Slashdot Mirror


Linux Mint 15 'Olivia' Is Out

An anonymous reader writes "The Linux Mint blog today announced the full release of Linux Mint 15 'Olivia.' Here are the release notes and a list of new features. As before, it's available with either MATE or Cinnamon as a desktop environment. The included version of MATE has been upgrade to 1.6, which saw many old and deprecated packages replaced with newer technologies. Cinnamon has gone to 1.8, which improved the file manager, added support for 'desklets' (essentially desktop widgets), and completed the transition away from Gnome Control Center to Cinnamon's own settings panel. Other new features of Linux Mint 15 include improved login screen applications (one of which is an HTML greeter that supports HTML5, CSS, JavaScript, and WebGL), a tool developed from the ground up to manage software sources in Mint, and a vastly improved driver manager. The project's website sums it up simply: 'Linux Mint 15 is the most ambitious release since the start of the project.'"

122 of 185 comments (clear)

  1. Sweet... by interval1066 · · Score: 1, Informative

    ...I'm going to try it out later today.

    --
    Python: 'And then suddenly you have a language which says "we're all stuck with whatever the whiniest coder wants".'
    1. Re:Sweet... by RedHackTea · · Score: 1

      Me too. I hope it still fits on a 1GB flash drive (that's how I installed the last version). I'll never install with CDs/DVDs again! (Unless I buy a computer without BIOS support for booting USB.) It'd be nice if you could install directly from the ISO image file somehow like you can with VMs. I think I remember reading about someone doing this with 2 computers (1 as the server)?

      P.S. I use usb-creator-gtk... unetbootin if no X.

      --
      The G
    2. Re:Sweet... by i.r.id10t · · Score: 2

      Based on what bittorrent is telling me, the cinnamon disks are 915 or 928mb depending on arch, the mate desktop ones are both "1.0gb" - so they may or may not fit on a 1gb flash drive (depending on if a geek or a marketing designer labeled said drive)

      --
      Don't blame me, I voted for Kodos
    3. Re:Sweet... by Beardo+the+Bearded · · Score: 1

      I just got a new computer, so I'm looking forward to getting the Linux half installed. I'll give Mint a go this time around.

      --

      ---
      ECHELON is a government program to find words like bomb, jihad, plutonium, assassinate, and anarchy.
    4. Re:Sweet... by CosaNostra+Pizza+Inc · · Score: 1

      Me too...at the risk of getting modded down for adding another "Me too" post.

    5. Re:Sweet... by pnutjam · · Score: 1

      I do pxe installs using the iso mounted on http or samba. I can elaborate.

  2. Did they fix upgrade-in-place? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    No?

    Well at least now I have an excuse for why I didn't get any work done today.

    1. Re:Did they fix upgrade-in-place? by sorensenbill · · Score: 1, Insightful

      I don't get why so many people get all bent out of shape about this, with /home in it's own partition it's so easy to upgrade with a LiveDVD.

    2. Re:Did they fix upgrade-in-place? by bmo · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Well, some people have custom stuff in /etc/ and whatnot, so an in-place upgrade is a lot more convenient.

      That said, even on Windows, one should have the system/software and user partitions separated, if only for making a nuke-and-pave more painless. The whole business of having everything in C: is just dumb.

      --
      BMO

    3. Re:Did they fix upgrade-in-place? by mexsudo · · Score: 1

      agreed, but it is a pain installing all those little apps and other gizmoes.

    4. Re:Did they fix upgrade-in-place? by KiloByte · · Score: 1

      Or preferably, merely on different btrfs subvolumes. No need to micromanage free space this way, you can test upgrades, etc.

      --
      The creatures outside looked from Alt-Right to Antifa; but already it was impossible to say which was which.
    5. Re:Did they fix upgrade-in-place? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Ever tried to use an NFTS volume for your /home partition? (So it's accessible from Windows.)

      Don't bother, you can't. Pulseaudio of all things won't let you.

    6. Re:Did they fix upgrade-in-place? by i.r.id10t · · Score: 1

      True, and that is what I used to do when I used slackware.

      But Mint is based on Debian and Ubuntu. Mint has apt in it.

      *Why* should a distro with such a great package manager force you to reinstall for every upgrade?

      --
      Don't blame me, I voted for Kodos
    7. Re:Did they fix upgrade-in-place? by justthinkit · · Score: 1

      We all can identify you by your style of writing -- drawing strength from anonymity, the coward within you comes quivering to the fore as you shake your jowels at someone more constructive than yourself. No need for you to have that as your user name.

      --
      I come here for the love
    8. Re:Did they fix upgrade-in-place? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Why would you do something like that, so you can spam windows with all the useless .folders and .files?

      This guy has a better idea. And it is objectively better, don't tell me "wah, i have to do a workaround and it's keeping me from filling the ntfs partition with cruft".

    9. Re:Did they fix upgrade-in-place? by unixisc · · Score: 1

      In XP, you could make the target drive of My Documents something other than C:\ But I've not figured out how to do it in Windows 7, or even IF it can be done or not. In fact, that's the only reason to have separate partitions, or else, the old habit of making C a small fraction of the drive and D everything else is really lame

    10. Re:Did they fix upgrade-in-place? by Misch · · Score: 1

      You don't have to.

      Mint also has a pretty good backup program (mintBackup) that remembers the software packages you had installed and you can install them again later.

      --

      --You will rephrase your request for me to go to hell. Goto statements are not acceptable programming constructs
    11. Re:Did they fix upgrade-in-place? by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      I can think of two places where there's custom stuff in a typical distro (which probably wouldn't be in a separate partition): /etc, where you might have some special configuration stuff (I have some custom udev rules, like for a USB device), and /usr/local. There might also be some stuff in /opt, for proprietary programs that may install themselves there.

    12. Re:Did they fix upgrade-in-place? by iceaxe · · Score: 2

      I have a ntfs partition with directories that I symlink from my home, so I can put stuff there that I want to share back and forth. I don't see a need to have the whole home partition accessible from windows.

      However, I only use windows for a couple of games and a handful of other rarely used programs, so my use case may not match yours.

      --
      WALSTIB!
    13. Re:Did they fix upgrade-in-place? by iceaxe · · Score: 1

      Sorry, an operating system that doesn't have an upgrade path is a no-no for me. Reinstalling isn't an upgrade path. I just don't believe all my settings and custom scripts (that I don't even remember where they are and what problem they were supposed to fix) will be magically reapplied.

      1. Some of those things you custom scripted around are probably fixed in the new release, and your scripts will just muck things up.
      2. Similar applies to settings.
        (I have experienced these myself.)

      3. Failure to organize and remember what you've messed with is not the distro's fault.

      4. Be smart and keep a separate /home partition. Mine has been through about 5 iterations over two different distros now, and still going strong. I keep two different OS install partitions, and when it's time to install a new OS, I blow away the older one and replace it with the new install. That way I can still fall back on my current setup if need be. And yes, I have done that. Disk is cheap. Use it to your advantage.

      5. Try it out in a VM and see if it's worth the trouble before screwing with your system. I installed the Olivia RC that way but am still undecided on whether I'll bother. I'm still running Maya (LTS) as my main, with backports.

      6. Anonymous Cowards don't take advice, but maybe somebody else will benefit. (And I'm sure others have even better ways of managing this.)

      --
      WALSTIB!
    14. Re:Did they fix upgrade-in-place? by chromas · · Score: 2

      Right-click the My Documents or My Music or whatever folder, Properties, then the Location tab. You'll notice that it points to Documents in the same location, even though Documents doesn't show up. Anyway, you can move it from there.

      Additionally, you can add folders to the Documents Library, which by default contains the magic folder My Documents, which points to your actual Documents folder.

      A lot of the user stuff isn't in My Documents or other magic folders, though, so you may have to do a little hacking to get the whole profile tree moved.

    15. Re:Did they fix upgrade-in-place? by mr_shifty · · Score: 1

      4. Be smart and keep a separate /home partition. Mine has been through about 5 iterations over two different distros now, and still going strong. I keep two different OS install partitions, and when it's time to install a new OS, I blow away the older one and replace it with the new install. That way I can still fall back on my current setup if need be. And yes, I have done that. Disk is cheap. Use it to your advantage.

      This, for the love of Torvalds, THIS.

      I can't count how many times having a separate /home partition has saved my ass.

      And now, rather than deal with the constant re-installing, I switched over to Linux Mint Debian Edition. Rolling releases are where it's at.

      --
      And the circle of life continues to spin, occasionally wobbling on its axis thanks to the weighty presence of dumb.
    16. Re:Did they fix upgrade-in-place? by stooo · · Score: 1

      The update mechanism in mint is broken by design, they want to take a decision instead of the user as to which type of upgrade he has to do.
      That's not good.
      Ok, you can warn about the "dangerous" upgrade, BUT DO NO JUST REMOVE THE OPTION AND BREAK A WORKING SYSTEM because of some political BS. PLEASE.

      --
      aaaaaaa
    17. Re:Did they fix upgrade-in-place? by stooo · · Score: 1

      ubuntu fixed it, mint broke it again !! Deliberately.

      --
      aaaaaaa
    18. Re:Did they fix upgrade-in-place? by hobarrera · · Score: 1

      I don't think I installed all my packages into /home. I don't think I did system-wide configurtion in /home either.

    19. Re:Did they fix upgrade-in-place? by bmo · · Score: 1

      This is late but... /usr/local/ and /opt/ can sit in their own partitions. I typically have it set up this way, especially when I have custom-compiled stuff sitting in /usr/local. /etc/ can't be in its own partition, because it needs to be read on boot. At least that's my experience. If you have any idea on how to put /etc/ in its own partition and still have a bootable system, I'd sure like to know (really).

      At that point, blowing away the system and sticking something new in there would be really painless.

      --
      BMO

  3. Been using it since the RC came out by sorensenbill · · Score: 1

    I love it, I've been with Mint since Fedora switched up the UI too much for me with Gnome 3. Both my laser printer and USB wifi adapter worked turn-key and no problems with my Nvidia graphics card. Easy to install onto a fully encrypted LVM too for only a few extra minutes and a LiveDVD.

  4. Cinnamon Window Grouping by n1ywb · · Score: 4, Interesting

    So when is Cinnamon going to support window grouping "out of the box"? I know there's a 3rd party applet for it, I tried it, it was buggy and kludgy. Despite members of the community clamoring for it, the devs claim that not having it is a "design decision". So it's a design decision to make it frustrating and difficult to find the right window when I have a many windows open, which I usually do, because I'm a software developer and power user? It's a design decision to ignore the requirements of the Linux Mint Cinnamon Edition community?/rant

    Overall I have to say I've been very happy with Linux Mint. It really "just works" and I wouldn't even consider switching to another distro, the above complaint notwidthstanding. Cinnamon is mostly sexy and cool.

    --
    -73, de n1ywb
    www.n1ywb.com
    1. Re:Cinnamon Window Grouping by interval1066 · · Score: 1

      Yep. This is the way Ubuntu used to be.

      --
      Python: 'And then suddenly you have a language which says "we're all stuck with whatever the whiniest coder wants".'
    2. Re:Cinnamon Window Grouping by ADRA · · Score: 2

      Not all users use their desktops the same way. If window groups on by default adds extra complexity for everyone else, then its a lot less appealing for mass adoption. If you can trivially add an extension that does exactly what you need it to, I fail to see the problem with this solution. If I want to add ad-blocking, or development tools, or custom search providers on my web browser, I'm glad that Firefox makes it fast and trivially easy to do so.

      Maybe giving a better explorability or curation for commonly used extensions could help that, but honestly I don't use Cinnamon, so I'm not the one to say.

      --
      Bye!
  5. Why do we care about diff distro releases? by Formorian · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Even if you posted Lubuntu's releases (the distro I use) I would still be posting this. Why do we care about random distro releases?

    Sure Linux Kernels, but beyond that, who cares?

    If you are a fan of a specific distro, you probably already know a new one was released.

    1. Re:Why do we care about diff distro releases? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Maybe because it's interesting to know about different distros than the "chosen one" you use.

      Sometimes a new distro highlights can be a turning point for a sick and tired user of an old retro distro.

    2. Re:Why do we care about diff distro releases? by TopSpin · · Score: 4, Informative

      Sure Linux Kernels, but beyond that, who cares?

      I do. I have been looking forward to Mint 15 for a while and so have a lot of others. I appreciate that it was posted on Slashdot and I hope others consider trying Mint as a result. Mint deserves the attention because Mint is an antidote to terrible Linux desktop environments.

      --
      Lurking at the bottom of the gravity well, getting old
    3. Re:Why do we care about diff distro releases? by Patch86 · · Score: 1

      News, nerds, etc. That's why I come here for news rather than just reading Reddit/Google News/BBC News/whatever.

      You might as well go on a sports website and complain that they post a news update every time a football player transfers team. Seems deadly dull to me, but then that's why I don't read those sorts of sites.

    4. Re:Why do we care about diff distro releases? by Formorian · · Score: 1

      Lubuntu. Clean, small, fast. What more you need?

    5. Re:Why do we care about diff distro releases? by wonkey_monkey · · Score: 1

      Why do we care about random distro releases?

      Because "we" don't all care about the same things as you.

      --
      systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
    6. Re:Why do we care about diff distro releases? by unixisc · · Score: 1

      But there are some 100 different distros. How do we select which get covered & which don't? So far, I've seen /. cover Red Hat, Fedora, Debian, Ubuntu, Mint, Mageia, Crunchbang, Slackware, Gentoo. So what's the criteria under which a distro is NOT worth covering?

    7. Re:Why do we care about diff distro releases? by ichthus · · Score: 2

      Feel free to propose criteria.

      Or, what if /. were to cover the top 5 (RHEL, Fedora, Debian, Ubuntu, Mint... CentOS (ok, 6)), and then any that feature special innovations or have interesting peculiarities. So, pretty much what happens now.

      BTW, Mint is interesting and worthy of coverage for two reasons:
      1. Many Ubuntu users have defected and continue to defect, making Mint one of the most popular distros.
      2. We have the Mint guys to thank for Cinnamon and MATE.

      --
      sig: sauer
    8. Re:Why do we care about diff distro releases? by Mike+Frett · · Score: 1

      heh, what do you think Mint is? A fixed up version of Ubuntu. No Ubuntu = No Mint.

    9. Re:Why do we care about diff distro releases? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      They should totally make a website devoted to watching distributions, announcing new releases and the like. Watching Distributions... Distribution Watching... I know, we'll call it LinuxLookout.com !

    10. Re:Why do we care about diff distro releases? by unixisc · · Score: 1

      There is one. It's called Distrowatch. Covers Linux, the BSD distros, Solaris and Minix as well.

  6. Cinnamon Control Panel by theurge14 · · Score: 1

    That Cinnamon Control Panel looks very similar to OS X's System Preferences.

  7. Linux needs more desktop forks by demachina · · Score: 3, Interesting

    On the one hand it is great that Linux allows people to innovate, and fork when the need arises.

    On the other hand the Linux desktop has reached the point that I simply don't want to choose between the myriad of desktops and window managers any more. Just reading Wikipedia on MATE and Cinnamon leaves me shaking my head.

    Seems to me that the massive fragmentation of the Linux desktop probably does work for the hard core geeks who can pick the one that scratches their itch. It also gives every programmer who wants to develop a desktop or window manager their own private little place to do it.

    On the other hand, Linux on the desktop is pretty much doomed when it comes to any ordinary person just wanting to install it, use it and have it work if the first question they have to deal with is which of 20 UI's and desktops they should pick.

    Not sure how you are going to maintain a critical mass of developers and users for testing when resources are scattered across so many, mostly, mediocre UI's and desktops. If you don't have that critical mass, chances are every effort will come up short quality wise.

    Developer's thinking about developing a serious app with a lot of UI and desktop integration must cringe at the prospect of doing QA across so many desktop variations and either only support one or give up on supporting Linux all together.

    Who would have figured that Android, running a Java front end, would be the one and only place that Linux would have any chance of making it as a consumer OS.

    --
    @de_machina
    1. Re:Linux needs more desktop forks by MrEricSir · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Making your app work with Unity and Gnome 3 is bad enough. Throw in Mate or XFCE and you're fucked. Time is always limited, and I don't know about you, but I'd rather spend my time writing a polished app than an unpolished app that's compatible with many different desktops.

      Choices have cost: the Linux community's continued refusal to acknowledge this has left the Linux desktop in a continuous state of disrepair.

      --
      There's no -1 for "I don't get it."
    2. Re:Linux needs more desktop forks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Choice is good. GNOME 2.32 had everything in place where I wanted it, how I wanted it to look, with a simplicity that the wife could use. GNOME 3 took all that, threw it out the window, and added in bugs as a bonus. Now instead of being stuck using an environment I don't want, I can continue using the environment I had. There is a big benefit to this. Look at the backlash over Windows 8 for a relatively minor UI change. And you're stuck with it, unless you have the time and skill to futz with third party crap to unbreak your desktop.

    3. Re:Linux needs more desktop forks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      How about separating the core functions from the GUI? That way anyone who's interested can write a GUI wrapper compatible with the DE of his choice and you can concentrate on the one(s) where your core customers reside.

    4. Re:Linux needs more desktop forks by Teun · · Score: 1
      What fragmentation? It's all the same Kernel and by and large the same applications.

      The differences between the main Linux distro's are mainly visible in the desktop chosen an felt in the package manager used.
      There is no easy (if at all) way to consolidate those in a single distro.

      Personally I like the Debian dpkg-based package management and the KDE desktop so I ended up with Kubuntu.

      KDE is by now the most complete desktop environment and especially since the intervention of Blue Systems with the best support. See www.bluemintlinux.com
      Sure an OpenSuse can be nice too but for that damn package manager...

      Linux on the desktop is not about different distro's, it's about hardware manufacturers putting in the effort to build and sell computers with any well integrated version of Linux.

      --
      "The likes of Facebook and WhatsApp are free to those whose privacy is of zero value."
    5. Re:Linux needs more desktop forks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      This!!! You nailed it!!

      This is exactly the reason I tried Linux and gave up (twice - once in 2002 then in 2007).

      All Linux distros are like religions. They're all based on the same thing, but each has its own little quirks just to differentiate itself from the 200+ crowd (and earn a spot on Distrowatch.) As a result, newcomers get lost choosing a distro and just remain with what they know (Windows).

      And the repositories (basically a distro's app store) only make it worse. Linux is open source, but God forbid I run Fedora and want to install a Ubuntu app.

      IMHO, Mr. Torvalds should step in and organize / unify this mess if the Year of Linux in the desktop is to ever happen.

    6. Re:Linux needs more desktop forks by steelfood · · Score: 1

      Who would have figured that Android, running a Java front end, would be the one and only place that Linux would have any chance of making it as a consumer OS.

      A central authority always makes things easier. Why do you think history is not littered with democracies and republics, but of monarchies and other dictatorships?

      Yes, it'd be nice if all the Linux developers pooled all of their resources into one distro and the libraries around it. But then they'd all be following one person's vision. That's how Apple made OSX the most popular BSD distribution, and how Google's making Android the most popular Linux distribution.

      But that is the antithesis of OSS.

      I guess in the end, it's unreasonable to expect Linux to be successful as it exists now as a consumer product. With a leader capable of throwing massive amounts of resources, market clout, and strong leadership into a product, it'd be possible.

      Hell, we saw a little bit of that with Ubuntu for a short time. They had everything except the market clout. And it was going well too, until that leader (or group of leaders) decided to jump off the deep end and pull everyone else along with. But then the ability to fork and go off on a different direction is what makes the good parts of Ubuntu still alive in the form of Mint.

      --
      "If a nation expects to be ignorant and free in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be."
    7. Re:Linux needs more desktop forks by marky_boi · · Score: 2

      I don't care for the year of the Linux desktop. I like the variety, coz when bad decisions are made I can move on. Mint is the first distro that works the way I do. Windoze users can do whatever the hell they do I don't care.

    8. Re:Linux needs more desktop forks by jones_supa · · Score: 3, Insightful

      IMHO, Mr. Torvalds should step in and organize / unify this mess if the Year of Linux in the desktop is to ever happen.

      As much as some people here may not like him, Mr. Shuttleworth is doing exactly what you described.

    9. Re:Linux needs more desktop forks by ADRA · · Score: 4, Interesting

      There is no 'body' in Linux to tackle this problem. The kernel is well managed because by and large its run by one group and they steer with a very clear set of goals. Generally the goals of EVERYONE's use of the kernel is relatively narrow, so there's little need to fork the kernel for any specific work (it usually happens more often as a continuous branch/patch than an actual fork when done).

      Now you look into the desktop space, you see many groups operating independently, each of which has philosophical/design/financial/NIH/licensing/etc.. reasons to create another tool vs. using something that people have already invented. You also have the idea that these developers are generally 'chasing innovation' as if they want to invent something that'll be amazing for Z even though we haven't hit X or Y yet.

      Ideally, we'd have a world where:
      1. Applications were 100% agnostic of Desktop (Any common frameworks would have to be 100% agnostic of desktop, or add very pluggable modular integration so that any desktop could implement)

      Eg. If I install Gimp on KDE/XFCE/etc.. desktops, I'd pull in something like this
      Gimp
      GnomeDependenyLibraries (small direct use libraries)
      GTK_compat_common-ui-foundations

      Instead, I get
      Gimp
      GimpDepenenyLibraies (small direct use libraries)
      TheKitchenSinkWhichIsMostOfGnome

      2. Service layer components should equally be standardized per their function, not per their desktop environment. If they need integration points with the desktop, then as with applications, a clear set of API implementation points should exist to make this straight forward for a desktop developer to implement.

      I hate seeing SO many redundant packages being installed because people just don't communicate, or they don't want to use code written by 'those people' or they didn't bother to see that it was already invented, or some other equally pointless meaning. We're generally all adults and we should be doing the mature steps in moving the platform in the right direction. Sadly, unless a very large company comes along and clubs all these other org's over the head with their amazing flexible solution, I don't see things changing any time soon.

      --
      Bye!
    10. Re:Linux needs more desktop forks by dj245 · · Score: 1

      On the one hand it is great that Linux allows people to innovate, and fork when the need arises. On the other hand the Linux desktop has reached the point that I simply don't want to choose between the myriad of desktops and window managers any more.

      This probably stems from the fact that it is far more interesting (to most people) to create something, rather than fix something that someone else made which is broken.

      There also may be some professors out there who make projects like "write me an rudimentary Z from scratch", then the person just keeps working on the project until it becomes a usable piece of software. I am not a code writer, but in my few computer classes "make me a Z!" was a far more common homework than "Here is a Y, which Bob wrote in ridiculous spaghetti code and has bugs A, B, and C, please fix it".

      While the second is arguably a more common skill, I can easilly imagine that the first is much easier to grade and/or detect cheating.

      --
      Even those who arrange and design shrubberies are under considerable economic stress at this period in history.
    11. Re:Linux needs more desktop forks by aliquis · · Score: 1

      On the other hand, Linux on the desktop is pretty much doomed when it comes to any ordinary person just wanting to install it, use it and have it work if the first question they have to deal with is which of 20 UI's and desktops they should pick.

      Not really since as far as distributions go Gnome and GTK is the standard.

      Even though some use KDE to.

      Xorg standard would be twm or something such I guess but that's not very relevant to someone installing a distribution.

      (Maybe that's a kinda weird thing to say when Ubuntu use Unity and Mint Mate and Cinnamon and those are the two biggest but well, guess it's close enough to being "kinda Gnome" to me and at least giving someone Gnome on those or something else won't change / break all to much.)

    12. Re:Linux needs more desktop forks by demachina · · Score: 1

      I dont think I advocated "A" central authority, but when there is absolutely no consistency or continuity there is a fair chance it wont be good, it will take a miracle for it to excel, and a fair chance its going to suck.

      You might not have to have a dictator but everyone needs to be working on the same code base, using the same frameworks, working to make those excel, and making some compromises. That is how the kernel works mostly. Instead on the desktop you get constant forking and the developer and user base is so diluted nothing is going to succeed.

      Android is doing as well as it is because someone at Google is the central authority, despite efforts by Samsung and others to fragment it. Google also has the marketing clout to get people using it. If Android fragments as bad as the Linux desktop, the apps dont work right and a user wont be able to run two different versions because EVERYTHING is different.

      For all of you who posted in this thread that GUI X.X works the way I want, well chances are you are one of those hardcore Linux types that want everything a certain way, wont tolerate anything else, not an average person looking for a computer that just works and they can use. You are as much the problem as the developers doing all the forks.

      --
      @de_machina
    13. Re:Linux needs more desktop forks by unixisc · · Score: 1

      If the sheer #desktops alone weren't enough, you have the different GUI toolkits - Qt and GTK++, and the myriad desktops based on them. Heck, you now even have different DEs based on different versions of the same toolkit - GNOME & Cinnamon based on GTK3, Mate based on GTK2, LXDE & XFCE based on.... what again? On the Qt side, things are slightly better, but you still have KDE and Razor-qt based on Qt 4, but Trinity on Qt3. Oh, and then there's Enlightenment, ScrotWM, WindowMaker, AfterStep, and a whole bunch of others that I've lost count.

    14. Re:Linux needs more desktop forks by cusco · · Score: 3, Interesting

      This. I am actually looking for an alternative for Windows 8 (the first OS that I've ever seen that deliberately impedes your work flow), but my previous Linux experiences have left a bad taste in my mouth. From the perspective of a 20-year Windows user, there are two things that would make Linux much more attractive. First, a Linux equivalent to InstallShield, one which detects and installs dependencies, allows configuration customizations, shows you what it's going to do, asks your approval, and then lets you know what it's doing as proceeding and gives you usable error messages. The second would be a file manager which gives a new user 1) some idea where is an appropriate location to save user files, and 2) some system that shows users what is an executable file, a config file, a library, etc. as easily as a user can tell from the Windows file extensions.

      The idea of repositories is nice, but having to figure out what to do with the tarball, rpm, whathaveyou, file, wandering about until you find the install directory, flailing about until you figure out which is the executable, trying to launch it while guessing which switches are appropriate, and then finding that it requires some uninstalled prerequisite file (or worse, a different version of one you have installed), is absurd. I liked what I got working in the couple of Linux installed I've done (except the bog-slow version of Google Earth), but getting to that point was ridiculously more difficult than it should have been.

      I'm afraid that at this point I'm sounding like some of the thousands of (l)users that I've supported over the years, "I don't care how it does it, I just want it to work!" It's true though, I don't want to become an expert user and THEN become productive with the OS/apps, that's the exact opposite of the way the work flow should go. I need to be able to do my work first, and then I'll take the time to experiment and explore further. That's not the fun, flashy stuff that people want to work on, but that's what Linux needs before I'll recommend it to anyone else.

      --
      "Think about how stupid the average person is. Now, realise that half of them are dumber than that." - George Carlin
    15. Re:Linux needs more desktop forks by Rob+Y. · · Score: 2

      The GUI toolkits are not a problem in and of themselves. Think about Windows - you can write code in VB, C, C++ (MFC), C++ (somebody else's C++ library), C#, Java, etc. It all works on top of the basic Windows desktop services (in C), which behave the same regardless of how the app was written.

      The same could've been done with GNOME and KDE if they could agree on a common set of desktop services and API's to access them. But both of these are much more than GUI toolkits. Essentially, they are the OS that the user interacts with. So if you have GNOME and KDE apps both on the same machine, you have 2 sets of file management windows, etc. They've done a pretty good job of making them similar enough that it's not too hard for a user to deal with - it used to be much worse. The fact that KDE has written its desktop services in C++ makes them kind of hard to share with other languages - it's much easier to throw a C++ wrapper around C than the reverse...

      --
      Posted from my Android phone. Oh, I can change this? There, that's better...
    16. Re:Linux needs more desktop forks by Grishnakh · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Choices have cost: the Linux community's continued refusal to acknowledge this has left the Linux desktop in a continuous state of disrepair.

      It's not "the Linux community's" fault: it's the fault of certain groups, namely the GNOME developers and Canonical. If it weren't for those two groups, we'd still have only two main desktop environments (KDE and Gnome), plus a few very minor players (XFCE, LXDE, etc.). Instead, both Canonical and Gnome decided to try to "innovate" by making crappy new touch-like DEs that so many people hated, it ended up causing a mass defection to XFCE (turning it from a bit player into a much larger player) and spawning not one, but two forks of Gnome (MATE and CInnamon).

      If "the community" operated like a democracy, then this never would have happened, because there would have been no popular support for Unity or Gnome3. However, Linux is developer-driven, so whatever the developers want, they get. What's disappointing is that the distros do little to no quality control it seems; remember with KDE4.0 how the distros just went ahead and dumped the 3.5 series and made 4.0 the only one available, even though 4.0 wasn't nearly ready for primetime use? Then with Gnome, they did the same thing, adopting Gnome3 just because the Gnome devs told them it was ready and Gnome2 was "obsolete". Linux Mint seems to be the only distro that actually listens to its users, rather than trying to force things on its users, which is why it's providing both MATE and Cinnamon (and KDE), because that's apparently what users want.

    17. Re:Linux needs more desktop forks by Dracos · · Score: 1

      Personally I like the Debian dpkg-based package management and the KDE desktop

      This is how I ended up on Mint KDE, because there were a few versions of Kubuntu that were... lackluster. Olivia KDE should be out in about a month, at which point I will upgrade this machine which is still running Lisa.

      I hope sometime in the future that Mint eliminates the Ubuntu middle-man, and just repositions itself as a direct Debian derivative.

    18. Re:Linux needs more desktop forks by MrEricSir · · Score: 1

      To a large extent the GUI a solved problem. The issue here is more fundamental: different desktops have completely different configurations, themes, different icons may/may not be available, different shell options, online account systems, keyrings, dock indicators, tray icons, etc. etc.

      Even if you survive the nightmare of programming for a system like this, you'll never survive supporting it.

      --
      There's no -1 for "I don't get it."
    19. Re:Linux needs more desktop forks by EETech1 · · Score: 1

      linuxmint.com/rel_debian.php

      Cheers

    20. Re:Linux needs more desktop forks by demachina · · Score: 1

      That was funny⦠"Not Really" and then you vividly demonstrate that its becoming relatively difficult for a a Linux fanatic to even describe all the GUI/Desktop/Window Manager forks.

      THIS IS REALLY SIMPLE. Linux will not succeed on the desktop with the current cluser f**k in desktop/GUI toolkits/window managers. Its getting worse every year, not better. Either have a giant encounter group and get on the same page or pack it in. Alternately pick one or two distros that are mostly getting it right and put ALL of the wood behind that arrow or arrows. Linux on the desktop is turning in to a total waste of time the way it is.

      Only positive in it I can see is it gives large numbers of programmers something to do, and they will eventually learn one of the most important lessons of software development. Don't waste time on stuff that is never gonna fly.

      --
      @de_machina
    21. Re:Linux needs more desktop forks by at_slashdot · · Score: 1

      I'm sorry, I'm not a developer, but I don't think programs target desktop environment, there's almost no reason to target Unity, KDE or Gnome. What kind of application do you have in mind? I think links on desktops work pretty much the same, what exactly do you need to know about the desktop environment when you build your application?

      --
      "It is our choices, Harry, that show what we truly are, far more than our abilities." -- Prof. Dumbledore
    22. Re:Linux needs more desktop forks by doublegauss · · Score: 1

      This. I am actually looking for an alternative for Windows 8 (the first OS that I've ever seen that deliberately impedes your work flow), but my previous Linux experiences have left a bad taste in my mouth. From the perspective of a 20-year Windows user, there are two things that would make Linux much more attractive. First, a Linux equivalent to InstallShield, one which detects and installs dependencies, allows configuration customizations, shows you what it's going to do, asks your approval, and then lets you know what it's doing as proceeding and gives you usable error messages. The second would be a file manager which gives a new user 1) some idea where is an appropriate location to save user files, and 2) some system that shows users what is an executable file, a config file, a library, etc. as easily as a user can tell from the Windows file extensions. The idea of repositories is nice, but having to figure out what to do with the tarball, rpm, whathaveyou, file, wandering about until you find the install directory, flailing about until you figure out which is the executable, trying to launch it while guessing which switches are appropriate, and then finding that it requires some uninstalled prerequisite file (or worse, a different version of one you have installed), is absurd. I liked what I got working in the couple of Linux installed I've done (except the bog-slow version of Google Earth), but getting to that point was ridiculously more difficult than it should have been.

      I have the feeling that what you have in mind is rpm-based repositories as of 2003. Modern deb-based distros (of course Debian, but Mint and Ubuntu too) make software installing/uninstalling as painless as humanly possible. Synaptic is your friend.

    23. Re:Linux needs more desktop forks by hobarrera · · Score: 1

      IMHO, Mr. Torvalds should step in and organize / unify this mess if the Year of Linux in the desktop is to ever happen.

      As much as some people here may not like him, Mr. Shuttleworth was doing exactly what you described.

      FTFY

    24. Re:Linux needs more desktop forks by Teun · · Score: 1

      Stop looking at Linux as if it were a Windows replacement.

      --
      "The likes of Facebook and WhatsApp are free to those whose privacy is of zero value."
    25. Re:Linux needs more desktop forks by g1zmo · · Score: 1

      This is all pretty much exactly why freedesktop.org (formerly XDG) was formed.

      n+1 standards and all that, but the major specs have been adopted by every DE that I'm aware of.

      As to when it will all filter down to distros to split out unnecessary package dependencies, I have no idea. I'm not familiar with a whole lot of packaging systems, but AFAIK there is no package installer which can mirror the compile-time --enable-feature and --disable-feature behaviour of configure scripts such that you only draw in packages dependencies based on the optional features you select, and don't end up installing pulseaudio because you wanted a lightweight notepad-like text editor (for a made-up example).

      --
      I have found there are just two ways to go.
      It all comes down to livin' fast or dyin' slow.
      -REK, Jr.
    26. Re:Linux needs more desktop forks by captnbli · · Score: 1

      For the masses, there is standard Ubuntu: download and install and it will work in almost all circumstances. The Linix UIs and desktops are mostly awesome and innovative: but you can try them out as you like. I currently run Gnome 3 on standard Ubuntu, and that was easy, even across upgrades. That refutes you statement that " Linux on the desktop is pretty much doomed when it comes to any ordinary person just wanting to install it, use it and have it work if the first question they have to deal with is which of 20 UI's and desktops they should pick.", which is your main point, I think.

    27. Re:Linux needs more desktop forks by captnbli · · Score: 1

      You know, you don't have to: a KDE app will run on another desktop, fine,as an example. It will just require the download of the support libraries, behind the scenes. The user need never know. Just build the app once under the environment that is best for it, and it will get use where it makes sense. No problem. But your actual premise is not correct.

    28. Re:Linux needs more desktop forks by captnbli · · Score: 1

      I can't agree with a lot of this. Mostly, there are two or three good options for desktop environments/window managers for the major scenarios: basic/low system resources, Gnome 2 fans, and the avant guard. Sure, what you are advocating would be nice, but it would need resources and consensus. Me, I am just happy there are very good alternatives to the commercial offerings.

    29. Re:Linux needs more desktop forks by captnbli · · Score: 1

      Couldn't agree more. I think cusco is looking for his prop engine, when he has a jet in front of him

    30. Re:Linux needs more desktop forks by xeno · · Score: 1

      “there are two things that would make Linux much more attractive. First, a Linux equivalent to InstallShield, one which detects and installs dependencies, allows configuration customizations, shows you what it's going to do, asks your approval, and then lets you know what it's doing as proceeding and gives you usable error messages. “

      Done. And fully mature for many years. One of the nice contributions Ubuntu made was to take the .deb repository system and put a friendly face on it with nice graphical tools (Synaptic) to browse and manage software in the appropriate repositories. One or two clicks (select+install) will check all dependencies for the package you selected, retrieve the most current version, download all dependencies, cryptographically verify the software integrity against the repository’s codesigning, install them in proper order, update any associated config files you may have modified in a previous install (with “usable error messages” and choices to reconcile the conflicts), and record the details of the whole process in the APT database so that you can cleanly uninstall anything in any order you choose. The Mint team made an even simpler version (Software Catalog) that “just works” for the end-user; they just click-to-run and the software magically appears.

      BTW, this is the same magic that lets me take a bootable USB drive with Mint, and run the entire install process (full OS, office suite, internet, graphics, media+codecs, etc) from bare metal to fully installed in under 6 minutes, and then to bring the whole system fully up to date over a typical home cable connection in another 8-10. The install process is astonishingly dependable, and literally 10-20x faster than Win8. With a modern Debian-based distro, the entire operating system is one big “InstallShield.”

      “The second would be a file manager which gives a new user 1) some idea where is an appropriate location to save user files, and 2) some system that shows users what is an executable file, a config file, a library, etc. as easily as a user can tell from the Windows file extensions.”

      Done. Also a long time ago. Grab a live iso image from mint’s website, and boot from that image on a USB stick. Documents, music, videos, pictures, downloads are immediately visible in a simple file manager, organized in a simple folder by username. Of course, you can change the file explorer view to “/home/joebob/Documents” instead of “Home>Documents” but the default is the simple view. It’s far simpler than the alias/link mess that is Windows’ “Explorer>Desktop>Libraries>Documents>MyDocuments” and “Explorer>JoeBob>MyDocuments” and “Explorer>Computer>C:\>Users>JoeBob>MyDocuments” all pointing to the same place while visible at the same time (augh!). It is *far* simpler and more usable than Windows 7 or 8.

      “The idea of repositories is nice, but having to figure out what to do with the tarball, rpm, whathaveyou, file, wandering about”

      You haven’t had to do any of this for years, or someone gave you ancient distributions to try out. Here’s the deal: The point of a Debian repository is to avoid all the “wandering” and automate the entire process you describe. A typical usage scenario is this: You click on “Software Catalog” or “Synaptic” in the start menu. You browse to the “Graphics” software category and click on “GIMP” (Or type “Photoshop” in the search bar, and it links to GIMP with a short blurb about it’s comparison to Photoshop.) When you click “Install” the Synaptic program on your computer looks up the program on its list of online code-signed repositories, finds an up-to-date precompiled version of the software

      --
      I think not...(*poof*)
    31. Re:Linux needs more desktop forks by cusco · · Score: 1

      You're right, it has been a couple of years. After trying Linux out several times over the previous years, pretty much every time someone said, "It just works!" I was annoyed enough that I didn't want to waste the time (and I hosed an older laptop that had photos my wife wanted, but I think that was actually hardware rather than the OS). When I get back from vacation I'll try Mint then. Hoping to be happier with it this time, since we tend to take laptops to Peru to give relatives and I'd like to be able to give them something that doesn't immediately turn into a virus incubator.

      --
      "Think about how stupid the average person is. Now, realise that half of them are dumber than that." - George Carlin
  8. fragmentation solution by spamchang · · Score: 1

    I just run linux in a vm on top of Win7 enterprise. Sigh. Can't keep reinstalling my OS every so often; ain't nobody got time for that.

    1. Re:fragmentation solution by Patch86 · · Score: 1

      Then stop resinstalling your OS, you crazy man. Use a distro with a decent support period and get comfortable.

      Windows 7 came out in 2009 and is supported (mainstream support) until 2015. Ubuntu 12.04 LTS was released in 2012 and is supported until 2017. If you're happy resintalling your OS only as often as is required for Windows, then there shouldn't be much to complain about with Linux either.

      If you're desperate to always keep up with the latest shiny thing, presumably you would feel a burning drive to update to Windows 8 by now in any case (ho ho ho).

  9. Re:WTF is Mint by n1ywb · · Score: 5, Funny

    I don't view Ubuntu as its own distro. It just piggy backs off of Debian's success and hard work.

    There, fixed it for you.

    --
    -73, de n1ywb
    www.n1ywb.com
  10. Pretty good so far by Taibhsear · · Score: 1

    Replaced my 13 with 15 RC a few days ago. The new file manager is pretty nice. Right click to run with higher privileges pops open a new file browser window with a big red bar letting you know so you don't walk away and end up screwing something up when you get back. Also shows a small bar graph under each mounted partition so you can get a good idea how much space you have left at a glance. "Disk Utility" is replaced/merged with "Storage Device Manager" so I can just go to one place for all my partition renaming, automounting, and SMART options now, which seems to have gotten rid of a glitch that would always try to read my first two drives (sda, sdb) as identical drives for some reason. As of yesterday I still had a glitch with automounting my old Mint 13 partition at bootup but it mounts fine if I instead click on it in the file manager after booting. Mounts all the NTFS partitions with no problems. New applets organization makes it much easier to install applets without futzing with the terminal (This is important for newbies and out of the box experience.) but getting some of them to actually WORK after installation is another story. Having issues with the weather applet at the moment. In previous versions I also had issues with my firefox tabs locking up randomly, seemingly caused by a new song coming on the media player and the popup going over the tab button. Minimizing/maximizing the browser made it return to normal for a while. This glitch seems to have been fixed as well. Backed up and recopied one of my VM's to the new OS and it seemed to have spasms and refuse to shut the VM down but after a few cycles of update, force close, install guest additions, force close, startup again it went back to working order.

  11. Old adage by ThatsNotPudding · · Score: 2

    The whole business of having everything in C: is just dumb.

    I like to keep my drivers close and my viruses closer.

  12. Re:Anti-semitic OS? No thanks. by domatic · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Anti-Semitic != Anti-Israel in all cases. Israel is a particular political entity who's actions are not above criticism.

  13. Re:Anti-semitic OS? No thanks. by Ksevio · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Just because someone is in favor of Palestinians receiving statehood and not having their houses bulldozed doesn't make you anti-semitic.

  14. Re:Why not provide packages for other distros? by socrplayr813 · · Score: 3, Informative

    I run LMDE (Mint Debian Edition) or straight Debian Testing on my computers whenever possible. They're fully compatible, just add one or the other to your sources. Similarly, I'm reasonable sure that standard Mint is compatible with the Ubuntu repos. I'm sure others will correct me if I'm wrong

    --
    The confidence of ignorance will always overcome the indecision of knowledge.
  15. The end is near by Voyager529 · · Score: 1

    Slashdot has a new Linux distro release notice before Distrowatch.

    1. Re:The end is near by unixisc · · Score: 1

      What, where? I checked out Distrowatch but couldn't find it

  16. Nice and snappy on a netbook by Ksevio · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I was looking for a new distro to upgrade an old netbook and installed the RC this weekend (with MATE desktop). It started out a little shakey as the keyboard didn't work, and the mouse wouldn't click (due to a hardware issue and trackpad clicks not enabled), but after a restart and some mouse settings, it's nice and snappy.

    Previously had Ubuntu netbook remix and tried Ubuntu with Unity, but that was just so awkward to use with a tiny screen and trackpad, and somewhat sluggish when web browsing.

    I'd never tried Linux Mint or MATE in the past, but it seems to be a good combination for a low power computer.

    1. Re:Nice and snappy on a netbook by Michael2013 · · Score: 1

      "I'd never tried Linux Mint or MATE in the past, but it seems to be a good combination for a low power computer." - Agree completely with you. gantt chart software

  17. Because by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Even if you posted Lubuntu's releases (the distro I use) I would still be posting this. Why do we care about random distro releases?

    Sure Linux Kernels, but beyond that, who cares?

    If you are a fan of a specific distro, you probably already know a new one was released.

    Other people may not know about it.

    I'm getting ready to do a desktop upgrade. This is something I usually avoid because it always causes pain and after avoiding it for a few years, the pain is rather significant. So, when I bite the bullet and do the upgrade, I want to know I'm using the best, most usable, and longest lasting installation available.

    Though I am aware of Mint, I have not used it, nor have I been following its development. I know that my distro is no longer good enough and that although Ubuntu is the common favorite, Unity SUCKS and I won;t be switching to Ubuntu.

    But, hey, a new version of Mint just dropped! It has the Ubuntu goodness without Unity. I think I'll give it a try and see if I want to use it for my impending upgrade.

    You see, way back when, Slashdot was "News for nerds. Stuff that matters." The announcement of a new version of Mint, DistroWatch's #1 for the past year or more, definitely qualifies as "News for nerds. Stuff that matters".

  18. Re:Why not provide packages for other distros? by RDW · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Would it, in principle, be possible to to provide cinnamon or mate as packages for other distributions, e.g. Ubuntu?

    Sure, both Mate and Cinnamon provide these packages (right now I'm running Mate 1.6 on Ubuntu 12.04 and it works very well):

    http://wiki.mate-desktop.org/download
    http://cinnamon.linuxmint.com/?page_id=61

    However, you won't them in the official Ubuntu repository. I suspect Mate at least will make it into Universe after Debian adopts it, which now looks like it's going to happen:

    http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=658783

  19. Re:WTF is Mint by phantomfive · · Score: 1

    The Unix way is (briefly) to divide things up into small modular pieces. You know you're a success as a distro when people start taking pieces from yours and using them. Debian has apt which is really nice, for example, but doesn't need Debian, and is used as far away as iOS.

    They say, "those who don't understand the Unix way are doomed to rewrite it, poorly." Make the new pieces good and they will be used for a long time, just like apt.

    --
    "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
  20. Re:Why not provide packages for other distros? by RDW · · Score: 2

    Correction - Cinnamon is actually already in Ubuntu 13.04 Universe (though you may get a later version from the developers' ppa).

  21. No KDE? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    This distro doesn't have KDE? Why?

    1. Re:No KDE? by Skywolfblue · · Score: 1

      There will be a KDE version released later!

      It's a small development crew so they work on Cinnamon first.
       
      Personally I'm loving Mint KDE 14 so far, and am looking forward to Mint 15 KDE!

  22. New version of MATE by Merk42 · · Score: 1

    MATE has been upgrade to 1.6, which saw many old and deprecated packages replaced with newer technologies

    oh no! things were removed! Better fork MATE so I can have it be exactly the same as a previous version!

  23. Re:WTF is Mint by unixisc · · Score: 4, Insightful

    How? Ubuntu came up w/ Unity, which people hated. They flocked to Mint, which then started working on alternatives. First, they offered Mate as the DE, then they came up w/ MGSE and finally, Cinnamon. The work on Cinnamon is about as much as Mint's as Unity is for Ubuntu. Unlike other Ubuntu knock-offs, such as Zorin or Pear or Puppy, Mint listened to what users wanted and came out w/ a DE that people more or less liked, and then offered it to their users. It takes quite a stretch of imagination to call that piggybacking.

  24. Re:Why not provide packages for other distros? by Requiem18th · · Score: 1

    Indeed i wanted to ask, is it hard to switch between Mint Cinnamon and Mint Mate? I want to give Cinnamon a good try, (for about 2-3 months) but I don't want to reinstall the OS just to run Mate in case I don't feel at home in Cinnamon.

    I would also like to try a recent Gnome 3 build. I remember when it used to be easy switching desktop environments. back in the days of KDE3 and Gnome 2.

    --
    But... the future refused to change.
  25. Re:why not just apt-get cinnamon in ubuntu by ichthus · · Score: 1

    So... you can play MP3s and other "non-free" media types without further modification.

    --
    sig: sauer
  26. Re:why not just apt-get cinnamon in ubuntu by ichthus · · Score: 1

    Plus, green is better than brown.

    --
    sig: sauer
  27. PAE required for 32-bit by klui · · Score: 1

    Could someone explain the implications for this? Having just battled with getting LTSP under Ubuntu 12.04 LTS, I understand it's because non-execute functionality is tied to PAE. But I have a bunch of machines that don't have PAE and they would be worthless moving forward. So I modified LTSP to create non-PAE kernels.

    1. Re:PAE required for 32-bit by iggymanz · · Score: 1

      Linux Mint Debian 32 bit has the non-PAE (486) kernel by default; in fact if you want SMP or PAE you have to apt-get install the i686 kernel

    2. Re:PAE required for 32-bit by iggymanz · · Score: 1

      should also mention Cinnamon, while great on more recent machines, is a pig for very old processors and limited memory (1GB or less). use xfce4 instead.

      If you have to worry about 32 bit PAE not being supported probably Linux Mint (or Ubuntu for that matter) is not for you, too resource intensive in default install.

    3. Re:PAE required for 32-bit by klui · · Score: 1

      > Linux Mint Debian 32 bit has the non-PAE (486) kernel by default

      But what does this mean?

      > Important info:
      > PAE required for 32-bit ISOs

      I've never used Mint. Is Linux Mint Debian different from Linux Mint 15?

  28. Re:Anti-semitic OS? No thanks. by magic+maverick+ · · Score: 1

    The biggest problem is that the Israeli government continues to expand the borders of "Israel". All these settlements? Those are government sanctioned or supported, or government "turned a blind eye to"'d.

    No, let me correct myself. The biggest problem is the lack of anarchism and freedom the world over. Shoot the bosses. Eat the rich. Skim the scum.

    --
    HELP MY ACCOUNT HAS BEEN HACKED BY AN ILLIBERAL ART STUDENT SET TO DESTROY THE INTERWEBZ!
  29. Re:Anti-semitic OS? No thanks. by magic+maverick+ · · Score: 1

    In case you didn't get it. I am opposed to racism, and I never advocated killing all the Jews. Just the government.

    And regardless of history, the fact remains that the current Israeli government does a lot of things that the Nazi German government did too. Like, govern. Oh, and looking for extra living space. And pretend like their people are the chosen people, and therefore have the rights to clear the bit of land they want of the people currently living there.

    But no country has no blood on its hands. So let's do away with them altogether.

    --
    HELP MY ACCOUNT HAS BEEN HACKED BY AN ILLIBERAL ART STUDENT SET TO DESTROY THE INTERWEBZ!
  30. You're damn right.... by bornagainpenguin · · Score: 1

    MATE has been upgrade to 1.6, which saw many old and deprecated packages replaced with newer technologies

    oh no! things were removed! Better fork MATE so I can have it be exactly the same as a previous version!

    I know you're just being snarky, but really why is it so hard to keep my desktop the same while still getting security updates for the over all system and new versions of my apps when they upgrade? Why?

    I hate to give Microsoft credit for anything, but at least they had enough insight to keep the option to switch back to the previous version of the desktop available for many many releases afterwards. Up until fairly recently it was pretty easy to go back to your preferred work space in Windows. From Win95--Windows 2000 you could still get Progman.exe to run. You could still revert the taskbar and themes from Fisherprice to the 'standard' look that carried over from Win95 all the way through Windows XP to Windows 7.

    Why is it so unreasonable to expect the same in Linux?

    Oh and I'm one of those people who prefer MATE over the mess that Gnome 3.0 has become with its intentional breaking of the system to prevent people from keeping what they had before, but if these changes actually ruin the desktop you can be sure that people will indeed fork MATE.

    --
    Have a Virgin Mobile USA smartphone? Give VMRoms.com a try!
    1. Re:You're damn right.... by gargleblast · · Score: 1

      Up until fairly recently it was pretty easy to go back to your preferred work space in Windows.

      So completely and utterly true.

      What I can't believe is that at the moment, Microsoft is up the same creek as Unity and Gnome. All of which are basically forcing touch interfaces without an option to revert to old behavior.

    2. Re:You're damn right.... by Merk42 · · Score: 1

      I hate to give Microsoft credit for anything, but at least they had enough insight to keep the option to switch back to the previous version of the desktop available for many many releases afterwards.

      Well to your own admission, Progman.exe won't work in anything past XP.
      Also, go ahead and get the flyout-style Start Menu from 95/98/XP in Vista/7, I'll wait.

  31. Linuxmint 15 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Great distro. Had everything up and running, network connection, software in 2 hours. I am really impressed with Mint. 15 is the best one so far. Good work, Clem :)

    My two bits

    1. Re:Linuxmint 15 by Clived · · Score: 1

      oops, forgot to login ..:P

      --
      Clive DaSilva Email: clive.dasilva@gmail.com Ubuntu 18.10 Kernel 4.18
  32. Re:WTF is Mint by iggymanz · · Score: 2

    I don't view Debian as its own distro, it just piggy backs off of Linux and GNU success and hard work

  33. Re:WTF is Mint by iggymanz · · Score: 1

    I don't view GNU/Linux as its own OS, it just piggy backs off of System V and BSD

  34. Re:WTF is Mint by iggymanz · · Score: 1

    I don't view Unix as its own OS, it just piggybacks off of the ideas and aims of Multics

  35. Re:Inexperience Is Not A Valid Decision Maker by plover · · Score: 2

    I understand your point completely. It's reality vs. the invisible pink unicorn ideal of perfect segregation of data, apps, and OS. But if end users aren't going to expect and demand improvements, very few packages will actually be improved on their own. It's good for all of us that people keep trying, even though there's not a snowball's chance in hell that he will recover it without a hitch.

    --
    John
  36. Re:What is LMDE by klui · · Score: 1

    Ah, so it's the same as installing Ubuntu 11.x and then upgrading to 12.04 which does not force PAE kernels under 32-bit.

    Thanks.

  37. Re:P.S. by Jerry+Smith · · Score: 1

    It might be time for a Mac.

    There, I said it!

    This Mac runs Debian Mint quite fine, thank you :) But I won't upgrade because bleeding edge is for my kamikaze machines, this machine needs proven stability. Like most machines do.

    --
    All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain. Time to die.
  38. Re:WTF is Mint by Ginger+Unicorn · · Score: 1

    And they owe it all to the low entropy generated at the moment of the big bang. Well, that shortcut a lot of unneccessary development of that line of thought.

    --
    (1.21 gigawatts) / (88 miles per hour) = 30 757 874 newtons
  39. Re:Anti-semitic OS? No thanks. by AdmV0rl0n · · Score: 1

    Some of the above is true.

    When the Israeli's pulled back in Gaza, and they brutally removed their own people's settlements via an agreement to try to change the above fair comments, the response was and has been to use that repartriated land to fire rockets into civilian Israeli areas..

    Its a war, I expect nothing less. But expecting the Israeli's to be angelic is cloud cookoo land.

    --
    We`re all equal .. Just some of us are less equal than others.
  40. Re:WTF is Mint by unixisc · · Score: 1

    Two things. First of all, I was answering the contention of the parent AC that Mint just piggybacks of Ubuntu, which as I proved, is hogwash. That then brings us to your point about Unity.

    The biggest thing wrong w/ Unity is the lack of customization, and its locking the UI into a definite look & feel. If it works for you, that's fantastic. However, most people hated it b'cos not only did they dislike the way it looked, they couldn't even change it if they wanted to. And that's what was behind all the hate. I've heard that it's since improved (I've heard the same about GNOME 3), but nonetheless, there are people who didn't want to go w/ either Unity nor GNOME 3, and for those people, particularly those who like Cinnamon, Mint is a great option. Of course, if one wants KDE, LXDE or XCFE, then one could either go w/ K/L/Xubuntu, or go w/ Mint or another Ubuntu based distro.

  41. Re:WTF is Mint by Chris+Mattern · · Score: 1

    If you wish to make a Linux distro from scratch, you must first invent the Universe.

  42. Re:P.S. by unixisc · · Score: 1

    Uh, you could use Mint/XFCE on a PC, if the OS-X UI is what you want, and you're coming from Linux to start w/

  43. Re:Anti-semitic OS? No thanks. by unixisc · · Score: 1

    That convinces me to support Mint. I don't like RMS' jihad against Open Source, Proprietary Software, Coca Cola, ID Cards or even Israel. The link didn't say anything about what Mint is guilty of, but if Mint happens to be pro-Israel by implication, it has my support, even if I don't have it on my computer.

  44. Re:Anti-semitic OS? No thanks. by unixisc · · Score: 1

    Oh, never mind. So Clem is one of the Mint creators, and a pro-Jihad activist? I don't have Mint - wasn't planning to anyway, since any of the other Ubuntu based Linux distros w/ KDE or Razor-qt would work for me, as would PC-BSD.

  45. Re:WTF is Mint by iggymanz · · Score: 1

    I don't view the big bang as the origin of anything, it is just piggybacks off of a neverending cycle