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).

12 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 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.
    6. 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.

  2. 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.

  3. 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: 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.

    2. 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.

    3. 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