LMDE 2 “Betsy” MATE RC released!

[clem]

http://blog.linuxmint.com/?p=2788

[Bolle1961]

Downloading and seeding

[Habitual]

Just installed it.

Polished, as ever. Looks good.

[fayad]

Yey! We have it finally. Downloading now using torrent.

[fayad]

Haven't found any issue so far. Just some minor ones with theme which i guess are in release notes. Another amazing release.

[abtygwyn]

Installed yesterday. No hitches. Everything works. Brilliant as ever

[turtlebay777]

32 and 64 bit torrents not working in UK.

Downloaded the32bit http version from a mirror and burnt to USB. Quick message flashes upon boot 'isoboot.bin missing' then it fails to boot.

[steve8track]

Questions:
1. Is there an upgrade path from LMDE1 to LMDE2? (I tried upgrading a non-important box by poinint the repos to betsy, but then the OS was lost and reinstalling grub didn't find it. It's possible this was unrelated though, as I was having UEFI issues with losing my OS)
2. How long with the repos be available for LMDE1? (so my package manager doesn't break when downloading software)
3. I've heard conflicting reports on the release nature of LMDE2? Is it rolling? It sounds like we get updates all the time and not major reinstall like the ubuntu-flavors? (I prefer gradual updates and not having to essentially reinstall my system every 6 months)
4. Will compiz, emerald, and the fusion-icon be available eventually in LMDE2? (I read somewhere that compiz was being considered "maybe in a few months")
5. How could one get involved? Is there anything someone could do to help see certain packages make it into the repos, like submit deb files somewhere or something?
6. Any universal place for submitting bugs? One problem is knowing where to submit a bug when each component has a different source tree and could be upstream.
7. Any light you can shed on the process of making your own distro and all the packaging, etc? It sounds like this project is feasible for a small team thanks to debian as a basis to start with?

Thanks for all the hard work and a wonderful OS

[abtygwyn]

32 and 64 bit torrents not working in UK.

Downloaded the32bit http version from a mirror and burnt to USB. Quick message flashes upon boot 'isoboot.bin missing' then it fails to boot.

I used 64bit ISO and copied to USB stick. I find this works efficiently and is also really quick.
Kent Uni mirror.

[fayad]

32 and 64 bit torrents not working in UK.
Downloaded the32bit http version from a mirror and burnt to USB. Quick message flashes upon boot 'isoboot.bin missing' then it fails to boot.

Hope you got to check integrity of the downloaded iso by comparing its md5 with download page. Might be that download is corrupted.

[turtlebay777]

Instructions for checking MD5 are sparse and difficult to find out. Certainly nothing about it on the download pages.

In past editions of Mint and Ubuntu some years ago a graphical MD5 checker was included by default but that's been dropped for some reason.

Probably they assume that Mint is only used by very experienced users and the word 'Newbie' is no longer recognised.

Oh well, back to Fedora!

[fayad]

Instructions for checking MD5 are sparse and difficult to find out. Certainly nothing about it on the download pages.

It can be verified easily from command line using md5sum command. Certainly not difficult to find. https://help.ubuntu.com/community/HowToMD5SUM

Perhaps it was assumed people know about it. Still its a good suggestion. Notify the team at irc #linuxmint-dev about its relevance. I would say its too early to give up on LMDE just because a download failed

[turtlebay777]

It can be verified easily from command line using md5sum command. Certainly not difficult to find. https://help.ubuntu.com/community/HowToMD5SUM

Perhaps it was assumed people know about it. Still its a good suggestion. Notify the team at irc #linuxmint-dev about its relevance. I would say its too early to give up on LMDE just because a download failed

I agree, I have used LMDE 201403 and it's great, so no doubt Betsy will be too. It's just that in my corner of the world it's difficult to get as the torrents are all down and the mirrors don't seem to be able to deliver a clean copy.

Early days.

[r00t]

[MODERATOR]
The posts that were offensive and that attack other users have been removed. Do try to be nice to each other, please.
[/MODERATOR]

[MtnDewManiac]

Instructions for checking MD5 are sparse and difficult to find out. Certainly nothing about it on the download pages.

Typing "md5 checksum" (sans quotation marks) into a Google search box returns ~8,190,000 results.

It can be verified easily from command line using md5sum command. Certainly not difficult to find. https://help.ubuntu.com/community/HowToMD5SUM

Assuming that a person is already using a linux OS, they can probably find the md5 checksum from within their file manager (depending on which one they use). For example, in Thunar (Xfce's file manager), I have the option when I right-click on any file. If that is not the case with your file manager, you might look in its menu and/or check the file's properties.

Perhaps it was assumed people know about it. Still its a good suggestion. Notify the team at irc #linuxmint-dev about its relevance. I would say its too early to give up on LMDE just because a download failed

I agree that some mention of both the importance of checking the integrity of a downloaded .ISO and basic instructions on how to do it (in linux, Microsoft OS, and probably in Apple's OS as well) should be prominent on the Mint download page(s). Sure, a person can say, "Anyone that has installed ONE linux distro should be familiar with this, because it is such a basic thing that they would have already done it," but this is not necessarily the case. I would never dream of skipping this step - and I have had to redownload an .ISO before because what I got the first time was not a true bit-for-bit copy of the original. But we have a lot of users - and potential users - who, apparently, are clueless on this rather important point. Whether it is because someone else has always installed their OS before, they have always purchased "official" pre-burned media, they just got lucky (in the way that some ignorant people do... sometimes), or because this is their first linux (aka "non-Microsoft") experience. I expect that, as one of the more popular linux distros, Mint sees more than its share of Microsoft refugees, lol. And what can be more frustrating to a clueless n00b (or anyone, really) than being unable to install an OS - or, worse, managing to install one and finding that they now have odd "gremlins" that might be hard to track down, because most folks assume that if an OS installs at all, then the .ISO/media must have been okay... So a potential linux (and Mint) user tries, has trouble, tries again, has trouble, posts a thread, gets advice - along with some basic tips on posting information that is necessary for troubleshooting/help, posts again, gets more advice, posts again... And finally gives up out of frustration because he/she was never able to get an OS in which everything worked.

Yeah, I'd consider the information on md5 and how to check it to be reasonably important on the download page of any distro .

Regards,
MDM

[turtlebay777]

All the above assumes a high level of experience in Linux when we must realise that many Windows users don't have that level.

Let's stop being elitists, which seems to be the direction that Mint has been moving in in the recent years.

Linux should be kept simple so we can attract more users, especially now that XP is dead.

How experienced do you need to be to use XP?

Compare that with Mint! You can't even guarantee a decent download that's an accurate copy of what it's supposed to be without needing specialist tools to check it. And those tools are not even included in the download copy.

I'm not knocking Mint, I've used it for years and it's better than messing about with MS offerings. And I have never once checked the MD 5 sum!

[MtnDewManiac]

All the above assumes a high level of experience in Linux

I wouldn't go that far. People have been verifying their downloaded files for years. Utilities like WinRAR do it automatically when the user attempts to uncompress a .RAR file, for example (and will let the user know if there is a problem). I think there were ways to check file integrity back in the '80s when entities such as Commodore, Tandy, Apple, and Atari were selling 8-bit personal computers (but I could be wrong).

when we must realise that many Windows users don't have that level.

Probably not the best argument, lol. I posted what I did because I feel that ensuring that a person can tell whether or not he/she managed to get a valid copy of an (OS) .ISO was very important... NOT because I think we should be catering to the "least common denominator" as a general rule. That's what US politicians have been doing for decades, now, and look where that has gotten us (not exploring the outer planets, that's for sure ).

Let's stop being elitists, which seems to be the direction that Mint has been moving in in the recent years.

That term is overused, badly misunderstood, and (IMHO) not applicable here.

Linux should be kept simple so we can attract more users, especially now that XP is dead.

Well... I suppose that's a nice idea, attracting users and all. But, in practice, not everyone in the linux world appears to agree with you (I do, to an extent). Lots of people write software for themselves, publish it in case others will also use it, but do not necessarily feel that it is their job to cater to those other people. It looks like the same can (somewhat) be said for the developers of some distros. I cannot say whether or not that is true in the case of Mint. Clem seems to go out of his way to provide a full-featured and more-or-less stable/solid distro for us. But IDK if he would institute a major change just to make something appeal to "Brand W users" if he didn't feel that it would also be appreciated by his current users (especially if, well... he really didn't want to). Someone once wrote that, if distro developers were 100% happy with their distros, but half the people who used them stopped, that they would probably not make drastic changes in order to "win them back" - because they were happy with them as they were.

How experienced do you need to be to use XP?

No more or less experienced than you need to be to use Mint, (presumably) Ubuntu, et cetera. Actually... Here's a thing: I worked for a wonderful woman at a hardware store. She was in her 70s. She'd been grumbling for some time about getting tired of putting in six solid nine-hour days/week, every week, for a while. But she kept at it. And then her main distributor informed her one day that they were doing away with the printed catalogs and going to a CD-/online-based setup. So she bought a computer (Microsoft OS, of course). She didn't know how to turn it on at first, but her business depended on it, so she asked those of us who knew how to operate one to help her. Even paid someone to "train" her in basic operation. But it was so stressful and things were so counter-intuitive (to someone who was, to be blunt, old and who had never so much as touched a computer) that she decided it was "the last straw," and shut down a business that had been more-or-less supporting her family, various employees, and the community since the 1920s. Later, her son-in-law bought her a computer "so she could email and do the Internet." She decided to try again. This is a woman who only owned a microwave because that same son-in-law bought her one (she told me that for nine or ten years, it was just a big ugly clock - but now she occasionally uses it to reheat her cup of coffee ). She got help from various people, including a neighbor lady who is her age, but has been using a computer for many years. But none of it really seemed to "stick." She was calling me on average several times per week (and, often, several times per day) asking how to do things...

One day, I figured I didn't have that much to lose, so I installed Mint 14 Xfce on it . I meant to spend the next few days (err... months, lol?) showing her how to perform basic tasks with it, but I ended up not being available. When I returned home a day or two later, there were two or three panic calls on my answering machine - and then one that basically said, "Forget it, I don't need help any more. I just tried what seemed to be the right way to do it - and it worked!" Now she calls occasionally. Generally to ask how my mother is doing or to make sure I'm going to be home because she made noodles (/apple pie/roast, mashed potatoes & gravy, or just about anything else under the sun because she sure can cook - and she knows it - and knows I'm more a "whatever fills the hole" kind of "cook"), but once in a while she still calls with a computer question - such as "I wanted to do _____, so I looked in Synaptic. There are five things that do ____. Do you have a recommendation?" <SHRUGS> But she'll never prepare dinner in that microwave .

Compare that with Mint! You can't even guarantee a decent download that's an accurate copy of what it's supposed to be

Not really an accurate statement and misleading. Yes, you can guarantee a "decent" download - check the file, FFS. And misleading, because the same holds true with any OS. It makes no difference whether you download something from within a linux, Microsoft, or Apple OS, you still have a chance at getting a corrupted file. Barbara Eden doesn't cross her arms and blink it onto your hard drive, you know.

without needing specialist tools to check it.

Specialist tools? Well... I suppose a rock is a specialist tool. If you're a caveman. That "specialist tool" is, AfaIK, available in every linux OS. And Unix. I think BeOS and FreeBSD have it. Oh, and OSX, that Apple OS? Yeah, it has it, too. IOW, out of all the OS produced by all the entities on all the planets in the- err... Anyway, it appears that only the caveman I mean "Windows" OS do not include that tool as part of a basic OS installation. Methinks that at least some of your ire... is misplaced.

I'm not knocking Mint, I've used it for years and it's better than messing about with MS offerings. And I have never once checked the MD 5 sum!

My guess would be that you received your copy of Windows as a preinstalled OS on a computer. Or that you bought it already burned to CD/DVD(or, in the case of Windows 3.11 and previous, to floppy discs). Or, if you downloaded it, that you were somewhat lucky.

You can get linux (including Mint) preinstalled on a new computer. You can also purchase a copy of it already burned to DVD (or "burned" to a USB flash drive) - although you'll have a hard time paying $99 or whatever the going rate is for Microsoft's OS (expect to pay, IDK, five or ten dollars (or your local currency equivalent)) unless you make the bulk of that payment as a dip or happen to be visibly inebriated when making the purchase. And, you can also download a copy (for free, legally, and without being required to already "own" a license to use it)... and get lucky (or, at least, not suffer bad luck); but it'd be a lot more certain - and it's certainly about as easy as falling off a ladder and managing to hit the ground on the first try - to compare the .ISO's checksum with what is listed on the download page . In the Summer, when it's hot out and I know I'll sweat just from merely walking down the street, I might manage to do so naked without getting myself arrested. But, you know, putting on a pair of pants only takes moments and is pretty easy, so...

And those tools are not even included in the download copy.

Since, by definition, an .ISO must be burned (or otherwise mounted/booted to) in order to use, that would be especially pointless for the purposes of this thread. But be that as it may, lol, you are incorrect here. Boot to any downloaded Mint distro (or, likely as not, any other linux distro), open a terminal window, and type:

Code: Select all

md5sum

But, really, if you want a tool to check your integrity of your download, do you really think it is a good idea to depend on a tool which was part of that same download to do it, lol?

To be honest, most people do not live in a vacuum. At this point - it is, after all, the 21st century - most, if not all, of us know someone who is capable of installing a linux distro, just as most of us can find someone who is capable of filling out US tax forms or other things that require a fourth-grade education. Contact your local library, ask a ten-year old neighbor, offer (via Craigslist, your local newspaper or "trading paper," stick a note on your church's (/grocery store's/laundrymat's, et cetera) bulletin board, or wherever you usually post ads asking for a handyman) to pay someone ten bucks to do it if nothing else...

...so I don't feel that we need to dumb-down Mint, exactly. I certainly don't want to wake up one day to find that I'm using Homer Simpson's OS (no, wait... that would be Windows). I don't write letters in crayon, after all.

I just think mention of md5 checksums should be a little more prominent. The actual checksum is already listed on the download page for each version. And I was able to find information on how - and why - to check it by reading the release notes (as is generally recommended even with things that are far less important than one's OS), then following the link to the Ubuntu release notes (as instructed), then clicking on a random download link, and there was the information about md5 checksums. But that seemed convoluted and somewhat hard to find, lol. So...

I had an idea! I decided to RtFM . It turns out that the Linux Mint User's Guide has a whole section on MD5. It's pretty elementary in its wording, too. And it even states that if you are using a Microsoft abomin-- err, OS, that you probably don't have an app that will check a file, so it provides a link so you can fix Microsoft's error (well, this particular one, anyway) and then explains how to get the checksum if you are a Windows user. That might be considered going above and beyond the call of duty, since it's a case of the linux world patiently explaining how the Microsoft world can perform a basic computing task; however, since it is meant for that subset of Microsoft users who are switching to (or at least investigating the possibility of using) linux, I'll just consider it good sense.

My only real gripe is that not everyone reads the manual for a thing (<--- [/UNDERSTATEMENT]). I feel, therefore, that more prominent mention should be made on the download page. Perhaps something like "While we consider the user's guide to be a very helpful and important documentation that is well worthwhile the time you would spend in reading it, the state of most linux distributions in general and Mint in particular is such that you can most likely find your way without it. HOWEVER, please at least take a minute to read section (?I don't remember?) that explains the importance of verifying that the copy of Mint that you download matches the original and is a true, exact copy - and explains how to easily do so. This will help ensure a trouble-free installation and give you the best chance of making your first foray into the world a linux a pleasant one." Or... IDK, I am obviously no marketing/ad man. Something disgustingly touchy-feely/warm & fuzzy, I suppose.

Actually, I have another gripe regarding the initial installation. I would like to see more information on partitioning one's hard drive as a part of the installation process - and then a suggestion that people read that section of the manual as well (something like the above). I don't guess that I, personally, need it, because I seem to muddle through each time, more-or-less (this computer didn't really NEED Windows 8.x, did it? ). But I would most likely read it if that section of the manual were expanded. I really wish I was comfortable - and proficient - enough to volunteer to write such a section, but if I was the one doing it, well, it Would Not Be Pleasant for anyone concerned, and would probably be dangerous .

Regards,
MDM

[killer de bug]

How experienced do you need to be to use XP?

MtnDewManiac may have answered already, but his post is way too long, so I did not read.

Let's keep it simple:
XP is like Linux. Today you feel like XP is easy, because you used it for years and because before this you probably used other Windows. You are used to the way it works.
Linux makes you uncomfortable because you have to forget what you learned with XP and learn again.

That's the way it is. But trust me XP is not straightforward. There was also a learning curve.

[turtlebay777]

All the above assumes a high level of experience in Linux

I wouldn't go that far. People have been verifying their downloaded files for years. Utilities like WinRAR do it automatically when the user attempts to uncompress a .RAR file, for example (and will let the user know if there is a problem). I think there were ways to check file integrity back in the '80s when entities such as Commodore, Tandy, Apple, and Atari were selling 8-bit personal computers (but I could be wrong).

when we must realise that many Windows users don't have that level.

Probably not the best argument, lol. I posted what I did because I feel that ensuring that a person can tell whether or not he/she managed to get a valid copy of an (OS) .ISO was very important... NOT because I think we should be catering to the "least common denominator" as a general rule. That's what US politicians have been doing for decades, now, and look where that has gotten us (not exploring the outer planets, that's for sure ).

Let's stop being elitists, which seems to be the direction that Mint has been moving in in the recent years.

That term is overused, badly misunderstood, and (IMHO) not applicable here.

Linux should be kept simple so we can attract more users, especially now that XP is dead.

Well... I suppose that's a nice idea, attracting users and all. But, in practice, not everyone in the linux world appears to agree with you (I do, to an extent). Lots of people write software for themselves, publish it in case others will also use it, but do not necessarily feel that it is their job to cater to those other people. It looks like the same can (somewhat) be said for the developers of some distros. I cannot say whether or not that is true in the case of Mint. Clem seems to go out of his way to provide a full-featured and more-or-less stable/solid distro for us. But IDK if he would institute a major change just to make something appeal to "Brand W users" if he didn't feel that it would also be appreciated by his current users (especially if, well... he really didn't want to). Someone once wrote that, if distro developers were 100% happy with their distros, but half the people who used them stopped, that they would probably not make drastic changes in order to "win them back" - because they were happy with them as they were.

How experienced do you need to be to use XP?

No more or less experienced than you need to be to use Mint, (presumably) Ubuntu, et cetera. Actually... Here's a thing: I worked for a wonderful woman at a hardware store. She was in her 70s. She'd been grumbling for some time about getting tired of putting in six solid nine-hour days/week, every week, for a while. But she kept at it. And then her main distributor informed her one day that they were doing away with the printed catalogs and going to a CD-/online-based setup. So she bought a computer (Microsoft OS, of course). She didn't know how to turn it on at first, but her business depended on it, so she asked those of us who knew how to operate one to help her. Even paid someone to "train" her in basic operation. But it was so stressful and things were so counter-intuitive (to someone who was, to be blunt, old and who had never so much as touched a computer) that she decided it was "the last straw," and shut down a business that had been more-or-less supporting her family, various employees, and the community since the 1920s. Later, her son-in-law bought her a computer "so she could email and do the Internet." She decided to try again. This is a woman who only owned a microwave because that same son-in-law bought her one (she told me that for nine or ten years, it was just a big ugly clock - but now she occasionally uses it to reheat her cup of coffee ). She got help from various people, including a neighbor lady who is her age, but has been using a computer for many years. But none of it really seemed to "stick." She was calling me on average several times per week (and, often, several times per day) asking how to do things...

One day, I figured I didn't have that much to lose, so I installed Mint 14 Xfce on it . I meant to spend the next few days (err... months, lol?) showing her how to perform basic tasks with it, but I ended up not being available. When I returned home a day or two later, there were two or three panic calls on my answering machine - and then one that basically said, "Forget it, I don't need help any more. I just tried what seemed to be the right way to do it - and it worked!" Now she calls occasionally. Generally to ask how my mother is doing or to make sure I'm going to be home because she made noodles (/apple pie/roast, mashed potatoes & gravy, or just about anything else under the sun because she sure can cook - and she knows it - and knows I'm more a "whatever fills the hole" kind of "cook"), but once in a while she still calls with a computer question - such as "I wanted to do _____, so I looked in Synaptic. There are five things that do ____. Do you have a recommendation?" <SHRUGS> But she'll never prepare dinner in that microwave .

Compare that with Mint! You can't even guarantee a decent download that's an accurate copy of what it's supposed to be

Not really an accurate statement and misleading. Yes, you can guarantee a "decent" download - check the file, FFS. And misleading, because the same holds true with any OS. It makes no difference whether you download something from within a linux, Microsoft, or Apple OS, you still have a chance at getting a corrupted file. Barbara Eden doesn't cross her arms and blink it onto your hard drive, you know.

without needing specialist tools to check it.

Specialist tools? Well... I suppose a rock is a specialist tool. If you're a caveman. That "specialist tool" is, AfaIK, available in every linux OS. And Unix. I think BeOS and FreeBSD have it. Oh, and OSX, that Apple OS? Yeah, it has it, too. IOW, out of all the OS produced by all the entities on all the planets in the- err... Anyway, it appears that only the caveman I mean "Windows" OS do not include that tool as part of a basic OS installation. Methinks that at least some of your ire... is misplaced.

I'm not knocking Mint, I've used it for years and it's better than messing about with MS offerings. And I have never once checked the MD 5 sum!

My guess would be that you received your copy of Windows as a preinstalled OS on a computer. Or that you bought it already burned to CD/DVD(or, in the case of Windows 3.11 and previous, to floppy discs). Or, if you downloaded it, that you were somewhat lucky.

You can get linux (including Mint) preinstalled on a new computer. You can also purchase a copy of it already burned to DVD (or "burned" to a USB flash drive) - although you'll have a hard time paying $99 or whatever the going rate is for Microsoft's OS (expect to pay, IDK, five or ten dollars (or your local currency equivalent)) unless you make the bulk of that payment as a dip or happen to be visibly inebriated when making the purchase. And, you can also download a copy (for free, legally, and without being required to already "own" a license to use it)... and get lucky (or, at least, not suffer bad luck); but it'd be a lot more certain - and it's certainly about as easy as falling off a ladder and managing to hit the ground on the first try - to compare the .ISO's checksum with what is listed on the download page . In the Summer, when it's hot out and I know I'll sweat just from merely walking down the street, I might manage to do so naked without getting myself arrested. But, you know, putting on a pair of pants only takes moments and is pretty easy, so...

And those tools are not even included in the download copy.

Since, by definition, an .ISO must be burned (or otherwise mounted/booted to) in order to use, that would be especially pointless for the purposes of this thread. But be that as it may, lol, you are incorrect here. Boot to any downloaded Mint distro (or, likely as not, any other linux distro), open a terminal window, and type:

Code: Select all

md5sum

But, really, if you want a tool to check your integrity of your download, do you really think it is a good idea to depend on a tool which was part of that same download to do it, lol?

To be honest, most people do not live in a vacuum. At this point - it is, after all, the 21st century - most, if not all, of us know someone who is capable of installing a linux distro, just as most of us can find someone who is capable of filling out US tax forms or other things that require a fourth-grade education. Contact your local library, ask a ten-year old neighbor, offer (via Craigslist, your local newspaper or "trading paper," stick a note on your church's (/grocery store's/laundrymat's, et cetera) bulletin board, or wherever you usually post ads asking for a handyman) to pay someone ten bucks to do it if nothing else...

...so I don't feel that we need to dumb-down Mint, exactly. I certainly don't want to wake up one day to find that I'm using Homer Simpson's OS (no, wait... that would be Windows). I don't write letters in crayon, after all.

I just think mention of md5 checksums should be a little more prominent. The actual checksum is already listed on the download page for each version. And I was able to find information on how - and why - to check it by reading the release notes (as is generally recommended even with things that are far less important than one's OS), then following the link to the Ubuntu release notes (as instructed), then clicking on a random download link, and there was the information about md5 checksums. But that seemed convoluted and somewhat hard to find, lol. So...

I had an idea! I decided to RtFM . It turns out that the Linux Mint User's Guide has a whole section on MD5. It's pretty elementary in its wording, too. And it even states that if you are using a Microsoft abomin-- err, OS, that you probably don't have an app that will check a file, so it provides a link so you can fix Microsoft's error (well, this particular one, anyway) and then explains how to get the checksum if you are a Windows user. That might be considered going above and beyond the call of duty, since it's a case of the linux world patiently explaining how the Microsoft world can perform a basic computing task; however, since it is meant for that subset of Microsoft users who are switching to (or at least investigating the possibility of using) linux, I'll just consider it good sense.

My only real gripe is that not everyone reads the manual for a thing (<--- [/UNDERSTATEMENT]). I feel, therefore, that more prominent mention should be made on the download page. Perhaps something like "While we consider the user's guide to be a very helpful and important documentation that is well worthwhile the time you would spend in reading it, the state of most linux distributions in general and Mint in particular is such that you can most likely find your way without it. HOWEVER, please at least take a minute to read section (?I don't remember?) that explains the importance of verifying that the copy of Mint that you download matches the original and is a true, exact copy - and explains how to easily do so. This will help ensure a trouble-free installation and give you the best chance of making your first foray into the world a linux a pleasant one." Or... IDK, I am obviously no marketing/ad man. Something disgustingly touchy-feely/warm & fuzzy, I suppose.

Actually, I have another gripe regarding the initial installation. I would like to see more information on partitioning one's hard drive as a part of the installation process - and then a suggestion that people read that section of the manual as well (something like the above). I don't guess that I, personally, need it, because I seem to muddle through each time, more-or-less (this computer didn't really NEED Windows 8.x, did it? ). But I would most likely read it if that section of the manual were expanded. I really wish I was comfortable - and proficient - enough to volunteer to write such a section, but if I was the one doing it, well, it Would Not Be Pleasant for anyone concerned, and would probably be dangerous .

Regards,
MDM

Too long to read

[Oscar799]

This thread seems to have wandered off in assorted directions
Locked