And not sure at all Fedora should be a good base for Mint...
"No one is forcing you to keep distroX updated" and "Some reading in their forum before you click that button is wise", but Fedora is very cutting edge, so a kind of "testing" area, some cutting edge technology are pushed in before complete or even for "testing" and so such as... and if you don't update a rolling-release (it's not Fedora here of course), hmm.... ) and also that Arch offers some potentially broken packages which you should not be trusted, this does not really sound like something worthy of trust ... 
)That's okay, it was kinda my point to begin with in my conversation with jasperlotus. We all require different things and we are just lucky that Linux can provide for many needs. He took it wrong when I said my kids use Mint. I am not casting dispersion on Mint, I am celebrating that it fills a huge niche in the Linux pantheon. As does Fedora. Fedora is not right for you, that is okay! Arch is not for everyone either. There is no competition, no one distro is the "best." They all work together. This is why I left Fedora. I do not like how they are changing, they are trying to become like Ubuntu, be stable for users like you. This is wrong, they are very cutting edge, this automatically precludes them from being uber-stable. You simply cant have both. People use Fedora to be on the cutting edge, they like the fast pace and they dont mind fixing things when they break. People use Mint because they like the stability and the ease of use. Everything is installed and works, you dont have to do anything, just enjoy it.linuxviolin wrote:Yes, yes, yes...
And for Arch, read the forums, of course but then this means other people have had problems before you (so you let others try and cope, not a very "community" attitude
(I know, I am somewhat provocative, sorry
Interesting and good descriptionFedoraRefugee wrote:they are very cutting edge, this automatically precludes them from being uber-stable. You simply cant have both. People use Fedora to be on the cutting edge, they like the fast pace and they dont mind fixing things when they break. People use Mint because they like the stability and the ease of use. Everything is installed and works, you dont have to do anything, just enjoy it.
I could use it but even, personally I guess I'll let them this "cutting edge distro which can break by design" Maybe but I have no problem with it.rhY wrote:VLC does not perform as well as it does on Windows.
Ah the tastes and the colors... You know, there are people who love "the **** brown"rhY wrote:Especially compared to the **** brown of Ubuntu.
rhY wrote:As a side note, I'd like to congratulate everyone here in the forums. Even when I say something mildly inflammatory, everyone seems mature and friendly. In the Ubuntu forums I got flamed almost immediately even when I was being humble and cordial!
Nice comments, too.FedoraRefugee wrote: Those are YOUR words!
You say computer components are ugly. I disagree. Many others do also, that is why computer cases now often have windows cut in them. When built right the guts of a computer can be very artistic and nice to look at, even without all the flashing blue and red lights.
Likewise system configurations are beautiful also. Instead of having surplus code and program upon program so you can have a little button to click with your mouse you have a single config file (rc.conf) that you can edit to change most things. Likewise things are easier to explain and easier to do with the terminal instead of many clunky programs. The reality is your GUI way takes much longer than using the terminal. Likewise using a mouse takes longer than just using a keyboard. Dont fool yourself, lack of knowledge is your problem. But that is okay, no one says you have to know all that stuff. You have a nice girlfriend to keep you occupied. The computer is just a means to an end for you. Arch is not for you, nor is Fedora. Stay with Mint. This is why they built Mint, nothing wrong with that. This is why I use Mint for my kid's computers. A good case in point, I just found out I have to reinstall Mint on my eight year old's computer...yet again. Him and his sister managed to bork it enough that I wont spend hours trying to straighten it back out. Why even bother? 15 minutes and Mint is reinstalled fresh and everything is good again. Cant beat that. Just dont think that because a certain shoe fits your foot that everyone should wear it!
She surely cannot edit the rc.conf file to make things work as I know that the CLI configuration is much better than the GUI, usually, I install softwares through the command apt-get (yum on Fedora), set the screen resolution in xorg.conf, etc.You should try Opera instead of Firefox; 4 years with firefox (I even translated the Vietnamese language pack for it) but just one month with Opera makes me love it very much, fastly, cleanly, beautifully, conveniently on both Linux and Windows.rhY wrote:I would switch all my userbase over to Mint TODAY, but for a couple of minor setbacks:
VLC does not perform as well as it does on Windows. This is essential. Everyone watches movies.
Flash does not perform as well as it does under Firefox on Windows. Everyone needs YouTube to go full screen snappily.
So lamentably I still have to use Windows on the majority of machines I set up for clientele. However, I have switched many office type people over to Mint, and they happily run Open Office and save .doc files all day by default and have zero complaints. I've even set up compiz for a few of them and they LOVE IT!
The other demographic that will not go to Mint is gamers. I've got a few to switch, since Urban Terror, Zsnes, and Mupen64plus all run well, but the hard core graphics card updating type still need MicroXP or some other derivative. Some of them I can get to dual boot.
Ironically, the #1 thing stopping most of my Windows to Linux migrations is the power of FOSS on Windows:
Firefox
SumatraPDF
Infrarecord
Open Office
Deluge
Pidgin
All seem to run as well or even marginally BETTER on a Windows machine.
I can't be bothered with the other distros. Every time I try one I want to hurl. Mint is 50x cleaner, faster, and better looking. Especially compared to the **** brown of Ubuntu.
As a side note, I'd like to congratulate everyone here in the forums. Even when I say something mildly inflammatory, everyone seems mature and friendly. In the Ubuntu forums I got flamed almost immediately even when I was being humble and cordial!
It's interesting that you say that about Mint. Debian has 3 (or 4 depending on how you count) repositoriesFedoraRefugee wrote:they are very cutting edge, this automatically precludes them from being uber-stable. You simply cant have both. People use Fedora to be on the cutting edge, they like the fast pace and they dont mind fixing things when they break. People use Mint because they like the stability and the ease of use. Everything is installed and works, you dont have to do anything, just enjoy it.
Yes, I was a die-hard Kanotix/sidux user for about 7 years.edit: BTW, I like sidux, it is a neat distro and very stable for what it is.
I would actually say it is not as hardcore as most think. It is really pretty easy. The key is you cannot be afraid of the command line though, and you need to have a good understanding of the different components in a Linux distro and know what you personally want. You should know ahead of time what bootloader you want to use. What audio, terminal, DE/WM, text editor, graphic viewer...You have to hand pick all your components. It is not a beginner's distro, but if you can follow the instructions it is not hard either. I would rate it much easier than Gentoo. Once you get X installed you can make it as automatic as you want. It can all be point and click if you wish. I strongly suggest the experience just for the confidence it builds. Another plus is Arch has some of the best documentation in the Linux world. Most basic things can be found here:IceCrystal wrote:Isnt Arch one of the hardcore distros? I came to a shell and gave upFedoraRefugee wrote:You want someone else to tell you this?jasperlotus wrote:PS: Anybody can give me suggestions should I switch back to Fedora or continue with the Mint?
F11 is solid as far as Fedora goes. Mint 7 is the cat's meow. I use Arch.
That's your choice. Opera handles fonts much better than Firefox, feeds and emails just great. It has a compact layout, I can show or hide the menu by just a click, and the startup time is much shorter than Firefox.rhY wrote:Opera isn't open source. Wherever possible I ONLY use open source. It's a philosophical and political choice that very, VERY often has real world benefits.
When I set up a Windows machine using all FOSS apps, I think that is arguably one of the most efficient, powerful combinations existent today. I still love mint though, and not just for compiz, though that is a big one!
I have only really been using Linux for about 2 years, but it seems that the idea of a "_____ mint" release has a lot of potential. I think people that want to see Linux grow in users and mainstream-ability are trying to add a new layer of refinement for people that want it to 'just work'. I am an engineer, but not some great programmer. I like to tinker, and customize various things, but I'm unlikely to really try anything super-unique. If I can find a forum that explains how to do something, I'll try it. Beyond that I'm not very bold, or capable.FedoraRefugee wrote:Yeah, I have an idea for sort of a "fedora mint." A distro that is based off of Fedora but has the same goals as mint. Maybe even with mint tools ported for rpm. It would essentially be an rpm mint. It could be staggered against the fedora release cycle allowing the fedora release to mature 3-4 months before the fedora-mint distro was released. This is the time it takes for the fedora release to become stable. The goal, like mint, would be to not update but instead to just use the iso for the 6 months until the new release. Of course it would have its own repo and have an update system like Mint where updates are rated according to level. Needless to say neither fedora or mint branding would be used, it would be its own distro.IceCrystal wrote:I tried Fedora a couple of times but i dont get the point wih Fedora, the distro seemed good but
One cool thing would be to do a distro based on Fedora with a new community if you know what i mean?
Instead of have a "test distro" for Red Hat that they use to test Red Hat software in.
Just a pipe dream really, I do not have the talent or interest myself. Kind of a flight of fancy...
BTW, the point of Fedora is to be bleeding edge, not so much with the apps but with the structure. It is a great distro, it will always be my first love. I just feel that the developers are running it into the ground at the moment. It is suffering an identity crises.
That's my problem with Fedora... Playing "Find the rpm" isn't my cup of tea. Debian mirrors are really a fantastic concept.Maybe even with mint tools ported for rpm
Hmm, about Ubuntu you are sure it's not rather a snapshot of Sid? And about Mepis it is based on Debian Stable ("SimplyMEPIS 8.0 is based on Debian Lenny", "The most popular MEPIS distribution is SimplyMEPIS, which is based primarily on Debian stable.")...hinto wrote:Ubuntu takes a 6 month snapshot of Testing and runs it through it's own test cycles, fixes, etc. Mint and SimplyMepis (and a few others) come from here
This is unfortunately the case of several/many things in the Linux ecosystem, e.g. Gnome, Ubuntu... etc to quote just two.FedoraRefugee wrote:The problem is the bugs are never fully worked out and as soon as the version is released the attention of the developers is diverted to rawhide, which is the next release.
Six months release is bad, 6 months is not enough to have a really good, well tested and bug-free thing... Rolling release, an always moving and may-break-on-every-update target, is not the good solution too. Rather the ideal, the "perfect" thing, would be a little stable base system with all this system which stays unchanged or almost and the supplementary apps and their librairies which are grafted on top and which evolve according to their development, a support for several years and support for old version(s) even if newer versions come out (an enterprise-like grade support like Windows or enterprise distros as Red Hat and clones for example:FedoraRefugee wrote:I suppose that the final 6 months of a release's life can be equated to this. The release goes six months until the next release is released, then it lasts a final six months in conjunction with the new release. After this time it reaches end of life and is no longer supported through the repos. You can still run it but you no longer have a repo or updates. This last six months is usually problem free, it still has bugs, but they are minor and have been worked around. I would consider this to be enterprise class stable, but with the understanding that it is not 100% solid. It is too bad someone does not make a distro out of this. A rolling release that just continues the security updates.
CentOS 2 (2002-05-17/2004-05-14): CentOS-2 updates until May 31 2009
CentOS 3 (2003-10-23/2004-03-19): CentOS-3 updates until Oct 31, 2010
CentOS 4 (2005-02-14/2005-03-09): CentOS-4 updates until Feb 29, 2012
CentOS 5 (2007-03-14/2007-04-12): CentOS-5 updates until Mar 31, 2014
)
Woah Nelly, hold the phone! What distro do YOU use? You say the perfect solution is a distro that stays unchanged. Many agree and they do use distros like CentOS for their desktop. Have you ever used CentOS or debian stable (Lenny ATM)? They are great distros but the packages are so old you want to cry! Especially for someone like me who was riding the ragged edge of Fedora! Perfect for some maybe, but not perfect for all!linuxviolin wrote: Six months release is bad, 6 months is not enough to have a really good, well tested and bug-free thing... Rolling release, an always moving and may-break-on-every-update target, is not the good solution too. Rather the ideal, the "perfect" thing, would be a stable base system with all the system which stays unchanged or almost and the supplementary apps and their librairies which are grafted on top and which evolve according to their development, a support for several years and support for old version(s) even if newer versions come out (an enterprise-like grade support like Windows or enterprise distros as Red Hat and clones for example:
"Each CentOS version is supported for 7 years (by means of security updates). A new CentOS version is released every 2 years and each CentOS version is regularly updated (every 6 months) to support newer hardware. This results in a secure, low-maintenance, reliable, predictable and reproducible environment." For example:
CentOS 2 (2002-05-17/2004-05-14): CentOS-2 updates until May 31 2009
CentOS 3 (2003-10-23/2004-03-19): CentOS-3 updates until Oct 31, 2010
CentOS 4 (2005-02-14/2005-03-09): CentOS-4 updates until Feb 29, 2012
CentOS 5 (2007-03-14/2007-04-12): CentOS-5 updates until Mar 31, 2014
(the first date is for the release of RHEL, the second for the release of CentOS)
Yes, Red Hat will continue to offer Enterprise Linux 5 (5.3, 5.4, 5.5, 5.6, 5.7, 5.8, 5.9, 5.9.1, 5.9.2, etc.) for a long time, possibly even beyond 2014 and they continue the support for older versions until 2010 and 2012!
But this is impossible in the Linux ecosystem . Windows (e.g. XP) CAN do all of these, but unfortunately Linux is unable (at least for now)
Bad for who? Mint? Ubuntu? Many distros use this cycle. Bad is simply a matter of opinion! First off, the goal of Fedora is not to be a well tested bug free distro. It is to showcase the leading edge of Linux technology. It is designed to be the first in line that can actually be used as a stable distro and not just a test bed like sid that falls apart with every update. Is Fedora rock stable? No. But it is a lot more stable and dependable than people often give it credit for. Does it break? Sure, but really not too often. And the fix is usually very quick. It is more than usuable for anyone that knows even a little about Linux and some even use it for business purposes, especially if they dont jump on new updates but wait a week to see what happens to others.Six months release is bad, 6 months is not enough to have a really good, well tested and bug-free thing...