Linked by Thom Holwerda on Sun 6th Apr 2008 21:00 UTC
Linux From Linux Mint's About page: "Linux Mint's purpose is to produce an elegant, up to date and comfortable GNU/Linux desktop distribution." To reach this goal, lead developer and founder Clement Lefebvre used (surprisingly) Ubuntu as the base, and added multimedia codecs to the distribution, by default. Later on, Mint deviated more from Ubuntu by adding its own artwork, web-based package front-end, and configuration tools (MintTools) to the mix. I installed the latest stable release, Daryna (4.0), released on 15 October of last year, to see what's what.
Order by: Score:
very nice looking
by lqsh on Sun 6th Apr 2008 21:57 UTC
lqsh
Member since:
2007-01-01

One of the best looking distros (default installation) out there, imho.

http://www.thecodingstudio.com/opensource/linux/screenshots/index.p...

Reply Score: 3

RE: very nice looking
by motang on Mon 7th Apr 2008 12:44 UTC in reply to "very nice looking"
motang Member since:
2008-03-27

Really, for me the best looking distro right from the beginning would be OpenSUSE.

Reply Score: 3

Mint
by SoloDeveloper on Sun 6th Apr 2008 22:53 UTC
SoloDeveloper
Member since:
2008-03-16

I have used Mint on and off ever since it was 2.0, and i have fallen in to the habit of simply installing Ubuntu, then going over and grabbing the Mint packages and using those behind the install to customize my Ubuntu.

I love the tools that they have, nice i think, i dont like amarock, well, actually i DO like amarock, but i dont want the KDE base installed just for one app.

All in all, i agree with what you said.

Reply Score: 1

RE: Mint
by cmost on Mon 7th Apr 2008 00:44 UTC in reply to "Mint"
cmost Member since:
2006-07-16

As long as you're aware that Linux Mint is NOT Ubuntu. Linux Mint forked from Ubuntu somewhere around Ubuntu 6.10 and diverges ever more with each successive release. While it may be compatible with Gutsy's repositories, the two are not interchangeable. Daryna is a bird of a different feather.

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: Mint
by squarebottle on Mon 7th Apr 2008 02:15 UTC in reply to "RE: Mint"
squarebottle Member since:
2008-04-07

To my knowledge, the actual "guts" are still Ubuntu, which is why the Mint release cycle is so influenced by the Ubuntu release schedule.

Yes, Mint makes a lot of it own tools that affect how the system can be used (as with MintUpload) and how it runs itself (as with MintUpdate), but it's still very much Ubuntu-based.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Mint
by snozzberry on Mon 7th Apr 2008 14:53 UTC in reply to "RE: Mint"
snozzberry Member since:
2005-11-14

Thom's article claims this is not a fork. Who's right?

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Mint
by sbergman27 on Mon 7th Apr 2008 15:19 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Mint"
sbergman27 Member since:
2005-07-24

What's a fork? Is Andrew Morton's kernel tree a fork of the Linux kernel? How about Ingo's? Is Xubuntu a fork of Ubuntu? How about CentOS and RHEL? CentOS has a different theme. All the trademarked material has been replaced. And it includes some value added features ala centosplus. Fork? Or not?

Keep in mind that cmost has an ongoing anti-buntu agenda (as anyone can verify with a glance at his posting history), and I think you can see whence this "confusion" arose.

Edited 2008-04-07 15:20 UTC

Reply Score: 6

Mint 4.0 KDE Edition
by bsnipes on Sun 6th Apr 2008 23:26 UTC
bsnipes
Member since:
2005-07-06

If you like KDE (I do), try the KDE edition. It has TastyMenu by default and is the best menu IMO out there.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Mint 4.0 KDE Edition
by lemur2 on Mon 7th Apr 2008 12:13 UTC in reply to "Mint 4.0 KDE Edition"
lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

If you like KDE (I do), try the KDE edition. It has TastyMenu by default and is the best menu IMO out there.


That is the one I am using right now.

Very nice. I am looking forward to a Linux Mint release with KDE 4 ... perhaps towards the end of this year.

If I can have KDE 4.1 with Tasty Menu ... it should be the best option of all.

Edited 2008-04-07 12:14 UTC

Reply Score: 2

Updated tools availible.
by exploder on Mon 7th Apr 2008 01:08 UTC
exploder
Member since:
2008-04-07

If the updated menu and tools from the romeo repo had been used in this review there would have been more of a difference from Ubuntu. Mint 5 will have the new tools by default. There is also a user manual that is very informative and is of great assistance to new user's.

LinuxMint has come a long way in a very short amount of time!

Reply Score: 1

Each to their own of course
by Al2001 on Mon 7th Apr 2008 02:01 UTC
Al2001
Member since:
2005-07-06

Am I the only person on earth that actually LIKES the default Ubuntu theme?

Reply Score: 8

RE: Each to their own of course
by cmost on Mon 7th Apr 2008 02:10 UTC in reply to "Each to their own of course"
cmost Member since:
2006-07-16

Am I the only person on earth that actually LIKES the default Ubuntu theme?


Yes.

Reply Score: 11

RE: Each to their own of course
by sbergman27 on Mon 7th Apr 2008 02:12 UTC in reply to "Each to their own of course"
sbergman27 Member since:
2005-07-24

Am I the only person on earth that actually LIKES the default Ubuntu theme?

I like it. I do think that brown is a very dangerous color to try to base a theme on, since there is a large variation in how it looks on different monitors and in different lighting conditions. When I'm running Ubuntu, I really enjoy the combination of the "Outdoors" theme, available in the standard repositories, and basically "Human" done up in olive green, and the wallpaper at the link below. I find the result to be very peaceful, which is something I find I really need more of these days.

http://interfacelift.com/wallpaper/details.php?id=441

Reply Score: 4

RE: Each to their own of course
by bthylafh on Mon 7th Apr 2008 02:27 UTC in reply to "Each to their own of course"
bthylafh Member since:
2006-09-21

I like it too.

Reply Score: 5

RE: Each to their own of course
by bolomkxxviii on Mon 7th Apr 2008 15:20 UTC in reply to "Each to their own of course"
bolomkxxviii Member since:
2006-05-19

Yes, you are.

Reply Score: 1

RE: Each to their own of course
by Ben Jao Ming on Mon 7th Apr 2008 16:10 UTC in reply to "Each to their own of course"
Ben Jao Ming Member since:
2005-07-26

No, you're not alone. I like it for two reasons:

1) Done the right way, a brown theme can be very gentle for the eyes. Lately Ubuntu has gotten a lot better and especially the new Human and Tangerine icons help the theme become both brown/orange AND happy in a non-screaming way. It's well-balanced. Except maybe for the 8.04 wallpaper.

2) Ubuntu has ethics. This world lacks ethics. Ubuntu is different - even from other distros, and the theme is essential for showing this difference.

And heck, how hard is it to customize!? If having a blue/glassy theme was so important, then Ubuntu surely wouldnt be this popular. Apparently people either like the theme or don't care.

Personally I just switch colors once in a while. Even blue/glassy themes can get boring.

One thing, I would like to see, would be Ubuntu being shipped with more pre-defined color themes.

Reply Score: 3

RE: Each to their own of course
by diskinetic on Mon 7th Apr 2008 23:17 UTC in reply to "Each to their own of course"
diskinetic Member since:
2005-12-09

No. I do too... Let's hug!

Reply Score: 3

RE: Each to their own of course
by Soulbender on Tue 8th Apr 2008 05:39 UTC in reply to "Each to their own of course"
Soulbender Member since:
2005-08-18

No, I like it too.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Each to their own of course
by progster on Wed 9th Apr 2008 06:35 UTC in reply to "Each to their own of course"
progster Member since:
2005-07-27

Actually I quite like it, I've been using ubuntu for several years now and don't think I've changed the default theme once. It's just so very well made ;)

Reply Score: 1

I wonder why they did not included ...
by autumnlover on Mon 7th Apr 2008 02:07 UTC
autumnlover
Member since:
2007-04-12

... nvidia closed-source drivers (and ATI equivalent of it) on CD. It is somehow ... unclear to me that they put common proprietary codecs and not essential graphic card drivers?

Reply Score: 2

sbergman27 Member since:
2005-07-24

I believe that the Nvidia license specifically disallows redistribution, whereas the codecs are more of a gray area. At any rate, restricted drivers manager deals with the situation nicely.

Reply Score: 5

lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

I believe that the Nvidia license specifically disallows redistribution, whereas the codecs are more of a gray area. At any rate, restricted drivers manager deals with the situation nicely.


This page:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_media_players
has a list of media players, many of which are free.

I can get codecs for free by downloading any of the free media players (Windows or not) on this list.

Most of those players do not require that I have any sort of contract or license with Microsoft in order for me to be eligible to download them, just like any other person who does have Windows.

Therefore, codecs are not a gray area at all. They are offered to anyone at all for free download quite openly.

Reply Score: 3

da_Chicken Member since:
2006-01-01

MultimediaWiki says that the FFmpeg project has reverse-engineered a bunch of proprietary codecs, including some QuickTime and Windows Media codecs. It says that FFmpeg is Free Software but "FFmpeg's legal status varies by country". Go figure.
http://wiki.multimedia.cx/index.php?title=FFmpeg

Reply Score: 3

lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

MultimediaWiki says that the FFmpeg project has reverse-engineered a bunch of proprietary codecs, including some QuickTime and Windows Media codecs. It says that FFmpeg is Free Software but "FFmpeg's legal status varies by country". Go figure.
http://wiki.multimedia.cx/index.php?title=FFmpeg


The FFmpeg project has not paid royalties for the codecs. Only in some countries would such a tax^H payment be necessary.

If you download and extract binary codecs from, say, RealPlayer or iTunes, this should not be an issue. Real and Apple have paid such royalties for you.

Reply Score: 2

sbergman27 Member since:
2005-07-24

Therefore, codecs are not a gray area at all. They are offered to anyone at all for free download quite openly.

And you get around the patents on the codecs... how? Beyond that, the issue is about the legality of redistribution. Not about what the end user can do himself, legal or not so legal.

Reply Score: 3

lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

"Therefore, codecs are not a gray area at all. They are offered to anyone at all for free download quite openly.

And you get around the patents on the codecs... how? Beyond that, the issue is about the legality of redistribution. Not about what the end user can do himself, legal or not so legal.
"

I get around the patents on the codecs in the exact same way that any person downloading RealPlayer or iTunes for Windows does. They download it (for no charge) & run it on Windows ... I download it & extract the codecs and put them in a directory where xine or mplayer or both can use them, and run it on Linux. What is the difference?

Even more to the point ... how can you even expect that they should be able to download & use something that I am not permitted to when neither of us has any contract or license with Real or with Apple?

Reply Score: 2

sbergman27 Member since:
2005-07-24

You are still avoiding the question of liability regarding distribution of the codecs. I find it amazing that you try to argue that there is no gray involved there. Pretty much everyone is aware that individuals can obtain the codecs, in some way, and no one is likely to come after them... yet. But mass redistribution of patented codecs... installed with a player, no less... without paying royalties? That gray is dark enough that I would not risk it. Not here in the US, anyway. God Bless America! My home, sweet home.

Edited 2008-04-08 00:55 UTC

Reply Score: 4

mint theme and menu on ubuntu
by neutron on Mon 7th Apr 2008 05:58 UTC
neutron
Member since:
2005-07-08

This is a question to SoloDeveloper and others: could you tell me how I can use the mint theme and menu on a stock (let's say Hardy) ubuntu system?

Reply Score: 1

Mint Live CD dropped me to Login Shell
by rakamaka on Mon 7th Apr 2008 13:30 UTC
rakamaka
Member since:
2005-08-12

and then there was no way to login. I tried user root diff passwords. not much info in Mint forums for default root passwd on live-cd.
Why should it go to GUI login shell? instead of starting as other live CDs do.
Mint was no-starter for me. Although I have installed plain old stable Debian on 'Same Computer" without any problem.

Edited 2008-04-07 13:33 UTC

Reply Score: 2

Differences I've noticed
by laserface on Mon 7th Apr 2008 23:07 UTC
laserface
Member since:
2008-04-07

On the Dell Optiplexes in my workplace, it takes quite a lot of tweaking to get X and dual-monitors working with Ubuntu. That is, if it will install at all. Since we received updated models, Ubuntu's installer refuses to run.

In contrast to that, Linux Mint installs fine on any workstation we have, X works out of the box, and we're only left to fiddle with ATI's wonky acceleration drivers. One coworker installed it on his wife's machine in place of Windows, and the base interface is intuitive enough that though inexperienced with Linux, she was soon installing applications and changing settings.

I never expected Mint to work better, I originally thought it was just a Ubuntu remix with different tools tacked on, different looks, some tweaks, codecs. So all that was a pleasant surprise.

Mint is good stuff. If I wasn't already so committed to what I use now I would switch.

Reply Score: 1

RE: Differences I've noticed
by progster on Wed 9th Apr 2008 06:39 UTC in reply to "Differences I've noticed"
progster Member since:
2005-07-27

hmm I had the opposite experience, while the mint live cd failed to boot properly on my machine I had no problems with ubuntu ;)

Reply Score: 1