy forbids shipping an OS that allows people to play evil mp3s out of the box. That, "you need to install x codec (or whatever it says)" screen must be a big turn-off to a lot of people. Not being able to play common codecs out of the box will create a bad impression and be seen as the sign of an unfinished and unprofessional OS. Yes, this is all due to the open source philosophy and some people will see that as a very important factor in deciding which distro should be the flagship, but very few are really interested in that and they are already part of the 1% of people who use GNU plus Linux.

Mint also doesn't look like a bad mac rip-off. I mean, I find OSX ugly to begin with, but when you combine it with Ubuntu, whew! Looks like the desktop was beaten with a forest full of ugly sticks!

It seems to me that Mint is the distro more likely to get people to get people to switch over to GNU plus Linux, if for no other reason than the important first impression created by the appearance and the ability to play more media types without having to download any extras. That makes it feel like a more "complete" OS.

Anyway, I don't really know or care that much about GNU plus Linux, I'd just like to see it get a slightly better market share by having a more newbie-friendly distro. What do people who actually know what they're talking about think?

I suppose this might boil down to an argument about whether Stallman's philosophy is or isn't more important than making a user friendly distro. :|

 

[Covarr]

As pretty much the most user-friendly Linux distro out there, I personally think that Linux Mint is the best for new users. As you already mentioned, the people who are so hardcore against anything that isn't open source are probably more tech-savvy, more able to use other distros, but for a typical home user who just wants something more free or more stable than Windows (or OSX), it does make sense for them to go first to the one that's ready to use immediately.

Hell, I *AM* tech savvy, and I'm planning on going with Mint when I eventually ditch Windows (waiting for Steam/L4D2 on Linux). It's a pain in the ass waiting an hour for an OS to install, only to have to go and download a bunch of features that should have been included to begin with. I know Ubuntu isn't quite as bad as, say, Yellow Dog (can't even fucking play Youtube without a ton of work), but as a whole it's still not as complete as most people need.

As for visuals, I don't think any stock install of any Linux distro has looked nice, ever. It's all so bland. For all the work that is put into functionality, a stable core, etc., it seems like there's a significant lack of polish in any of the desktop managers. Most of them look like either a bad OSX rip-off, or a bad XP rip-off. No aesthetic appeal, mostly stuff I could do in photoshop in twenty minutes or less, and poor (seemingly arbitrary) font choices. Mint isn't as bad as some, but even it's guilty.

I'll finish this post later, I just got invited to a game of L4D2.

 

[Bosola]

For a few years, Ubuntu has been the unofficial flagship GNU plus Linux distro, the one that newcomers are expected to use first and the one that gets shown as an example when people are talking about GNU plus Linux. However, it seems to me that Mint might actually be the better flagship. It is designed with switchers from Windows in mind (and these people are surely the target audience for GNU plus Linux evangelists) and it comes with codecs preinstalled.

It's also not dog**** brown. But seriously, it's sleek, well laid out, and 'just works'. It's direct proof that OS X stopped being the direct competitor to Windows back in 2007, that terminal fiddling and hardware failure is a thing of the past.

Yes, this is all due to the open source philosophy and some people will see that as a very important factor in deciding which distro should be the flagship, but very few are really interested in that and they are already part of the 1% of people who use GNU plus Linux.

...Even those of us who think open source is A Good Thing (like myself) have no truck with Stallman and his rabid extirpation of any closed source projects. I have no problem with private development. I just happen to think making source available is useful in many contexts.

I suppose this might boil down to an argument about whether Stallman's philosophy is or isn't more important than making a user friendly distro. :|

When King Neckbeard stops his irrational and partisan attacks on the BSD license (which I'm actually told should be called the X11 license, but who actually gives a ****?), maybe I'll start taking him seriously.

As pretty much the most user-friendly Linux distro out there, I personally think that Linux Mint is the best for new users. As you already mentioned, the people who are so hardcore against anything that isn't open source are probably more tech-savvy, more able to use other distros, but for a typical home user who just wants something more free or more stable than Windows (or OSX), it does make sense for them to go first to the one that's ready to use immediately.

Hell, I *AM* tech savvy, and I'm planning on going with Mint when I eventually ditch Windows (waiting for Steam/L4D2 on Linux). It's a pain in the ass waiting an hour for an OS to install, only to have to go and download a bunch of features that should have been included to begin with. I know Ubuntu isn't quite as bad as, say, Yellow Dog (can't even f****** play Youtube without a ton of work), but as a whole it's still not as complete as most people need.

As for visuals, I don't think any stock install of any Linux distro has looked nice, ever. It's all so bland. For all the work that is put into functionality, a stable core, etc., it seems like there's a significant lack of polish in any of the desktop managers. Most of them look like either a bad OSX rip-off, or a bad XP rip-off. No aesthetic appeal, mostly stuff I could do in photoshop in twenty minutes or less, and poor (seemingly arbitrary) font choices. Mint isn't as bad as some, but even it's guilty.

I'll finish this post later, I just got invited to a game of L4D2.

Mint works better with teal themes and Windows fonts.

I did once think of writing a tiny GUI app in C++ that made it simple to port fonts from the Windows partition into Debian / Ubuntu. Maybe I'll get round to it after this next game of TF2.

 

[sithlord48]

mint can not be called a completely GNU system since it contains non-free parts. for that matter the FSF does not reconize ubuntu or debian as a GNU compliant os's either for they come w/ non-free parts.look here.
now i have not tried mint but any distro that will include Gnome dependent on Mono can never be called a free os. this sort of distro based on gnome and infected with mono should never be the "Flagship distro" but sadly ubnutu does contain mono and so does debian squeeze!. you see if you want a free os your DE need to not relay on non-free software (i.e mono), i think the new flagship should be based on kde4. as you may know i use kde and i have been a long time kde user(i have also been called sort of a purest). The fact that Qt is gpl free and thats all kde4 requires makes it one of the only truly gpl free DEs out there..i only use kubuntu cause its debian w/ updated kde , bleeding edge just about whatever i want if i choose too. its everything mint is not,since its kde version is based on kubuntu and its "default" version uses gnome that either needs mono now or will very soon.
edit: i forgot this

I suppose this might boil down to an argument about whether Stallman's philosophy is or isn't more important than making a user friendly distro. :|

The FSF ideals of free software are important and they are more important then user friendly.if some companies would just make gpl drivers for their hardware, it would be mostly a non issue. but, you really shouldn't need nonfree software to make things user friendly. what you do need is less people using non-free standards like flash they are bad for everyone. besides its not like under the gpl you are forbiden to sell software for $'s. you can sell gpl software, you have to provide the source and allow people to also give it away to other people (u know like how people just pirate non gpl stuff anyway...) see the 4 freedoms

 

[pyrozen]

off topic,

i have an old tower in my basement (486 i think) that i use strictly to access my router directly to fiddle with the wireless settings. It runs miserably slow, and all it has on it is win98 and firefox(IE wont even run). I considered making it a Linux box to hopefully squeeze a bit more out of it, but i am worried that i will not be able to find linux drivers for this ancient hardware. I also don't want to just give it a try, because i can't even find win98 drivers for the old hardware! Will linux be able to identify my hardware easily? Also, for a first timer, which distro would you recommend? I am very computer savvy so i dont need very much hand holding.

lee

 

[Hellbringer616]

off topic,

i have an old tower in my basement (486 i think) that i use strictly to access my router directly to fiddle with the wireless settings. It runs miserably slow, and all it has on it is win98 and firefox(IE wont even run). I considered making it a Linux box to hopefully squeeze a bit more out of it, but i am worried that i will not be able to find linux drivers for this ancient hardware. I also don't want to just give it a try, because i can't even find win98 drivers for the old hardware! Will linux be able to identify my hardware easily? Also, for a first timer, which distro would you recommend? I am very computer savvy so i dont need very much hand holding.

lee

Damn Small Linux, Or Puppy. I've never used DSL, but Puppy has really good hardware support (worked on a windows ME machine, dunno about older though..) I'd try either of those.

 

[sithlord48]

pyro, try a lubuntu live disk its ubuntu distro that uses lxde for the desktop. it works on a  600mhz celeron,iirc 256 mb ram, some random wifi card and a sound card. the machine is used as a file server and desktop . just be sure u have a lan cable pluged in while u install because you may need to get some properitary drivers for your wifi or something else , plus its a live disk so you don't have to install before you try it.

 

[pyrozen]

pyro, try a lubuntu live disk its ubuntu distro that uses lxde for the desktop. it works on a  600mhz celeron,iirc 256 mb ram, some random wifi card and a sound card. the machine is used as a file server and desktop . just be sure u have a lan cable pluged in while u install because you may need to get some properitary drivers for your wifi or something else , plus its a live disk so you don't have to install before you try it.

i will give it a shot, it should go fine because there is no wifi in the desktop, only a direct LAN connect to the router. Its basically a backup computer should the wifi go bananas and the laptops wont connect. I dont like walking downstairs and plugging in the laptops directly, i prefer to have the ancient desktop as a buffer between them.

*edit*
I gave lunbutu a shot but the computer is simply too slow. Its a 400MHz Celeron, and windows 2000 runs circles around the lunbutu distro. It was a fun way to kill an afternoon though, and it has peaked my interest in better distros i could try on new computers. Thanks for the help.

 

[yoshi314]

mint is better imho, mostly because it doesn't really rely on ubuntu's configurators and it's still pretty convenient to use - there was a debian based mint release recently, which works nearly as well as typical ubuntu-based mint.

mint is just a bunch of artwork and configuration tools on top of some distribution. and it's written by independent developers.

for typical users the fact that is preconfigured with codecs/extra firmware is a big plus. i prefer it due to the fact that it stays closer with projects it benefits from. ubuntu seems to push linux desktop in their own direction, and their modifications to gnome desktop aren't always welcome by gnome developers. they seem too ubuntu-specific.

 

[Covarr]

The FSF ideals of free software are important and they are more important then user friendly.

I heartily disagree. A computer is made to be used, not to uphold an ideal. This isn't to say I don't like open software, but I'm not so attached to the idea that I'd want a computer that doesn't do what I need it to.

You know the reason that people rely on closed, expensive, commercial products like those made by Adobe? Because there's no decent, free alternative. GIMP is horribly underpowered and doesn't do a lot of what Photoshop does. Flash may be overpriced, bloated, and closed, but many of its functions simply CAN'T be replicated adequately by more "open" alternatives such as Java or HTML5. The fact of the matter is, closed software is frequently better than free software.

When freedom itself has a cost, it's not truly free. When the price of true freedom is so high that the software is lacking in functionality that's considered standard or basic, it's not worth it.

Of course, all that is just in how it affects the user. "Freedom" to others is often just a shackle for the original developer of a piece of software. When software is released under the GPL, the developer immediately loses a certain amount of control. Now, anybody can make any changes they want, with zero quality control, and release them all over the web, destroying any form of unity. This can lead to dozens of branches of a program, each with its own set of features and bugs. If it's even remotely popular, the developer may end up receiving hundreds bug reports for issues exclusive to versions he had nothing to do with. This can be avoided by having an organized SVN with one leader having ultimate control over what code does and doesn't make it in, but then the software isn't as "free" as some would desire.

As I said before, I'm not completely opposed to free software. But it's extremely naive to act like it's more important for software to be completely free than anything else. Software is meant to be used, so usability really should be the main focus.

 

[sithlord48]

I was talking about Hardware....

A computer is made to be used, not to uphold an ideal.

this is true. but that EULA you agreed to begs to differ

 

[Bosola]

I heartily disagree. A computer is made to be used, not to uphold an ideal. This isn't to say I don't like open software, but I'm not so attached to the idea that I'd want a computer that doesn't do what I need it to.

You know the reason that people rely on closed, expensive, commercial products like those made by Adobe? Because there's no decent, free alternative. GIMP is horribly underpowered and doesn't do a lot of what Photoshop does. Flash may be overpriced, bloated, and closed, but many of its functions simply CAN'T be replicated adequately by more "open" alternatives such as Java or HTML5. The fact of the matter is, closed software is frequently better than free software.

When freedom itself has a cost, it's not truly free. When the price of true freedom is so high that the software is lacking in functionality that's considered standard or basic, it's not worth it.

Of course, all that is just in how it affects the user. "Freedom" to others is often just a shackle for the original developer of a piece of software. When software is released under the GPL, the developer immediately loses a certain amount of control. Now, anybody can make any changes they want, with zero quality control, and release them all over the web, destroying any form of unity. This can lead to dozens of branches of a program, each with its own set of features and bugs. If it's even remotely popular, the developer may end up receiving hundreds bug reports for issues exclusive to versions he had nothing to do with. This can be avoided by having an organized SVN with one leader having ultimate control over what code does and doesn't make it in, but then the software isn't as "free" as some would desire.

As I said before, I'm not completely opposed to free software. But it's extremely naive to act like it's more important for software to be completely free than anything else. Software is meant to be used, so usability really should be the main focus.

Nice idea. But the reason GNASH isn't competing with flash is simply a case of market share and the attached incentive. Open Office gives me DTP features I won't see in MS Office for years (in fact, it's regularly used in the technical writing world instead of MS's offering / FrameMaker), and Mint gives me a smooth, well designed desktop that 'just works'. PHP delivers far more functionality than ASP, and most embedded computers will use some Linux / BSD variant. Want a decent C++ compiler that wasn't written by Stallman? Good luck on that one.

* A caveat: Java isn't actually fully open source. Yet.

And if quality control is such an issue, why hasn't open source software fallen apart already? Well, because those who fork are obliged to distinguish themselves from the 'parent'. One rule, instantly solves the issue that was 'inexorably bound' to open source development. FOSS advocates have no trouble with this (remember, they claim the authority to name the OS GNU+Linux). I'm sure you'll still get people sending OxyOffice bug reports to the OOo Team, but then again, Cadbury's report droves of letters referring to Nestle chocolate products, so the issue is moot.

 

[Hellbringer616]

My only gripe with Linux (well so far all *buntu based distros) is the fact that my effing RAID wont work rightI just spent half a day installing Kubuntu. and it failed. everytime, installs, fine (except GRUB which i know is broken) and then i go to first boot, and it only finds half the data.... (well a third since it's 3 drives) and refuses to boot..

/rant

Anyway, i agree with the lack of things working "out of the box" in the distros i've used. However i'd like to point out that when i installed Kubuntu on my VM (since it refuses to work otherwise....) on first boot it asked if i wanted to install Flash, Java, and a bunch of codecs, said yes, and when it was down downloading, worked like a charm!