Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Ubuntu-Based Peppermint 7 Released (peppermintos.com)

Posted by EditorDavid on from the this-is-Peppermint dept.

Softpedia reports on the newest version of Peppermint OS, "a lightweight, stable, elegant, and fast computer operating system based on GNU/Linux and Open Source technologies." An anonymous Slashdot reader quotes their report: It's a bit earlier than expected, but the Peppermint OS 7 GNU/Linux distribution has been officially unveiled...based on the Ubuntu 16.04 LTS (Xenial Xerus) operating system [with] a lot of packages from the Ubuntu 16.04 LTS distro, which means that it will also be a long-term support release.... "Along with the shift to the 16.04 (Xenial) code base, Peppermint 7 continues our policy of choosing the best components from other desktop environments, wherever that may be, and integrating them into a cohesive whole with our own software," reads today's announcement.
"Team Peppermint" says they're switching to Firefox as their default browser for site-specific browser functionality (similar to Chrome's -app mode) after Google dropped their 32-bit version of Chrome and moved to PPAPI plugins "which effectively ends Flash support in 32-bit Chromium"... But you can also still choose Chrome or Chromium for site-specific browsing (and the OS comes in 32-bit and 64-bit editions).

38 of 74 comments (clear)

  1. So what's the selling point? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    Does Peppermint provide some value to somebody that you can't get from, say, Xubuntu? What's this distro's raison d'etre?

    1. Re:So what's the selling point? by binarylarry · · Score: 4, Funny

      Well, it's based on Ubuntu, but has hot new features like 32-bit flash support.

      --
      Mod me down, my New Earth Global Warmingist friends!
    2. Re:So what's the selling point? by AthanasiusKircher · · Score: 4, Informative

      Does Peppermint provide some value to somebody that you can't get from, say, Xubuntu? What's this distro's raison d'etre?

      I haven't tried it, but my sense is that it was originally created as an answer to Chromebooks, i.e., a distro that focused heavily on integrating web applications into the desktop with SSBs, etc. Like Chromebooks, the system requirements were lower because of the reliance on web-based apps. Also, like Linux Mint (its namesake), Peppermint has made certain choices about user interface, settings, etc. that many seem to prefer to the Canonical Ubuntu variants.

      Now more distros can do these things more easily, so Peppermint is less distinctive, other than still being a slimmed down version of a standard distro, requiring less RAM and HD space.

    3. Re:So what's the selling point? by bigfinger76 · · Score: 2

      I had an old netbook a couple years back that refused any other USB install but Peppermint. It had that going for it at the time.

    4. Re:So what's the selling point? by kamapuaa · · Score: 4, Interesting

      The idea is, you have a slow old computer and you want to install Linux on it and make it usable.

      --
      Slashdot: providing anti-social weirdos a soapbox, since 1997.
    5. Re:So what's the selling point? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      True, it seems to have way too many colors. True elegance requires light grey text on white background and a UI where all the other sources of clutter but hamburger button is removed.

    6. Re:So what's the selling point? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Well, it's based on Ubuntu, but has hot new features like 32-bit flash support.

      No one should use Flash in 2016.

    7. Re:So what's the selling point? by kamapuaa · · Score: 2

      Personally, my friend wanted to keep using a 10 year old laptop with a Celeron processor missing some instruction set that Xubuntu wouldn't work on trivially. I got Peppermint to install fine (maybe you had to use a year-old version, it's been a year and I forget the details). Additionally, Peppermint comes with applications that are server-heavier rather than processor intensive.

      Of course, there are 300 variations of Linux and more than one will work for any given purpose. But it's not like Peppermint is something brand new, hasn't it been around for like three or four years now?

      --
      Slashdot: providing anti-social weirdos a soapbox, since 1997.
    8. Re:So what's the selling point? by AthanasiusKircher · · Score: 1

      This is a common misconception, but the first Chromebooks were released in 2011, whereas Peppermint released in 2010 and was in development before that .. so if anyone copied anyone.....

      Interesting! Thanks for the correction. Yeah, reading about it now, it appears that Peppermint was originally inspired by a desire to integrate social media and various cloud elements directly into the desktop. You're right that it predated Chromebooks... I didn't remember the timeline correctly.

    9. Re:So what's the selling point? by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      I've seen this justified time and time again. But it's just not true of a modern Linux distribution. You want to see your old computer fly, install Windows XP on it. Install Ubuntu Drapper Drake (2006).

      But doing modern work on an old machine sucks regardless of how magic you think an operating system is.

    10. Re:So what's the selling point? by amiga3D · · Score: 1

      I used Xubuntu before I latched onto Peppermint. I can't really quantify the difference I just liked the feel of it better. Xubuntu "feels" heavier. I currently operate Peppermint 6 on both a Dell E6500 with a 2.8ghz core2duo processor and 4GB of ram and a dual core atom 1.6ghz powered Aspire One with 2GB of ram. It's blazing fast on the Dell and quick on the Aspire. I do a lot of work on the Dell while I usually just check my bank account and e-mail and do some light surfing on the Aspire. I love it enough that I'm actually going to donate some money to the developer. It's simple but it has everything I need available. The only other distro I ever liked this much was Ubuntu before they went into the Unity insanity.

    11. Re:So what's the selling point? by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      Spot on, because a) appearance is what matters and b) it's carved in stone at installation time.

      I'm pretty certain that I've made Gnome 2 look like both of those by randomly frigging about with it.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    12. Re:So what's the selling point? by Pablogee · · Score: 1

      If you eventually get so you know a little about Linux, you can install the minimal system and add what you want. I like Emacs and Screen, then I install fluxbox. I have been using fluxbox for forever and never had a bit of problem with it. And then you go from there, whatever your work demands. You can still build a system that runs fine on 4G RAM and an old quad-core. If you do a lot of pictures, you might need to go to 8G. My very viable Debian system with Rat Poison and Emacs runs on 34mb of RAM at idle. Light up Dropbox and Chromium and more, 200mb or 300. Still fine for a 4G system.

    13. Re:So what's the selling point? by werewolf1031 · · Score: 1

      No one should be deprived of a 'whoosh' in 2016.

    14. Re:So what's the selling point? by BusterGut · · Score: 2

      Chromebooks require an internet connection to function. This is something Peppermint Seven and it predecessors don't require. Peppermint 7 is based on Ubuntu 16.04 LTS. Yes is does utilize systemd. You have full access to all the software in the Ubuntu repositories. The devs at Peppermint have made it very simple to install software. It utilises mintInstall 7.6.4 as its Software Manager. The Synaptic Package Manager is also preinstalled and of course, you can install software by using the terminal. The introduction of web based applications and the ability to quickly created SSBs, (Site Specific Browsers) with the ICE application, is an additional feature. It allows the user to easily embrace the ever growing web based technologies. The ICE application seamlessly integrates any URL into the distro's menu structure. These web apps open in their own SSB windows and can be used in conjunction with locally installed packages. Let's face it, web app are not going to go away, so might as well have something to manage them. Peppermint 7 rather than restricting the user to the conventional desktop paradigm. It adds a further dimension, that affords the user greater flexibility. In doing so, it provides greater freedom and more choices. That's a unique selling point for sure. You're not restricted to using only web based apps For people who want that, i guess they can buy the aforementioned Chromebook.

    15. Re:So what's the selling point? by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      If you eventually get so you know a little about Linux, you can install the minimal system and add what you want.

      Of course. But this has nothing to do with an article on Peppermint 7 which out of the box will not make your computer seem any faster than a bloated Windows install.

      You can still build a system that runs fine on 4G RAM and an old quad-core.

      As someone who edits photos on a machine with 4GB of RAM this comment is amusing. But it's right it's 2016, and RAM is cheap. I just wish those damn laptop manufacturers realised this.

    16. Re:So what's the selling point? by vernonB · · Score: 1

      When I heard about https://github.com/dnschneid/c... I got an inexpensive chromebook and ended up quite satisfied running Debian 8.4 a/k/a Jessie with xcfe in a chrooted envinroment under Chromium OS. I use it offline alot and it's fine. But it would be cool if there were a Peppermint crouton thingy for this because it sounds like it's well-suited to this type of use and my Debian, overall satisfaction notwithstanding, has some clunkinesses.

  2. Re:LOL by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    Didn't you know that socialized healthcare is evil? It's completely not fair that if someone gets cancer that I have to pay for it! I think all cancer and aids patients should be brought out to the street and shot to save us money. Vote Trump 2016 for a sustainable economic future!

  3. Why Softpedia? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Recently, there seem to be a lot of submissions coming from Softpedia,
    Is there some special relationship between Softpedia and Slashdot?
    I stopped using Softpedia because they seemed to be spreading crapware,
    Have they reformed?

    1. Re:Why Softpedia? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Either it's because of money (and they're not telling us) or it's because the new new editors are that shitty. Quite possibly both. But you can't blame them because haxx0rz did it. Really. Which is probably why the new new editors talk about haxx0rz so much. And no, softpedia is still shitty. Much of the other stuff that gets posted is equally shitty. The vapid "cio" stuff, the breathless yabbering about the latest tiny little tidbit some security outfit or other managed to shit on a sandwich, clickbait from "power user" home hobbying windows magazine websites for cubicle dwellers, and so on, and so forth. So, birds of a feather?

      On another note, I'm getting a little tired of the spate of things calling themselves "$whatever OS" and then turning out to be yet another respin of some other linux distribution or other. Of course, complete with the usual buzzwords like "lightweight", which simply does not apply to the linux kernel itself any longer, much less the whole crapolade of "open source technologies" that get thrown in because you have to have it, of course, for, er, really no reason other than that everyone else does it too. That's not "lightweight" in any sense of the word except contemporary industry best practice language abuse. Same for the rest of the woolly buzzword salad.

      Both may well be related: Computing is big business and no longer for nerds, but for posers, hipsters, and geeks. And so is slashdot.

      At the same time, it no longer matters, in fact, very little is still new.

  4. Does it still use systemd? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Because it isn't very light. On my Ubuntu 16.04 system I booted less than two hours ago:

    # ps auxw | grep systemd
    root 240 0.0 0.1 34724 6940 ? Ss 01:07 9:05 /lib/systemd/systemd-journald
    root 270 0.0 0.0 44900 3424 ? Ss 01:07 2:02 /lib/systemd/systemd-udevd
    root 545 0.0 0.0 28548 2720 ? Ss 01:07 8:02 /lib/systemd/systemd-logind
    root 556 0.0 0.0 29880 1216 ? Ss 01:07 7:00 /sbin/cgmanager -m name=systemd
    message+ 572 0.0 0.0 42904 3420 ? Ss 01:07 19:01 /usr/bin/dbus-daemon --system --address=systemd: --nofork --nopidfile --systemd-activation

    That's 45 minutes of CPU usage over less than 120 minutes on a new i7. That's just too much.

    1. Re: Does it still use systemd? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      systemd is better so it's worth giving up half of a CPU for it.

    2. Re:Does it still use systemd? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

      That's 45 minutes of CPU usage over less than 120 minutes on a new i7. That's just too much.

      Considering how much better binary log files are, that's an acceptable trade-off.

    3. Re: Does it still use systemd? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      This. People that don't understand it don't understand why it is worth the slowness.

    4. Re:Does it still use systemd? by hcs_$reboot · · Score: 1

      And if you sum the cpu of all processes that systemd replaces (on another system) what do you get?

      --
      Slashdot, fix the reply notifications... You won't get away with it...
    5. Re:Does it still use systemd? by Maow · · Score: 1

      Those numbers look wrong somehow.

      To compare, I have 8 days uptime and pulled these numbers:


      # ps auxw | grep systemd
      USER PID %CPU %MEM VSZ RSS TTY STAT START TIME COMMAND
      root 383 0.0 0.1 64132 29144 ? Ss Jun17 0:26 /lib/systemd/systemd-journald
      root 443 0.0 0.0 45820 5128 ? Ss Jun17 0:01 /lib/systemd/systemd-udevd
      message+ 1143 0.0 0.0 44596 5648 ? Ss Jun17 7:33 /usr/bin/dbus-daemon --system --address=systemd: --nofork --nopidfile --systemd-activation
      root 1221 0.0 0.0 28596 3032 ? Ss Jun17 0:01 /lib/systemd/systemd-logind
      root 1256 0.0 0.0 29880 1596 ? Ss Jun17 0:00 /sbin/cgmanager -m name=systemd
      maow 2435 0.0 0.0 45500 4952 ? Ss Jun17 0:00 /lib/systemd/systemd --user

      I've shown my uptime and same command you ran (I did manually put column headers on there for clarity) and they're not even in the same ballpark.

      I'm reminded of the old joke, "Windows is a bloated resource hog - look, System Idle Process is using up all my resources!"

      Anyway, would be interesting to see what others post.

      And now I add filler due to Filter error: Please use fewer 'junk' characters. message I get from Slashdot while trying to post this.

      Oh Slashdot, I keep upping the regular text to copied / pasted text ratio and you keep giving me Filter error.

      I removed the output line from "ps" so the grep command itself didn't show. Now can I preview this?

      Now I've removed the uptime output, can I please preview this?

      FOR FUCK SAKE. After removing & adding back lines of ps output, I had to drop one line.

      And, after several previews & edits, I can now put the line back and /. doesn't complain. WTF?

    6. Re:Does it still use systemd? by thegarbz · · Score: 2

      You're right about one thing, that's too much.

      I see 9min 10sec of CPU usage over 75053min on a shithouse old Intel Atom. That's insignificant.

      Your system has massive issues. Systemd on the other hand is just fine.


      # ps auxw | grep systemd
      root 1 0.0 0.0 185596 4812 ? Ss May05 4:29 /lib/systemd/systemd --system --deserialize 20
      root 355 0.0 0.0 43900 11892 ? Ss May05 0:57 /lib/systemd/systemd-journald
      systemd+ 1539 0.0 0.0 315260 1800 ? Ssl May28 0:02 /lib/systemd/systemd-timesyncd
      message+ 2939 0.0 0.0 43188 684 ? Ss May05 3:23 /usr/bin/dbus-daemon --system --address=systemd: --nofork --nopidfile --systemd-activation
      root 2994 0.0 0.0 30208 3776 ? Ss May05 1:13 /lib/systemd/systemd-logind
      root 4501 0.0 0.0 36928 940 ? Ss May05 0:00 /lib/systemd/systemd --user
      root 8577 0.0 0.0 43960 436 ? Ss May28 0:02 /lib/systemd/systemd-udevd
      root 31963 0.0 0.0 14228 992 pts/0 S+ 16:34 0:00 grep --color=auto systemd

      # uptime
        16:35:01 up 52 days, 2:53, 1 user, load average: 0.70, 0.49, 0.36

    7. Re:Does it still use systemd? by F.Ultra · · Score: 1

      You should probably check your logs, since journald takes up so much cpu time on your system I would guess that there is one or more processes that logs a ton of data continuously, or at least did at some point in time. They all show 00:00 of cpu time on my machine and it have been up for the same amount of time as yours.

    8. Re:Does it still use systemd? by F.Ultra · · Score: 1

      Well it won't handle tons of logs without any resources, it's not magic. If you had run syslog then that would have consumed just as much cpu if not more.

      For example here is the same output from one server here which still use rsyslogd since it's a non systemd machine (Ubuntu 14.04LTS) and which experienced quite a lot of logging:
      root@www99:~# ps aux | grep syslog
      syslog 957 0.0 0.0 256224 27664 ? Ssl Jun04 14:46 rsyslogd

    9. Re:Does it still use systemd? by allo · · Score: 1

      did you try? there isn't much activity with sysv scripts and no poetteringware. networkmanager? a plain dhcp-client and network/interface needs almost no cpu. init? always idle. syslog? very little cpu.
      what does he do, what needs so much cpu? bitcoin mining?

  5. Re:LOL by iggymanz · · Score: 1

    with capitalism we have insurance pools that do that, too bad we had to put so many losers and parasites in the pool

  6. upgradeable ? by Selur · · Score: 1

    Is it upgradeable ? I don't really like those distributions that require a clean install on each release.

  7. Re:Flash is a nightmare. It *SHOULD* be dumped. by Blaskowicz · · Score: 1

    It's a linux-only version, 11.2 with security patches that come in through the package manager.
    I doubt malware authors care very much about that one.
    It used to be easier to block, but ublock origin is a partial workaround.

  8. Re: Good to see it's LXDE by Blaskowicz · · Score: 1

    It's also low footprint in not littering your system with crap.
    It does not even have "the LXDE window manager" like there's the Xfce window manager, the Mate one, the Gnome 3 one, the KDE one etc. but instead uses a small, existing one.

    Its Windows 95 task bar is not the greatest ever, nor is it really bad. That's where this Peppermint distro release looks interesting, using Xfce's task bar and start menu instead. It's likely very easy to replicate, lxsession has a couple extremely small config files in /etc and that's it.

  9. Re: LOL, eh by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

    He's clearly not a real Canadian, he didn't say sorry.

    --
    Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
  10. Well hidden by ThatsNotPudding · · Score: 1

    A quick search yields nothing; if it uses systemd, they sure aren't shouting it from the rooftops.

  11. Concensus is by ebvwfbw · · Score: 1

    Yawn. For a real distro, Fedora released 24 recently.

  12. site specific browser by allo · · Score: 1

    How do they do it?
    I really liked mozilla prism, then it was discontinued. Chrome --app isn't quite the same, currently i have one app with epiphany app-mode, which works like prism, but doesn't hide the navigation bar, which takes quite a lot of screen-space like all recent gnome programs with new style. And epiphany doesn't have all html5 features, yet.