Logo 
Search:

Unix / Linux / Ubuntu Forum

Ask Question   UnAnswered
Home » Forum » Unix / Linux / Ubuntu       RSS Feeds

Mint 8 Helena or Ubuntu 9.10?

  Date: Dec 05    Category: Unix / Linux / Ubuntu    Views: 496
  

I installed ubuntu(always fresh install) 9.10 about a week ago but a friend of
mine gave me a dvd with LinuxMint 8 Helena. Should I install Mint and delete
ubuntu? . while I was using Mint 6 (for about 8 months!) i was more pleased than
when i was using ubuntu 8.10. So, I wonder, mint or Karmik coala, hm.....

Share: 

 

20 Answers Found

 
Answer #1    Answered On: Dec 05    

It's a matter of preference really.
I switched away from Mint after the Cassandra edition.
Went to Xubuntu. But then... mint started getting better in my
opinion. V6 Mint was great, and V7 even better than that.

Ok, now for the logical part of it.. without Ubuntu 9.10 as a base,
Mint 8 would be based on something else. Consider Mint to be a
customisation of Ubuntu. Just about any tutorial, tweak, hack or
solution that works for Ubuntu will work for Mint. Love me some green themes!

 
Answer #2    Answered On: Dec 05    

Because Mint is based off of Ubuntu and new versions of Mint are
released about a month after new versions of Ubuntu are, I would
assume that Mint may be a little bit more stable than Ubuntu is. I
like Mint because when I first install it on a laptop, then Gnome
panels are already set up the way I like them, the main menu is nicer,
codecs are preinstalled and it doesn't have Openoffice preinstalled (I
use Office 2007). One this that bugs me with Ubuntu is with every
upgrade I have to uninstall Openoffice as well as a bunch of other
software I don't like. I like most of the software that comes with
Mint.

 
Answer #3    Answered On: Dec 05    

Just because Mint is based on Ubuntu and released a month later does not
make it more stable. It takes time for bugs to be worked out, but the
current release of Mint would be based on an early version of Ubuntu rather
than the latest. As such, it may not be more stable.

It takes time to put together a distribution, even if you are counting on
Canonical to do most of the heavy lifting.Your premise is based on the false
assumption that Mint does not test its own release and that it can churn it
out at the last minute based on Ubuntu that has been tested by Ubuntu users.


If you want stability then stick with Ubuntu LTS releases. The six month
release cycle of Ubuntu (and therefore Mint) does not provide the stability
that most people who crave stability need.

The only difference between Mint and Ubuntu is that Mint is later, has a
different theme and it has some extras that most people can install in a
couple of minutes. It is no more stable and may be less so. The reason that
it may be less stable is that many Mint users begin to delude themselves
that it is Ubuntu and are building on a different framework where dependency
problems can occur. When you start with Ubuntu and stay with the
repositories you get consistency. A hybrid is never as stable IMO.

 
Answer #4    Answered On: Dec 05    

Mint is always based on the latest ubuntu release. See 4 urself
http://www.Linuxmint.com/rel_helena_whatsnew.php anyway i installed it and it is
more beatifull than ubuntu 9.10 and faster!

 
Answer #5    Answered On: Dec 05    

It is based on the latest release or Karmic, but it is not necessarily based
on the updates to that release which is what the original posting suggested
because it comes out later and is therefore more stable as the bugs have
been worked out. I disagree until someone cane post evidence to the
contrary. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. It is only an opinion.

 
Answer #6    Answered On: Dec 05    

i didn't say that ubuntu is bad, just mint has more eye candy and codecs.
Not that u can't install all those in ubuntu just mint is coming with all those
preinstalled.....

 
Answer #7    Answered On: Dec 05    

It was said that Mint was more stable. I am saying that it is not. Better is
opinion. More stable is a statement of fact. I am correcting misinformation.

Mint exists because Ubuntu has created a market for people who want what
Ubuntu does not offer out of the box. But Mint users should realise that
they are getting this only because Ubuntu has taken a principled stand and
not because it is inferior in any way.

I don't resent Mint, but I do resent users of other distributions painting
Ubuntu in a false light. And Mint is another distribution. I test Ubuntu
from alpha to final release. Ubuntu is no more buggy than any other
distribution and I test many distros. There are more problems reported
because it has by far the most users. More users means more problems. Much
of what you read about Karmic being buggy is just hearsay from people who do
not use Ubuntu and have no stake in seeing it improve. They just like to
criticise and rain on someone else's parade.

Ubuntu is not perfect, but no distribution is. Mint is what it is. Ubuntu is
what it is. Just don't try to make it into something that it is not. If it
sounds like I am being picky, I am not. This is an Ubuntu forum and I expect
people here to at least support Ubuntu instead of trying to destroy it with
false assertions.

 
Answer #8    Answered On: Dec 05    

As to whether Mint is more stable than Ubuntu in their current incarnations,
my experience reveals them to be about equal.and a marked improvement over
Windows 7. The game is to learn what you can load on an operating system
without it losing track of what you're trying to do with the applications.
Windows has always worked well for me when it's run lean and mean, thatis,
with few applications installed. With Ubuntu or Mint, I that the margin is
greater. Install ONLY what you actually will use, and be disciplined about
it.

 
Answer #9    Answered On: Dec 05    

It was not my purpose to destroy the reputation of ubuntu or harm it in any way.
I respect ubuntu and always i am trying to show people the power of free
software and encourage them use it. We are just saying our opinion, so don't
critise so fast

 
Answer #10    Answered On: Dec 05    

I accept that it was written without malice. However, things often get
magnified and we need to be careful that when we support one distro that it
is not at the expense of another. One person reading it sees it as only the
harmless opinion of one person while another sees it as fact and before you
know it people are thinking that Mint is stable and Ubuntu not. That's how
these things get started. Ubuntu has lots of critics who are looking for
fodder. I am active across the Net and you would be surprised at the amount
of negativity there is towards Ubuntu, Canonical and Mark Shuttleworth. Most
of it is unfounded and it is spread by people who cannot find anything good
to say about any distro save the one that they use. Nobody likes the front
runner and everyone likes to seek advantage. If I sounded critical it is
only because I have seen these things get out of hand many times.

 
Answer #11    Answered On: Dec 05    

You make a good point. I am a chronic abuser in this respect. I install
everything that I can and therefore am apt to see more breakage. However, as
time has progressed most distros are much more stable than they used to be.
However, if one craves stability your advice is good. I would add to stick
with the repositories and not upgrade if you are happy with what you have.
If you want newer packages then enable the backportts repositories. The more
that you deviate from standard practice the more likely that you are to have
problems.

 
Answer #12    Answered On: Dec 05    

I agree but I do have some comments based on
them.
"If you want stability then stick with Ubuntu LTS releases. The six month

release cycle of Ubuntu (and therefore Mint) does not provide the stability

that most people who crave stability need."

To be quite honest, the computers I have run Linux on have been of average spec.
They are not expensive, do not always have the maximum RAM, nor would I consider
them to be capable of gaming.

I have not run into any Operating System stability problems with any versions of
Mint after V5 or with the current release of Crunchbang (9.04). And both are
derivatives of Ubuntu.

However, if an individual app is buggy, then we, as users can do our homework to
try to see why, and what the fix is. Or we can just as easily (in most cases)
find a more stable substitute.

"The only difference between Mint and Ubuntu is that Mint is later, has a

different theme and it has some extras that most people can install in a

couple of minutes."

For me, using Mint meant not having to fudge around with gstreamer, etc just to
be able to create mp3s from my personal CD collection or play an mp3 file.
(Which takes more than "a few minutes" if you don't get it right the first time,
not to mention ''frustrating''.)

IMO, support for multiple audio/video file types should just be made to work out
of the box, but I'd rather not stress that point as I don't want to foray into
philosophical arguments.

"It is no more stable and may be less so. The reason that

it may be less stable is that many Mint users begin to delude themselves

that it is Ubuntu and are building on a different framework where dependency

problems can occur"

Okay, I'm not sure I follow you here Roy.
Ubuntu uses Synaptic and command-line apt-get or aptitude.
Mint also uses Synaptic and command-line apt-get or aptitude.

How can dependency problems occur when each of those package install methods are
"supposed" to do the dependency checking and installing on the user's behalf?

 
Answer #13    Answered On: Dec 05    

The presupposition by the original poster is that Mint when it is released
includes all of Ubuntu's updates and therefore is more stable. I take issue
with that. I think that in order to put Mint together they need time and
therefore it is based on the same as the Ubuntu release one month earlier.
If this is true then Mint is no more stable than Ubuntu.

I think that it is misleading to say that be making statements about
something being better or more stable based one's opinion rather than fact.

 
Answer #14    Answered On: Dec 05    

I like the Mint distribution better because it appears to come with more
drivers. Using Ubuntu, I had trouble installing drivers for my dual-monitor
system. With Mint, there was not problem. Also, my sound card started to
work on installation, I did not have to load anything else. I also had an
easier time installing packages.

In my opinion, the move from windows to Linux would be easier for a novice
using Mint than straight up Ubuntu.

 
Answer #15    Answered On: Dec 05    

As a Linux novice, I read the previous posts regarding Helena & the comment
below so decided to give it a run.
Using the live CD all was well apart from a minor glitch with the time
setting not allowing for Daylight Saving.

Hoping this package was sufficiently equipped & novice friendly for me to
advance my transition from M$ to Linux I then attempted the install process,
intending to dual-boot with XP as I had done with Ubuntu previously.
Mint then gave me 3 options:
1. Share my XP's 'C' partition (not enough space there, but I did have 200GB
unallocated space behind the C partition)
2. Use whole disk (no thanks)
3. Advanced (not me...got lost in "setting mount point" as well as wanting
to dual-boot & not risk losing XP)

Having failed there I now used Easeus Partition Manager to increase the size
of my 'C" partition by the unallocated 200GB to allow Mint to resize &
share.

But now the Helena installer no longer gives me option 1, tells me "no OS
installed" & wants to use the whole drive (yes, XP still works fine & I'm
able to mount the enlarged 'C' partition from the live Helena CD & access
it's contents?)

Am using a 1TB HD divided into 3 partitions with 'C' now at 396GB.

 
Answer #16    Answered On: Dec 05    

repartion the partitions smaller
so there's enough free space for linux
and hope the installer finds that and uses that
leaving the windows partitions untouched..

 
Answer #17    Answered On: Dec 05    

Thanks but I had attempted that in the first instance, hoping the installer
would offer to use the original 200MB unallocated space behind my 'C'
partition.
But it only gave me the choice of sharing the XP partition or the Advanced
option in which I had at the time then formatted the 200GB for Linux &
directed it there.
It then asked for a mount point & I imagine I would also then have to
manually set up the required partitions & dual-boot system...all new
territory for a beginner where I could easily lose the ability to dual-boot
XP in the process.

 
Answer #18    Answered On: Dec 05    

as a beginner i would give up around then too.

Maybe try to install ubuntu 9.04 and upgrade that to 9.10 as a kludgy
workaround.

 
Answer #19    Answered On: Dec 05    

I had a dual-boot Ubuntu 9.10 setup on this PC prior
to my attempt with Mint.
What puzzles me is that the Mint installer was able to see & work with my XP
OS on the smaller partition but not once I enlarged it?
Guess I'll either have to forget Mint or play it safe by installing to a
spare PC & share files over my network.

 
Answer #20    Answered On: Dec 05    

Having failed in my attempts to install a dual-boot with Mint on my main XP
PC, I've had success on my spare unit.
A flawless install process & I now have a boot choice of Mint/W7/XP on that
PC.

Only problem now is it connects to the internet on my LAN but won't connect
to my mshome shares.
Using a D-link G604T router, it displays the mshome icon but gives the
message:
"Unable to mount location"
"Failed to retrieve share list from server"
Any suggestions?

 
Didn't find what you were looking for? Find more on Mint 8 Helena or Ubuntu 9.10? Or get search suggestion and latest updates.




Tagged: