Distrowatch Mint vs. Fedora

[linuxviolin]

But there is a segment over there that finds Mint to be a noob distro, too simple, too limited, not "pure FOSS" and just plain boring to use.

I have never said this, I guess

Have you ever used CentOS or debian stable (Lenny ATM)?

Yes. By the way, I write this post from CentOS 5.3

Perfect for some maybe, but not perfect for all!

Probably... But I have not said that CentOS is perfect...

About the packages, yes they are a little old, but not all. This is why I said: "a little stable base system with all the system which stays unchanged or almost and the supplementary apps and their libraries which are grafted on top and which evolve according to their development". In Windows XP for example, even if it's old now and not a "modern" system (now it's Vista or even Windows 7, right?), you can use any version of any software, even the latest version, without problem even now, despite its age... And it is still supported.

The "long" support of Windows or Red Hat for example and "a little stable system" etc... à la Windows with apps which update/evolve according their development would be the "perfect" distro, if the perfection can exit... But I think it should be possible to approach it

the goal of Fedora is not to be a well tested bug free distro. It is to showcase the leading edge of Linux technology. (...)

Ok yes, for developers or testers or people who like unstable things but for the "normal, classic", or whatever else as you call him/her, user (btw, probably (s)he is the majority of the computer users...), I think (s)he will prefer what I say above rather something which can "explode" in his/her face regularly or a permanent testing thing etc. lol And I maintain that 6 months is a too short cycle to do something of real quality...

P.S.= I am not sure to be very clear in my purpose here, in what I want to say. My English is a little "short" today...

[deleted]

Six months release is bad, 6 months...

The snapshot is every 6 months, that's not necessarily when they release, but they try. That doesn't mean that the packages don't change for 6 months.
6 months is for a new version.

From: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ubuntu_(operating_system) and http://www.ubuntu.com/community/ubuntustory/Debian
It does look like it now comes from unstable so it doesn't exclude packages that failed to make it to testing, if they provided a good feature (and was needed).
In reality, it looks like a mixture of testing and unstable. (but it is also known as a fork)

www.mepis.org forums mention that Mepis went from Debian Testing to Ubuntu then back to Testing, but it's probably mixed, too.

But in either case, whether SID, Testing, or Stable, all of the packages are contained in a Debain mirror. The one stop shopping.

[linuxviolin]

http://www.mepis.org forums mention that Mepis went from Debian Testing to Ubuntu then back to Testing, but it's probably mixed, too.

The quotes in my previous was from some sources but if you read well on the front page of the Mepis site (mepis.org) you read:

SimplyMEPIS 8.0 arrives with a complete choice of the best of programs necessary for most people's pleasure and productivity, all delivered on top of a Debian 5 stable core using the 2.6.27 Linux kernel.

So, I think we can say it is based on Stable, right?

But yes, there was a release based on Ubuntu, but they are quickly came back to Debian.

About Ubuntu, they have *always* say it is based on a "freezed" snapshot of Sid. Even in the two links you give we read:

Ubuntu packages are based on packages from Debian's unstable branch

so Sid. Also:

we "freeze" a snapshot of Debian's development archive. We start from the development version in order to give ourselves the freedom to make our own decisions with regard to release management...

"Development version" is Sid.

[FedoraRefugee]

the goal of Fedora is not to be a well tested bug free distro. It is to showcase the leading edge of Linux technology. (...)

Ok yes, for developers or testers or people who like unstable things but for the "normal, classic", or whatever else as you call him/her, user (btw, probably (s)he is the majority of the computer users...), I think (s)he will prefer what I say above rather something which can "explode" in his/her face regularly or a permanent testing thing etc. lol And I maintain that 6 months is a too short cycle to do something of real quality...

P.S.= I am not sure to be very clear in my purpose here, in what I want to say. My English is a little "short" today...

My initial impulse would be to agree here, after all, logic would dictate that a distro that occasionally "blows up" in a user's face and that was an acknowledged test bed would not fare so well. But having used Fedora since FC4 the actuality would argue this point. Check this out for some interesting reading:

http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Statistics

The truth is Fedora is one of the most popular Linux distros, many even claim users even surpass Ubuntu! I wouldnt argue that myself, but the current numbers suggest around 17 MILLION users of Fedora all versions. Now, these are all projections, there is no way to measure actual usage. The site I linked explains this and explains how these numbers are projected. One thing is sure, they are much more accurate than distrowatch "hits" which only prove how many times a particular distro is "looked at" on distrowatch. That said, Fedora is usually in the top 3 on distrowatch too. Not that this is a popularity contest or that more users makes a distro "worth" more. What it does suggest though is that users are looking for a more cutting edge distro that is on the leading edge and they are willing to make concessions in stability. This is why the Fedora team is split and why half the developers are trying to make it more user friendly and stable...more ubuntu-like. My position is this is backwards, Fedora has achieved all this success because of what it was, why try and change it?

[linuxviolin]

FedoraRefugee, it's always a pleasure to talk with you even if we do not always agree. You are always reasonable, objective etc in your words (I say this in relation to "Linux evangelists" as you said )

Your post is good but do you really think users have the choice? Not Sure... Between Windows and the "most Linux distros are buggy at best" as you said somewhere or enterprise distros like Red Hat and its clones, more/very stable but "that is so dated it will bring you to tears" (your words again. Sorry to quote you )... Not a real choice, rather a compromise, if you see what I want to say.

[FedoraRefugee]

FedoraRefugee, it's always a pleasure to talk with you even if we do not always agree. You are always reasonable, objective etc in your words (I say this in relation to "Linux evangelists" as you said )

Your post is good but do you really think users have the choice? Not Sure... Between Windows and the "most Linux distros are buggy at best" as you said somewhere or enterprise distros like Red Hat and its clones, more/very stable but "that is so dated it will bring you to tears" (your words again. Sorry to quote you )... Not a real choice, rather a compromise, if you see what I want to say.

Interesting thoughts. Yeah, I think you have something. Linux is always going to be a compromise because of the choice available. You simply cant have all things in one distro, something it seems the Fedora developers are trying to do. I think this is what makes Linux so attractive to people like us but also a part of what keeps Linux from becoming adopted by the masses. People generally do not like too much choice, they are most comfortable with one or two main options. A good case is seen with Vista's marketing. 7 options of Vista is really a handicap, not an advantage. People do not want to have to study these differences, they want an easy choice like "home OS" or "business OS." They want their OS to do everything, they do not want to think, "If I pick this one with all the newest components it will be sleek and modern but it wont be stable." Or, "If I pick this distro that is well tested and bug free and enterprise stable it will never crash and will last forever, but all these new packages will not work on it because the kernel is too old and the deps are outdated." BTW, you mention this in an earlier post, a stable structure with newer apps. But there is a problem with this, I have tried this with Mint 5. I wanted the newest Compiz-Fusion, the newest OO.o, and several other packages. I had to install many Ubuntu libs as deps. I ended up running Ubuntu and not Mint. It was doable, but it changed that stable base to a testing distro. Back to square one.

Anyway, yeah, it is a compromise. And in my experience most home desktop users want quick changes and cutting edge. I know very few Linux users who are content to just install a distro and use it unchanged for 3 years. Most people I know of like to play, they are constantly installing apps, removing apps, changing things, installing new distros...Especially Fedora people. It is a joke over there about going to Mint or Ubuntu that everyone will respond, "You will be back in 3 weeks, you will get bored." And it is usually true. Fedora users just cant sit still, they are always looking forward to the next release.

There are very stable Linux distros that are problem free. CentOS is a great example. debian Lenny is another. Yet no one uses these distros! Why? They are totally bug free and run circles around Windows. They are also not unduly hard to use, a little more involved than Mint but not much. I wonder this too, I wonder why I am running Arch and not Lenny. The answer is Linux users are in it for the fun and we dont like to sit still. This is why Fedora is so popular.

[linuxviolin]

Yes yes yes... But:

Linux is always going to be a compromise because of the choice available. (...) People generally do not like too much choice, they are most comfortable with one or two main options.

Maybe but have they a *real* good choice? I don't think. Too many choices but no real good one.

something it seems the Fedora developers are trying to do.

Ah? Really? For me, nothing really good with a 6 months cycle and a "testing" base...

I have tried this with Mint 5. I wanted the newest Compiz-Fusion, the newest OO.o, and several other packages. I had to install many Ubuntu libs as deps. I ended up running Ubuntu and not Mint. It was doable, but it changed that stable base to a testing distro. Back to square one.

Yes, it's why I said this would have to be "the ideal, the "perfect" thing" but Linux "unable (at least for now)", unfortunately, but Windows can do it! So why would it not possible to do this in Linux too?

And in my experience most home desktop users want quick changes and cutting edge.

I am sick by this but you are perhaps/probably right about people but people have not always common sense, at the contrary, and often unfortunately they are rather a little silly (without offense to someone)

Most people I know of like to play...

Ok, then use a game console! Computer is not and should not be a game station! This is probably one of the reasons why I hate e.g Compiz, 3-D Desktop, Plasma etc all these stupid and useless things, I'm sorry. But probably I dream of an ancient bygone time, unfortunately...

[emorrp1]

Wow, this thread just keeps getting better! There's far to many points and counter points here to give a full response, so here's the quick version (with paraphrasing):

1) "Linux is a compromise" - I would modify this to "pre-built Linux distros make compromises" - You could in theory roll your own which is precisely what you always dreamed, and you'll find you'll have to compromise (e.g. bleeding-edge features vs. rock-solid stability) too, the only difference is that you get to define the precise balances and you can change your mind over time. Oh, and Windows makes compromises too, see (3b).

2) "No one uses stable distros" - In this case I reckon it's true that you'd actually never know, because they just install and setup once and forget about it, they would be using their Computer as a pure tool. Once you introduce the possibility of bugs, you raise the volume of the community.

3) "Windows can run some legacy and some modern apps side-by-side quite happily" - There's a couple of different reasons for this (compromises all round):
a) Society: XP was the only desktop OS that M$ released over a whole 6 years. Therefore, any windows apps have to be able to run on XP to be successful in order to reach the largest market.
b) Tech: Windows apps are completely self-contained, which make them both gargantuan and independent. Linux apps are modular, which makes them tiny but interdependent. Again it's a matter of choice since you can package linux apps in the windows way yourself if you wish, and then you could boast the same "features". I believe this is the way proprietary linux game companies work, they provide their own versions of the libs that they can guarantee work with their game.

4) "Computers are tools" - For some, probably even most computer users, this is true. However for some, probably even most of us early linux adopters, this is false. To me my computer is a tool, games console, teacher and fun. You never hear windows described as "fun" which means it's getting out of your way and letting you use the computer as a tool (or it's getting in your way in a bad way ).

That'll do for now I suppose.

[FedoraRefugee]

2) "No one uses stable distros" -...

Hmmm...I was gonna post that I never said this! But I guess I kinda did here:

There are very stable Linux distros that are problem free. CentOS is a great example. debian Lenny is another. Yet no one uses these distros! Why?

Kinda taken out of context though because certainly people do use these distros. LinuxViolin says he uses CentOS. I know a few Lenny users. My point was these users are quiet and go unnoticed. Yet look at the numbers we get in all our forums crying that Linux is buggy and that it will never take over from windows because...Even long term Linux users complain about how flaky Linux can be, yet why do they not go over to one of these uber-stable distros? I suspect because it would take the fun and challenge out of things. Even today I find that most of the people using Linux (not trying to make a blanket statement certainly not ALL people using Linux) are in it for more than just a windows alternative, more than just a tool. I suspect those who stick with Linux do so because they do find it fun, a hobby, interesting, or are curious about it. That is not to say that there is not a large segment of serious Linux users that do use their computer as a tool and do require a super stable OS. It is just funny that this side of Linux is rarely shown.

[linuxviolin]

2) "No one uses stable distros" -...

Hmmm...I was gonna post that I never said this! But I guess I kinda did here:

There are very stable Linux distros that are problem free. CentOS is a great example. debian Lenny is another. Yet no one uses these distros! Why?

Kinda taken out of context though because certainly people do use these distros. LinuxViolin says he uses CentOS. I know a few Lenny users. My point was these users are quiet and go unnoticed. Yet look at the numbers we get in all our forums crying that Linux is buggy and that it will never take over from windows because...Even long term Linux users complain about how flaky Linux can be, yet why do they not go over to one of these uber-stable distros? I suspect because it would take the fun and challenge out of things. Even today I find that most of the people using Linux (not trying to make a blanket statement certainly not ALL people using Linux) are in it for more than just a windows alternative, more than just a tool. I suspect those who stick with Linux do so because they do find it fun, a hobby, interesting, or are curious about it. That is not to say that there is not a large segment of serious Linux users that do use their computer as a tool and do require a super stable OS. It is just funny that this side of Linux is rarely shown.

I guess you are right. Whether we be happy or unhappy, you are probably right with this "analysis".

[emorrp1]

Well, boring as it is, we seem to have all reached an agreement about the current state of Linux, even if we still have vastly different views as to what would make the perfect distro!

[FedoraRefugee]

Theoretically, I think I can agree with Linuxviolon that the "perfect" distro, or even OS is the OS that you never see. The one you do not know is even there. The computer just knows how to do everything intuitively and never makes a wrong choice. An OS is just the thing that controls the programs you use, it should not get in your way.

Boy does this sound boring to me! I like playing with apps, but even more I am a fan of the OS. I like playing with the OS. The desktop environment/ window manager really fascinates me. It is amazing how even in the same distro the DE/WM can make such a change in the feel. I currently use fluxbox and my latest area of intrigue is why people need a full fledged environment like Gnome. What can they do that I cant and what makes fluxbox "harder" to use. How do we solve this yet still retain the simplicity and lack of bloat?

Anyway, there is no "perfect" distro just as there is no "perfect" woman. Some men like women who stay quiet and submissive and walk five feet behind them and never argue or even make eye contact. I say bull to that, my wife is a firebrand! I allow her to think she wears the pants and in return when the chips are down she allows me the final say. She is capable, smart, and is a great partner, not a quiet servant. I kind of like an OS that is the same way. Different strokes for different folks, that is what makes Linux, and life, so interesting.

[linuxviolin]

The computer just knows how to do everything intuitively and never makes a wrong choice.

It's not exactly what I said.

Your metaphor with women is a little daring. An OS is not a woman, the first can be a tool but not a woman, but you make what you want with who you want!

Boy does this sound boring to me! I like playing with apps, but even more I am a fan of the OS. I like playing with the OS. The desktop environment/ window manager really fascinates me.

Well, this was fun at first but not really now. But I think I have a problem with the direction taken by the development of Linux and other apps, of the IT... I'm not either satisfied with Windows for now and since "some time/years" now, and a short/quick test of BSD (maybe I should re-try it. E.g. there is something which can be interesting in the future: Desktop NetBSD But no, I don't like PCBSD, I would prefer DesktopBSD, unfortunately they are with KDE - 4 for PCBSD and 3.5.10 (better) for DesktopBSD) I use (almost) only Linux (nonetheless, there still have a partition with XP somewhere on a PC for now) But this is another subject.

[FedoraRefugee]

...An OS is not a woman...

True. I have never slept with my OS...

[linuxviolin]

True. I have never slept with my OS...

Very good!