Regarding Mint 9 LTS Isadora

[sunewbie]

I recently downloaded Mint 9 and it contained older discontinued softwares like openoffice instead of libreoffice. Even Ubuntu 10.04 LTS has same softwares even in 10.04.3 (3rd update pack) ,recently released.

I did not see any update pack from Linux Mint. Since LTS is supported till 2013, and is rock solid, I thought that update pack should have latest softwares and packages.

Does this indicate that Mint gives more important to other editions or just latest editions. PPA's are option frozen after a few updates including firefox (default is version 3.6)

For end users like me, computer not a toy, but a tool to get work done. I prefer to upgrade from LTS to LTS version. I used XP for a decade, but then finally decided to come out of it and atleast use Linux at home.

Removing older version, manually downloading latest, makes me feel like is am in XP. I do not have the Linux advantage.

I request you to at least drop discontinued softwares like openoffice and give Latest version of Libreoffice, 3.4.3, which has many improvements including speed, as many things are re-written from Java to C++.

I am keeping an eye on LDME. Rolling release and up-to-date packages make my mouth wide open. But as clem says, 'expect some rough edges', does not make my mouth watery. After reading reviews and posts, I think it is simply not my cup of tea. I will wait till it is more stable and safe to use and hope it becomes the main flagship edition, one of it's kind. At present, I am moving from LTS to LTS.

Any thoughts from experts and other users ?

[rekik]

The solution is ppa's as, with default Lucid/Isadora repos, lot of software becomes fastly outdated . Luckily ppa's are avaible for almost all soft (I use ppa's for chrome, firefox, Libre-office, opera, synapse, Dockbarx, zim and double-commander !).

[xenopeek]

Well, you are saying a couple of conflicting things Either you want the LTS version or you want the latest & greatest versions of software--you can't have it both. (Well, you can with PPA's, but this breaks the entire idea of having a LTS version...)

LTS has a fixed set of application versions, and during the support period you only get security updates and critical bugfixes to those versions. You don't get newer versions, you don't get replacements. The LTS fixed set of application versions was thoroughly tested to give you a fixed, stable, platform you could use until the next LTS release.

If you want the latest & greatest versions of software, the LTS version is not for you.

Compare this also to the Debian stable release. For example, the older Compiz version used on that has just 40 or so open bugs (IIRC) while the newer and more feature full Compiz version used on Linux Mint 11 has over 900 open bugs...

If you want stability, you will have to accept running longer with older versions of software.

[sunewbie]

Thanks for replies.

@ rekik

When new version is released i.e. Mint 9. It has latest software versions at that time.
After 6 months or one year, service pack or updates are released. I thought they would include latest software versions, as it said, fewer updates are needed to download.

@Vincent Vermeulen

I got a better understanding of LTS version. I thought that it is security updates and not software which may make OS unstable.

I saw pinguy OS and the LTS version has newer LibreOffice 3.3.2.

http://forum.pinguyos.com/Thread-10-04-3-Point-Release

So i was wondering if Mint would give the same

Does this mean that if I keep latest software version, either by manual download or preferably through PPA, it makes no sense to retain same OS. Is it better to upgrade entire OS, then to keep upgrading softwares?

Please do let me know. I am a bit confused.

Thanks

[xenopeek]

Does this mean that if I keep latest software version, either by manual download or preferably through PPA, it makes no sense to retain same OS. Is it better to upgrade entire OS, then to keep upgrading softwares?

Well, the one is not better than the other. If you want the highest stability, you should stick the LTS and to software versions as available through the LTS repositories.

Using PPAs on the LTS shall at least bring conflicts, because the software in the PPAs might need newer version of libraries than that you can install on the LTS (without breaking other software that depends on older version of libraries).

[sunewbie]

Using PPAs on the LTS shall at least bring conflicts, because the software in the PPAs might need newer version of libraries than that you can install on the LTS (without breaking other software that depends on older version of libraries).

Got it. Thanks. Library stuff. Quite a bit different from windows, where there is only one .exe file per software.

Those dependencies, makes me a bit cautious when uninstalling then installing. Nothing happens if unused stuff stays on HDD, except that it eats up some memory. But when I get 'following dependencies will also be removed', my hearts beats increase. Those lib. files all sound similar. Just chinese to me. If anything is broken, synaptic is there to repair.

Regarding to keep up-2-date softwares. Earlier, OpenOffice Ver 2 had some compatibility issues with MS word. Ver 3.3 and now 3.4 is much better without anoying ribbon. Bold and italics were mis-aligned. So I thought OOo is evolving. Hence I think it is better to upgrade to latest versions. Pinta is now discontinued, as developer is no more interested in further development.

I still use office XP, i.e. word 2002 at office. I do not need to upgrade to office 2010. I also use same MS paint version for a decade . Just used to copy paste and save screen shots using (print screen).

For mature softwares, end users like me, do not use advance function, which developers keep adding (to increase sales in case of windows). If main software is stable and usable, it is better to stick with older version, only if features are added. But in case, major codes are re-written in another language like from Java to C++, then I am again in dilemma.

i hope you are getting my point.

[xenopeek]

I am getting the point; there is a fine balance on selecting whether to go with pure LTS, add some PPA's to get needed new versions with better compatibility or features, or just running a non-LTS release.

As for dependencies; as a normal user you should not get in a situation where you can remove one package (and application or library) such that another package won't work anymore. That is what the dependencies are for, making sure you don't break something on your system. Especially when you remove libraries, the unwanted side-effect can be that applications that depend on that library will also get uninstalled. Not what you wanted, but what is needed to keep a unbroken system

[sunewbie]

In normal cases, nothing has happened. But when I uninstalled E17, there were some broken packages. Which i uninstalled through synaptic. Things are fine. In case if any needed package is uninstalled, then update manager shows it, if it has PPA. Still for new users. I am not been able to convince them. I can surf net, post in forums and find a solution, but some of my friends are not much active. So I tell them to stick to XP, as they do not have a learning attitude. I have even pointed (out of my limited understanding) advantages of Linux posted in forums as Why Should I use Mint or any other linux?.

According to your approach, it is better to have a fresh install than to upgrade, like in ubuntu. Sorry, I may be a bit off-topic.

Thanks.

[Robin]

One "in-between" option - sort of a compromise between LTS and the instability of the newest version, is to stay one release behind the most current one. Most of the "bugs" are worked out of a version by the time the next one is released, so you might try Mint 10 when Mint 11 is released, Mint 11 when 12 is released, etc. It offers more stability (perhaps even equal to the LTS editions) because it has been out long enough to shake out the flaws, but offer has newer editions of software.

[xenopeek]

One "in-between" option - sort of a compromise between LTS and the instability of the newest version, is to stay one release behind the most current one. Most of the "bugs" are worked out of a version by the time the next one is released, so you might try Mint 10 when Mint 11 is released, Mint 11 when 12 is released, etc. It offers more stability (perhaps even equal to the LTS editions) because it has been out long enough to shake out the flaws, but offer has newer editions of software.

Yeah, this is what most large corporations do for their IT policy

[sunewbie]

Thank you Robin. In fact I upgraded from Ubuntu 9.1 to 10.04 LTS after 6 months as all driver issues (if any) and WLAN which was present at that time, was solved. i.e. when 10.04.1 was released

I think this is a good idea. But again a same question. Fresh install or upgrade. What would you suggest.

Thanks

[xenopeek]

For Linux Mint fresh install is the officially supported and advised way to get to a new release of Linux Mint. You can not easily upgrade from, say, Linux Mint 9 to Linux Mint 10 as you could on Ubuntu (though that has mixed successes), and as stated this is not officially supported either. Use the Mint Backup tool to backup personal data and such (or put it on a separate partition), and then re-install.

[Robin]

Absolutely, a fresh install is better! It gives you a chance to test everything first using the LiveCD and assure yourself that the new version will work; sound, printers, all peripherals, etc.

It has the added advantage of being more reliable than an upgrade would be on Ubuntu (the base on which LM is built). On Mint the new releases are not generally upgradable because of the changes LM makes.

[KBD47]

Another way to go is to dual-boot: Keep one rock solid Linux version on your computer and another cutting edge distribution. For example, you could keep Mint 9 on your computer and Mint 11. If for some reason the newer version gets borked you can always use your more stable version. This is exactly what I do on my computers except right now I'm dual-booting Mepis 11 built on Debian Stable, and Ubuntu 11.04 which has been borked a couple of times with updates and I have been able to reboot into Mepis. This gives you a stable bork-free os and a newer one for the newest software.
KBD47

[xenopeek]

Another way to go is to dual-boot: Keep one rock solid Linux version on your computer and another cutting edge distribution. For example, you could keep Mint 9 on your computer and Mint 11. If for some reason the newer version gets borked you can always use your more stable version. This is exactly what I do on my computers except right now I'm dual-booting Mepis 11 built on Debian Stable, and Ubuntu 11.04 which has been borked a couple of times with updates and I have been able to reboot into Mepis. This gives you a stable bork-free os and a newer one for the newest software.
KBD47

Sound advice!

[sunewbie]

Thank you for your replies. As Robin had earlier said, I watched new ubuntu releases after 10.04, Mevarick was a modest update, Natty had mixed reactions. Ubuntu keeps changing default apps, so if I had upgraded 2 versions, there would be multiple programs for a single app.

The problem with fresh install is the mess i created during Ubuntu 9.1 install. I dual-booted XP and Ubuntu 9.1. I have 2 hard disk of 320 Gb. After few days, windows would not load. I did a mistake to repair Ubuntu and in the process re-installed it and ended up with 2 swap partitions.

Anyways, it is a long story. I changed grub file and windows was back. But grub takes 23 seconds to load on power on but loads instantly on restart. So I am a bit concerned to reinstall. But I will take your advise and will triple boot with one /home and one /swap partition.

I found some info about triple boot on

http://ubuntuforums.org/archive/index.p ... 09198.html

It is better to clear mess and have a fresh install. I will check HDDs - which is primary master and which is secondary master or a slave.

I am also keeping a watch on Bodhi Linux as third distro along with XP and Mint latest. It is my home PC so no extra driver, no nvidia card, no printers. So it should not be a problem.

Thanks for the help and guidance.

[KBD47]

Not sure if this will help, but I ended up with 2 extra swap partitions in an external drive installation of Ubuntu and had to remove them. Here is a thread about it at Ubuntu forum:
http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=1847450
KBD47

[phil]

sunewbie:

Like you I still use Windows XP in dual boot on three computers along with Linux Mint 9 LTS for work purposes. And I still use WS Office 97 and even Wordstar because I have files that date back to the beginning of PCs. But Libre Office is a little better. The old programs still do everything I want with the old files. I do construction engineering work and this is one of the main reasons I am still with XP because Linux has very little support for CAD. My version of XP is the very first and it is updated with security fixes to the present day and it has the latest Adobe, Firefox, Libre Office, Gimp and many other programs on it the same as i have on Mint.

Many times I have wondered about the multitude of libraries that constantly change form version to version in Linux. Is this really necessary, or is it just that most users want the most recent version of everything. Not me, I want something that will last at least 5 years in most cases or that can be upgraded without reinstall.

To facilitate my whims I have all of my data on an NTFS partition on a separate hard drive from the operating systems which is backed up regularly. I have not had a major loss of data since 1984. The OSs are on SSDs. I do not use home for anything but configuration on Mint.

I am presently testing LMDE XFCE on one computer on a separate partition. A few days ago I lost video hardware acceleration when I installed updates and was very frustrated since I could not easily restore it. I have not had this problem with XP or Mint9 on the same computer. I may not install LMDE at all unless I go to the stable version.

[KBD47]

I really think if you are using Debian--go Debian Stable or what's the point? I can't understand why one of the most user friendly distros--Mint--would move toward an unstable rolling release for so many of their flavors. They should offer at least one Debian Stable version, Maybe a Mint LXDE based on Stable, that would be just about bork-proof.
KBD47

[sunewbie]

Thank you KBD47.

@Phil

Linux is dynamic world and many users are pros. So they keep experimenting. In the linux world if you don't like it you fork it. This gives freedom and flexibility, but for end users, it creates confusion. 6 month release cycle is too fast to adopt for a new comer. You just get used to the working of linux and a new version with new default softwares land. Again, as I have said, some softwares are evolving, sometimes in terms of compatibility with windows equivalent and so we need to have latest version.

There is no channeled, synchronized direction (although people do contribute) like in case of professional companies making proprietary softwares. There will be cases like once strongly going openoffice is now more or less history. Good thing about FOSS is that things don't end if developers dump the project. Somebody takes things further. apps are reborn like phoenix. OMG Ubuntu had also posted a post regarding the possible revival of pinta as there were some email exchanges between pinta users.

This was the reason to stick with LTS version and have latest version of selected software.

Considering all strong points of Linux, why is the total market share of Linux just 1 %.

Not many training institutes focus on linux and not many students take up linux for livelihood. Even schools do not train students in linux.

When Linux programmers working in python, vala, gtk, etc will be easily available, things will definitely change.

Till then I am trying to find best possible solution and be at peace.