Linux Mint Forums

I always loved mint and never wanted to leave it, the only reason I left it was because of lack of wacom support when cinnamon first started, it's a must for my work but now its back so am I
I do love arch also but there are some things that don't work properly on my workstation with it so I need stability for my workstation and all the stuff I use, mint offers that for me.
Plus I like cinnamon and gnome 2 (now mate) before cinnamon came out other then that I just use cinnamon with arch or if things get borked then xfce with arch
Once I tried arch I can't leave it just like mint, I know some don't like it but I like fooling around and the speed it provides for my surfing needs, but mostly mint for 80% of my stuff.
When the wacom support went away I went to sdk and did some art for them a great distro and great folks over there but kde is not a DE I like to much, to many bells and whistles and bloat for my liking and the xfce version of wacom sucked back then until I used gnomes control center just for the wacom part and created a Frankenstein system which worked
Nice to have a working workstation again that just works although I had a small issue with R.U.B.E. but that was on their part and some outdated libs which I just deleted and then it worked fine again. Same issue steam had.
Its good to be back and yes we need mint, without it we'd all be gnome, unity, xfce or one of the others that don't suit my needs (well ok xfce comes really close), plus I like making mdm's in my spare time to kill boredom

Clem promises the update in place for 17 to 18 will be delivered next month.

Glad to see that. I shall wait for it.

venik212 wrote:

Clem promises the update in place for 17 to 18 will be delivered next month.

Glad to see that. I shall wait for it.

So what is recommended? Update 17.3 to 18 using the Update Manager, or do a fresh install?

In my case, I use the update manager when it's a minor release like 17.2 to 17.3, etc. I always do a fresh install when it's a major one. What I do is add a partition and install the new release without deleting or overwriting the previous version. I'll let it part of the multi-boot until I'm absolutely sure the new version is stable enough and got everything I need. Even then I'll let the old version stay for months. No harm done. It's my computer. I can do anything with it.

thom_A wrote:

venik212 wrote:

Clem promises the update in place for 17 to 18 will be delivered next month.

Glad to see that. I shall wait for it.

So what is recommended? Update 17.3 to 18 using the Update Manager, or do a fresh install?

In my case, I use the update manager when it's a minor release like 17.2 to 17.3, etc. I always do a fresh install when it's a major one. What I do is add a partition and install the new release without deleting or overwriting the previous version. I'll let it part of the multi-boot until I'm absolutely sure the new version is stable enough and got everything I need. Even then I'll let the old version stay for months. No harm done. It's my computer. I can do anything with it.

The upgrade path you choose depends on your habits.
I am the kind of guy who is always trying out new stuff and after a couple of years I have accumulated a bunch of PPAs, mods and other cruft and it is good for me to wipe and start clean.
But if you are the sort that lets things be, sticks to the repo and does not sometime treat your computer like a toy like I do an upgrade in place is probably a good way to go.
Both ways should work fine.

InkKnife wrote:The upgrade path you choose depends on your habits.
I am the kind of guy who is always trying out new stuff and after a couple of years I have accumulated a bunch of PPAs, mods and other cruft and it is good for me to wipe and start clean.
But if you are the sort that lets things be, sticks to the repo and does not sometime treat your computer like a toy like I do an upgrade in place is probably a good way to go.
Both ways should work fine.

You can actually do both without thinking long and hard about it as long as you know how to bring it back to its previous state in case something went wrong. That is if you know how to make a backup of your partition and able to restore it.

I don't use a lot of programs, so doing a fresh install only takes about 15 minutes for me. I install them when I need them. I also use only one PPA nowadays, which is Grub Customizer. It's been a huge help in letting me multiboot (4 OSes max for me, which included Win7), clean up the boot list and install the new list on the MBR. It's got the facility to do that when a new distro takes over as long as you boot to the main partition where you installed Grub Customizer to.

After fudging with Arch for so long I am leery of upgrading anything]. I haven't upgraded the PCLinuxOS on my laptop because it just works and does everything I need, so why upset the apple cart? I also use that system for work, and when Arch would bork itself I'd go on the laptop until Arch either got sorted out or reloaded. I have a separate Home so I don't lose anything, and after a reload everything goes right back to what it was. Bit me when I installed Mint, however, because the Arch Mate setting interfered with Mint Mate settings.

One thing that did happen this weekend; I can't print from Gimp. I had to get something done NOW and had to boot Windows in order to get it to print.

Any mission critical machine should be running a very conservatively updated LTS release, the "don't break my system" setting in Mint update manger is perfect for that. . The very idea of using Arch on a production machine makes me itchy.

venik212 wrote:So what do I get with MINT that I do not have with Lubuntu + CInnamon?

Off the top of my head:

• Software Manager, Update Manager, and Software Sources for easy software installation and upgrading, and repository management;
• Driver Manager for easy management of proprietary drivers;
• X-Apps, a common set of Gtk applications for text editing, document reading, picture viewing, and video playing that won't use CSD / "header bar" as similar applications on Ubuntu are now doing;
• The original apt command that integrates functions from apt-get, apt-cache, aptitude, dpkg, and more commands in one easy command;
• LTS upgrade tool to safely upgrade from one LTS release to another, like to upgrade from Linux Mint 18.x to Linux Mint 19 in 2 years from now;
• Every six months new versions of Cinnamon and other Linux Mint developed software and selected other applications (like LibreOffice 5 was added to Linux Mint 17.x while Ubuntu LTS 14.04 remains on LibreOffice 4) without need to add a PPA or move away from LTS and use a development release of Ubuntu;
• Patches to Gnome software to improve integration with Cinnamon or to restore features removed by Gnome developers;
• Linux Mint's themes and artwork;
• and other Linux Mint developed software and customizations.

See the New features in Linux Mint 18 Cinnamon page. Or browse the repository of packages Linux Mint adds on top of Ubuntu: http://packages.linuxmint.com/list.php?release=Sarah.

xenopeek wrote:[*]Linux Mint's themes and artwork;

I just wish the Mint team put more effort into it. The default icons, for instance, pretty much look the same, which is a disadvantage especially for people with poor eyesight. And I don't get why they're not taking advantage of the transparency capability of the png and svg format, which were invented precisely because of cases like this. They're virtually throwing them out the door. I have a feeling it's about trying to please the tablet users and merging desktop and touch screen. All I see is squares, circles, squares, no distinction except their text labels and colors. I have to wonder why they're not taking advantage of hundreds of icons that have been contributed by Linux artists all over the world for free.

linuxviolin wrote:

Condorman wrote:I think it's just good practice to wipe out and reinstall every couple of years. I do it with pretty much everything I own, phone, tablet (well, factory reset and complete wipe), PC laptop. Hell, even my PVR gets a complete reset and disk wipe every two years.

To me, the Linux landscape changes so much in the space of two years. What will happen to those folks on rolling release distros when Wayland and Mir hit? I'm guessing it won't be pretty, and there'll be no option for many other than a compete reinstall. I was more than happy personally to format my old 17.x install of Mint and create a fresh instance of version 18.

A good practice? Not really.

Rolling, or semi-rolling, à la Manjaro is quite good. Complete reinstall twice by year is just harmful, tedious, boring... At least.

Even in rolling, you can have to reinstall when there is an important change in the system, but this is rarely enough. In normal situation, no need for a reinstall. Even Windows can do it...

I can definitely understand people not wanting to do a fresh install, but I personally don't mind. I have done this so many times over the years that it is an easy drill. I keep everything organized and backed up so that it is not a big deal. And I'm a nut, in that I don't find it boring either. It is an opportunity for me to "houseclean" my computer a bit and get rid of what I don't use anymore, and I often add a few new things/settings/programs. I kind of like the way I'm prompted to do this every 6 months or so. And, LOL, it's almost like a "fire drill" for if I would have some catastrophic event where I had to do a fresh install. I'd be up-and-running again pretty quick (I could do it in my sleep by now).

For me, it just feels really good to have that new fresh installation.

InkKnife wrote:Any mission critical machine should be running a very conservatively updated LTS release, the "don't break my system" setting in Mint update manger is perfect for that. . The very idea of using Arch on a production machine makes me itchy.

Well, my friend, it downright just pifsed me right off!

It wouldn't be so bad if I just got it to where it was running well and turned off the updates. but, NOOO! I gotta see "what will this update do for me?" It usually winds up, "What will this update do TO me!"

As others have said,use what works. We may not need Mint,but it's a nice option.
I'm a little scared of rolling releases,that's why I have a rolling release only on the Revo (Manjaro XFCE)
and not on this machine.

fraxinus_63 wrote:esp for stability when used in production environments. Mint's LTS releases provide a perfect balance as they are supported for so long so re-installation is seldom needed.

InkKnife wrote:Any mission critical machine should be running a very conservatively updated LTS release, the "don't break my system" setting in Mint update manger is perfect for that. . The very idea of using Arch on a production machine makes me itchy.

You are not forced to use a "complete" rolling-system. You could use a rolling à la Manjaro, with different repos: Stable, Testing, Unstable. If you stay with Stable, you have "rolling with a delay", the time for testing the packages. So, you have the stability with rolling.

Contrary to Arch where all packages are updated without verification at all. So, in Arch, you always risk a problem with an update. But you have the new versions sooner.

Using LTS means staying with old librairies, apps etc... for a long time.

venik212 wrote:I have been using (L)ubuntu on several machines for the past several years. I prefer it to plain Ubuntu because of the inefficient, bloated and un-necessary ubuntu interface. In the past 2 years I have been using Lubuntu with Cinnamon, and I love that combination. It is super fast even on old hardware, nicely supports the HiDPI screen of my Yoga 2 Pro, has sensible menus, and is easily upgradable from the update manager of Lubuntu. Mint, on the other hand, prevents me from upgrading smoothly across major releases, and insists on a fresh install, involving backing up my large HOME folder, and the risk of losing some settings and data, despite the (somewhat clumsy) backup app.
So what do I get with MINT that I do not have with Lubuntu + CInnamon?

You want all the rewards from the Mint project, but dump its creator and originator?

Without Mint there wouldn't even be Cinnamon.

Now you ask: I like the apples, but can't we dump the apple tree? The whole idea of Mint and Cinnamon existing is due to a certain mindset that would be lost the moment Mint would be lost; and Ubuntu, or Kubuntu or Lubuntu (no experience with that, but I consider it all the same really) would not have that mindset that was needed to develop Cinnamon (or Mate, no experience).

linuxviolin wrote:You are not forced to use a "complete" rolling-system. You could use a rolling à la Manjaro, with different repos: Stable, Testing, Unstable. If you stay with Stable, you have "rolling with a delay", the time for testing the packages. So, you have the stability with rolling.

I don't know about Manjaro but that is the Debian model.

The Debian model is fragmented and slow. Debian Stable is known to be that distro that has libraries so old that you cannot run anything on it that was produced in the last century (those were words by Linus Torvalds). But then what, Testing? Unstable? Who wants that? I don't want to be a tester, but I want to have reasonably recent programs. Err, not possible with Debian.

Now I can run a server on Debian just fine. It is my preferred system for a server, and I have two of those.

I am also perfectly capable of changing the repos just so I can install something from Testing or Unstable . You can mix however you want, really.

Regardless for the vast majority of people Testing and Unstable are really moot points, they don't do anything for you.

I remember when Squid was so old it was more than a year behind schedule (release). There were major new features in 3.5 and it had been released for quite some time (at least 6 months I believe) and it was not possible to get it with Debian or whatever.

The Mantra of Debian is apparently that everything has to come from the repo and has to adhere to the standards.

This can be terribly annoying and immediately renders something like PlayOnLinux against policy. WordPress also likes to update itself; it needs to be disabled. To adhere to policy. So what you have is a no-upgrade system where everything trickles through oh so slowly.

When software is released it is supposed to already be tested. There is also a difference between libraries and applications. Libraries are allowed and are supposed to be "behind the times". The whole idea of libraries is to provide a foundation, and Linux doesn't do that very well. Linus mentions how often he needs to fight the people that want to break binary compatibility with the kernel, it's his holy crusade to crush the people that want to break backward compatibility in that sense .

I don't completely understand that but at the same time it goes to show that the idea of having older libraries and newer applications is not all that strange. On MS Windows there are deep foundations that only regularly get updated in big chunks called runtimes. With 32-bit versus 64-bit the thing has become rather annoying (which one do you need?) but those "VC++" redistributables (and DirectX, and .NET) have never been a problem (well at least not before .NET). Programs are allowed to package their own libraries and were usually self-contained. Some people call that "DLL HELL" but I never experienced it. Mac OS X apparently takes the same approach. Programs are packages of their own.

linuxviolin wrote: Using LTS means staying with old librairies, apps etc... for a long time.

Yep. So old they have dust on them.
I don't have any advanced experience on Linux, in my professional capacity I have always used Macs as a graphics work-station and I sit on versions until just before support runs out, usually around 5 years, before updating. In my last position my Mac had to be able to reliably print to 6 different output devices, middle and high end digital printers and a RIP. Just getting that working reliably is a several days long task dealing with buggy proprietary software.
Once I get something as mission critical set-up and working I would like to build a form and encase it in concrete to prevent changes. When down-time are measured at $10,000 an hour in lost production things simply have to work.
I am all Linux at home and I upgrade with every release, I do not need an LTS for my use case but I sure do understand people who do.

thom_A wrote:I have a feeling it's about trying to please the tablet users and merging desktop and touch screen.

I can guarantee 100% that has nothing to do with it. Artwork is hugely subjective. Fortunately there is also a ton of it available and it's one of the easiest things to change on most linux desktops.

Art recently in the computer world has been hugely influenced by the tablet/phablet space.

I really do believe the only reason we see those modern wide screen "banner" oriented websites (I am sure there is a name for it, I just don't know it) is because of tablets.

Within a space of a mere 2 years, most visible websites trying to sell a product have migrated to this new "art form".

Linux Mint hasn't and is a pleasant exception to the norm (for me).

But for example OpenSUSE has: http://www.opensuse.org. Very annoying websites, absoluty beautiful, but hard to use and really dysfunctional in the space of trying to read something and acquire information.

Dropbox (https://www.dropbox.com) were one of the ones that started it. Terribly annoying to read anything (unless you are on a tablet, I guess) because for a desktop, the screen is HUGE and the fonts are HUGE. I am really just happy to see that Mint hasn't gone with it yet.

Ubuntu (http://www.ubuntu.com) however, has. Sligtly more readable and usable than OpenSUSE, but still all the same really: only meant for tablets.

Apparently they assume, that if anyone these days is looking for information in a bit of a leasury way, they will do so on a tablet.

Now sure I don't know if that has effected Mint Icons in any way and I am not all that much disgrunted by them (although many do look alike) because I like the style of it to begin with. I am .... just suggesting that "art" is not as personal as you may think it is because it can also just be "hype".

The subject can very well be influenced by factors out of their own control and even out of their own knowing, being unaware of how they are being influenced and primed. And then "subjective" really means "indoctrinated". So I would definitely suggest that on not every occassion will the designer be doing something personal and unique, something stemming from personal design objectives, but may definitely be influenced by something else.

And I leave it to people better versed in that to make something out of it, because I wouldn't know how that would be the case with Mint icons themselves, but the idea that art is "subjective" and therefore "independent" doesn't make it through with me.

drydenp wrote:Very annoying websites, absoluty beautiful, but hard to use and really dysfunctional in the space of trying to read something and acquire information.

I just had a look at that. Just like you said, it's pretty, but pretty awful to use. On mine the OpenSuse site is arranged vertically but it's clear no thought given to desktop users (who they are aiming at!); slightly too wide to fit on the common 1024x768 displays and have to scroll, scroll, scroll again to see two more elements at a time .. ugh!

Microsoft did this with their online Outlook a few years ago, making all the "folder" lists double-spaced so it no longer fit on the screen. What a waste of precious screen space. I like to have everything visible for easy access with my email must start using Thunderbird or something as it's horrible to use now.

Wouldn't take a great deal of effort to make a separate front page for tablets; site authors did this with WAP after all. I could of course increase the monitor resolution (not on the netbooks though!) but that makes everything else too small to read.

Computers seem to have become pretty much a fashion accessory for many these days. Personally I find using tablets an arduous experience and I expect a lot of the reasons they are so popular is down to 'virus free' Android or iOS vs the only alternative many know- Windows.

Unfortunately, I see laptop and desktop machines becoming largely relegated to business and the price rising as a result.

Back to the OP, let me turn the question around- Do we REALLY need Cinnamon desktop on anything other than Mint which came up with it in the first place? Actually I don't really think like that as we all have our preferences and the beauty of open source is the ability to 'have it your way.'