>Linux Mint Cinnamon is the best operating system for desktops and powerful laptops. I will go as far as calling it the Mac OS X of the Linux world. Honestly, I had not been a huge fan of Linux Mint for a long time because of unstable Cinnamon. But, as soon as the developers chose to use LTS as the base, the distro has become incredibly stable. Because the developers don’t have to spend much time worrying about keeping up with Ubuntu, they are now investing all of their time in making Cinnamon better.
I don't understand how Mint is better than Ubuntu. Ubuntu is a total OS X replacement for me (I'm a full stack dev). The only reason I see to use Mint is if you prefer traditional desktop interfaces over more modern ones.
>If you are looking at running a server, but you can’t afford or don’t want to pay a subscription fee for RHEL or SLE, then there is nothing better than Debian or CentOS. These distributions are the gold standard when it comes to community-based servers. And, they are supported for a very long time, so you won’t have to worry about upgrading your system so often.
I've been really satisfied with Ubuntu server, it just works. Debian isn't bad but I find it takes more configuration than Ubuntu. I use Ubuntu on my home server to run containers which I remotely connect to and use as development environments. I've found that Ubuntu seems to have the best out of the box support for lxc-containers so I have no reason to move away from it.
Curious, for server side stuff, what tasks requires more configuration in Debian than Ubuntu server? I haven't tried Ubuntu but their LXD looks helpful, think of switching also because of systemd 229 in Xenial, Debian's stable systemd version is old and clunky.
I love modern. Ubuntus problem is they copied a bunch of Mac-isms for what seems to be no good reason.
Now hear me out: I almost love Apple, I just cannot get myself to use their products (OK, did, three years, was happy to get a PC again) and there are a lot of things that should be learned from Mac. Out-of-the-box experience etc.
Other Mac-isms are just bad IMO like inconsistent keyboard shortcuts, Alt-Tab that is not a consistent stack etc.
Ubuntu copied the dock, moved Window control to the left, messed with the menus and Alt-Tab all while delivering a less impressing OOTB experience (IIRC).
> "I love modern. Ubuntus problem is they copied a bunch of Mac-isms for what seems to be no good reason."
There is a very good reason for the direction Ubuntu went with Unity. The clue is in the name.
The Unity interface is the way it is because it's designed to work on both large screen devices and small screen devices, and with mouse and keyboard and touchscreens. Take a look at the Ubuntu Touch interface, notice how similar it is to the UI on desktop Ubuntu (side menu, scopes, etc...)?
I agree with you, that's why Canonical did what they did. It's also why Gnome 3 is the way it is, and why Windows 8 was the way it was. But to me, it feels like a huge mistake in all cases. I use my desktop all day. I want an experience tailored to the desktop, not some compromise experience that's not-too-bad on the desktop and not-too-bad on a touch device. All these orgs made this huge bet that you could make a one-size-fits-all experience, and so far I'd say the results are not promising at all. Apple took the opposite tack: have a desktop UI and a touch UI, and allow them to diverge. And that seems to have worked out pretty well for them.
Yes, the Gnome 3 and Windows 8 user interfaces went down this route as well.
Going back to Unity, whilst I have only used it in passing, based on that experience I can't think of a feature that I'd miss from a more 'traditional' desktop interface. The only minor things I found jarring were the online search results in desktop search (which I believe has been disabled in 16.04) and a slightly clunky look to the search results (which is just an implementation detail, could be something that is refined in the future). Is there something you'd want from Unity that it doesn't currently offer?
FWIW, I think the Windows 8 desktop interface was a mistake. There was too much hidden away. It also didn't feel cohesive to me (the jump from metro to desktop and vice versa was too jarring IMO). Metro works really well as a phone UI though (I'm using it now, I think its greatest strength is probably the speed of navigation through the interface).
It's been a while since I used Unity, but as I recall it uses a global menu (yuk), it lacks a window list (which I like), and Alt-Tab works in a per-application, not a per-window, basis. And I think it does the Mac thing where clicking on a launcher icon either activates the app or launches it. I generally want the launcher icon to launch a new window, no matter what.
Could you elaborate on this? I know many people have security concerns about Mint, but I've never found their arguments entirely convincing. the opinion of the Mint devs seems to be that there's a stability vs. security tradeoff, and that Ubuntu chose one point on the spectrum, while Mint chose another. And that for a typical desktop machine sitting behind a router without a lot of ports open (or behind a corporate firewall), the tradeoff Mint chose is a reasonable one. I've seen several attempts to explain why Mint should not be trusted, but they seem (to me) to eventually reduce to arguments that more security is always better, no matter the cost in stability or convenience.
Yeah, I know about that. Certainly, not a proud moment in Mint's history, but it got resolved quickly. But I'm not going to rule out Mint just because they got hacked once. kernel.org got hacked, after all.
You are failing to read the "thoroughly discussion", the hack was just the tip of the iceberg.
Also, kernel.org was hacked because a rootkit gained access to their servers, not because they used a weak password like `upMint`, so you shouldn't compare both incidents.
They basically had no effort in their security, no idea how long they were compromised, and couldnt even respond effectively. I was a big fan of Mint usability who reluctantly had to ditch it.
These are the statements of the security people here that were going tgrough the data. The level of severity and recovery time supported thrur claims a bit.
> no idea how long they were compromised, and couldnt even respond effectively.
The hacked .iso was up for less than 24 hrs, so that puts a hard limit on the worst part of the compromise. The forum issues they fixed in a couple of days. This seems like a reasonably effective response to me.
> I was a big fan of Mint usability who reluctantly had to ditch it.
Did you really have to ditch it? Or did you just decide to go with a distro that emphasizes security over convenience? (Which is, of course, a completely reasonable thing to do, but others may make other (also reasonable) choices.)
So... The ultimate source of the breach was an exceedingly weak password? OK, I guess that does seem like a rookie mistake, which is worrisome. Sorry for the naive questions, and I apologize for my confrontational tone. But I really had read most of the referenced articles about the Mint hack (not that last one you linked to), and it was still not obvious to me that this was (apparently) incontrovertible evidence of total incompetence on the part of the Mint devs.
Also, is ryanlol a well-known hacker or something? (I had never heard of him.)
It's all good. We were both going on biased sources. That's why I waited for some kind of independent confirmation. ryanlol claims to be the Finnish hacker that hit hundreds of companies or whatever. Backs up the claim a bit by showing up with more "hands-on evidence" of his assessments as in Mint situation. ;) I wasn't sure if he was saying that was the source of the breach or that they weren't practicing even a checklist amount of security. In latter case, source could be anything. It didn't matter enough to evaluate further as it was clear they weren't systematically working on their security.
I went back to modifying Ubuntu for the Mint use-cases since they do combine usability and at least attempts on their security.
stability /or/ security? because a box running code with bugs that may result in a thwarted control flow is the pinnacle of stability?
your firewall won't help against socket re-use; and most configs won't stop connect-backs since they allow unfiltered outbound access to quite a few destination ports
Certainly, lack of security can lead to lack of stability. But sometimes Ubuntu makes changes that can render your machine unbootable, in the name of security. And in some cases the Mint devs chose not to make those changes. There's nothing obviously wrong about this, it's just a different trade-off.
Your points about socket re-use and connect-backs may well be true, but they miss the larger point. How much security is enough? Your computer is less vulnerable if you air-gap it. Do you do this? Likely not, because that's inconvenient. The Mint devs sacrifice some (not much, it seems to me, but some) security for convenience. Maybe you don't like the tradeoffs they made. Fine. But saying some blanket statement like "Mint is insecure" is just silly. It's like saying "Connecting your computer to the Internet is insecure." Yeah, there's some truth to it, but it also ignores the fact that sometimes it makes sense to trade some security for convenience.
Surprised not to see Fedora at the top of the list. Fedora 23 is remarkably stable, great UI, easy to maintain, and can be upgraded in-place to the next version using the new upgrade tool, no more reinstalls.
Was also surprised at the lack of love for Fedora. I just became a convert after trying to get half a dozen other distros running on my laptop and dealing with various hardware or driver problems. Fedora was the only one where I loaded it up and the touchscreen, trackpad, and Hi-DPI monitor "just worked".
The "bleeding edge" thing might be a turn-off for some, though. I've only had Korora (a Fedora spin with some pre-loaded apps and themes) for less than a month and I've already downloaded two kernel updates.
I agree with you though. I got fed up with Ubuntu and switched over to Fedora a few months ago and have been pleasantly surprised at how well it works now. The Fedora team is even willing to fix stupid obvious bugs so I actually have my zsh manpages now and gmplayer works.
I consider myself a fairly technical user and I gave up on Fedora after it broke down in two releases after another. IIRC Distrowatch had the same experience around that time.
I like the idea, I just haven't taken time to go back and try again since then, and other distros have stepped up so I didn't have to either.
Maybe the author has had similar experiences that might have affected the choices?
I always come back to Fedora. I started using Linux in 1995ish, after not quite a year using Windows 95 (which I'd switched to from an Amiga 3000). Soon found my way to Red Hat Linux (which became Fedora). It's mostly been my desktop and laptop OS of choice for that entire time. I'm tried others, I'm familiar with others, due to supporting many other distros over the years. But, Fedora always seems to hit the sweet spot for stability, Open Source fidelity and contribution to moving the state of the art forward, ease of use, package selection and modernity, and the Just Works factor is historically very high (even without adding binary blob repositories, but some drivers have needed to come from third party repos over the years).
yum (now dnf, which is a name I hate) is also my favorite of the mainstream package managers. It nearly perfectly balances ease of use with advanced capabilities, and maintaining private repos is an absolute dream (stick signed packages in a directory on a web server, run createrepo; repository is done!), compared to anything else. apt is a great, but managing repos for it is just awful (though I haven't had a chance to try aptly, which appears to potentially resolve this issue, though it still seems to be vastly more complex than createrepo).
So, yeah, Fedora remains my favorite, through many years and many attempts using other distros. I've flirted with Ubuntu a few times, going so far as having it as my primary laptop OS for a while. Partly it was because of the popularity of it; it's sometimes easier to install stuff on Ubuntu because the developers are more likely to be using Ubuntu. But, it's not worth the other trade offs, to me.
Also, I like that Fedora ships a close to stock, very clean, version of the most recent Gnome desktop. It feels very nicely integrated, while some of the alternative desktop variants feel bolted together from different pieces. Lots of folks seem to want to revert to the old 2.0 style Gnome, but I don't dislike modern Gnome (except that it has some awful quirks for multiple displays, where both displays do the shrink-and-dim thing, which is terrible for use with projections, presentations, watching movies, etc.).
Fedora hasn't been completely painless, but it's what I've been running on my developer machine(s) for years now and it mostly just works. I run KDE though, not Gnome, so my experience may be a bit different than the typical Fedora user. Still, if anyone hasn't tried Fedora in a while (or ever) I definitely suggest giving it a go.
Except not at all because one is all about compiling for speed and tweaking cflags. The other is about a rolling release as better desktop distro model.
Sure both distributions let you build your system from scratch but the days upon days of compiling just to slightly optimize a binary is squarely a gentooism.
That isn't what gentoo was "all about" at all -- certainly there were ricers who claimed that as an advantage. The main innovation was the much-improved customizability of each package (USE flags), something I would note Arch still does not have. There were ancillary benefits of being a source distro like interesting cross compiling use cases.
full disclosure: used to be a gentoo dev / am currently an Exherbo (rolling release/source distro) Dev.
Oh? Let's replace "Arch" with "Gentoo" in the article and see if these claims sound familiar:
Gentoo Linux is a great distro for those who want to learn everything about Linux. Because you have to install everything manually, you learn all the bits and pieces of a Linux-based operating system.
Gentoo is the most customizable distribution.
Gentoo also one of the best rolling releases. It’s always updated. Users always run the latest packages.
Gentoo is also known for having excellent documentation. The Gentoo Wiki is my to-go resource for everything Linux related.
What I like the most about Gentoo is that is offers almost every package and software that’s available for “any” Linux distribution
Arch ARM is basically a ready-to-go distro. Choose your board (if it's supported, download images, and burn them). Which sounds great, but in the embedded world, that gets kinda limiting very quickly. Using binaries on boards can suck. Pulling down random bootloaders off the internet and hoping one works isn't fun, and god forbid you need to debug the bootloader, now you need a compatible toolchain which you don't have.
In contrast to something like Buildroot, which is a set of config files and dependency matching scripts that allows you to compile your own tool chain, and build your custom software with the same tooling you compiled your target uboot/rootfs/kernel on. Buildroot was great for being able to compile your boot loaders, kernels, rootfs, apps... and it was simple to use. But supporting multiple boards deploying the same programs was difficult, and moving up versions of the kernel and things like that was also difficult.
Enter yocto. The sweet sweet glory of yocto.
Yocto defines a common base layer of configuration scripts and uses a system called bitbake to build your recipes. (bitbake emerged from portage). On top of that base layer you add layers you need. A lot of arm manufacturers are in the openembedded alliance (which yocto is built on top of) so you'll find git repos from them supported just about every chip and SoC they make. so you pull that layer in. Then you browse the yocto repos for other layers you need to pull in, as well as develop your own layers containing your code. Cross-compilation is a snap, and most interestingly: their developer mode which puts you in a shell with a correctly configured environment so you can debug build breaks while cross compiling is amazing (and git aware)).
So it's pluses are
-tremendous board support
-easy ability to migrate to boards that aren't supported (as easy as it can be anyhow)
- ability to put your product code in one layer and just drag it into multiple yocto projects utilizing different board support layers allowing you to easily maintain your product on different processors.
- It's the cleanest system I've seen that does what it does. And by cleanest, I mean a pretty big jump over it's predecessors into something unlike anything I'd ever seen in the embedded world.
- It does have a harder learning curve than something like buildroot, which has a harder learning curve over something like Arch ARM (where Arch ARM supports your exact SoC)
It's made me enjoy using Linux again and reminds me of how fun Linux was when Enlightenment was still cool. Mint really let me down the last couple of versions.
One of the most underrated Debian based distros out there right now.
i wish there was a distro that worked well with my hardware out of the box, preferably without any applications that i do not explicitly choose to install.
i have no interest in setting up pulseaudio/alsa or having to set nomodeset in my grub config for the 20th time.
what distros have you tried?
last 2 years have gotten rid of most of the pulseaudio/alsa annoyances, i didnt have to do any configuration on multiple machines (xubuntu 14.04, manjaro).
i have one machine with an amd e-2000 that requires the nomodeset, which was annoying to fix, but that's also a pretty niche system. Overall my impression is that most hardware works out of the box pretty nice.
Ubuntu Mate is my favorite distro... but I run the i3 tiling window manager over it.
I don't know if I'd use it or not, but I'd like to see an attempt to make an ubuntu or debian based distro centered around a tiling window manager(preferably i3). From my experience, i3 provides to the desktop what tabbing provides to browsers. One thing I like about tiling WM is that there is not "native" GUI so there can't be any snort of snobbery about what is or is not native.
> "I don't know if I'd use it or not, but I'd like to see an attempt to make an ubuntu or debian based distro centered around a tiling window manager(preferably i3)."
There are tools available that make it easier to create a custom Linux distro, including ones that allow you to customise Debian and Ubuntu, so it might not be that hard to do what you're suggesting:
The most interesting recent Linux distro that I have encountered is Void Linux. It's a minimalist rolling update distro. It is not a fork of anything already existing. It is basically a demo for a new package manager called xbps.
Based on the information on the website, xbps has some good features (such as building from source using containers to isolate the build process), but it doesn't have the same type of functional approach as Nix. Void looks like a decent entry in the Arch/Gentoo stable, which means its good for staying on the cutting edge. NixOS is more useful if you're going to be spinning up multiple containers/VMs, which benefits from the stability and consistency of the Nix approach. YMMV.
Using Xubuntu on all my machines except the dreaded OSX laptop at work (and well the Pis). Also converted my parents over to Xubuntu. I used to tinker with distros a lot, went through LFS etc...but over the last couple of years I have basically been a rather simplistic consumer. I'm even on LTS now and only occasionally poke ahead of the schedule. Come to think of it I haven't even customized a kernel in >1 year now.
I've sepnd a decent amount of time with the BSDs, most noteably OpenBSD (the Powerbook G4 that I haven't used in ages still has it installed)
It's strange to look back. It's both good and bad. Qubes OS is the one OS I might tinker with in the near future but other than that I'm a consumer now.
Yeah, just like Linux except when it's not. It's useful for folks forced to use Windows because of regulations, but definitely not preferred over a real Linux distribution.
Yes, unfortunately it didn't allow me to run Windows software (ex. design, video, 3d modelling or audio software, games, office, etc.), because Cinnamon is a Desktop Environment ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Personally I prefer MATE since it's a fork of the good old GNOME 2, but I don't use a DE in my servers, so having SSH (installed by Git for Windows) is enough to connect to them.
I also install GnuWin32[1] to avoid getting the `'%s' is not recognized` error whenever I'm using the console and I type by muscle memory some basic commands like ls, or pwd, or grep, and ConEmu[2] with Clink[3] to remove several annoyances of the Windows Command Line.
Having a "good enough" UNIX terminal like OS X is something I'm waiting to see in the next iterations of Windows.
PS. Don't patronize all the people who prefer Windows like a freshman who drank the Linux cool-aid for the first time, most of us need to exchange files with people from different areas. The need to use Photoshop, Word or Illustrator over GIMP, Writer or Inkscape is not a matter of preference, but a matter of being productive by not troubleshooting issues that arise due to the lack of popularity of FOSS alternatives, to give an example: Try to open a .docx and a .odt attachment in Gmail for Android without an Office app, you'll get really surprised and disappointed at the same time ;)
I have finally found my sweet-spot between being a total neckbeard (Arch) and following trends (Ubuntu) by simply starting with a minimal Ubuntu/Fedora/Debian installer and then installing whatever desktop environment I choose (I like MATE because it's non-intrusive and fast enough for me). I usually use less than ~10% of the software that comes pre-loaded with most distros.
To each his own, I suppose. Personally, I roll Arch on eight computers at home and work, no neckbeard required. I install exactly what I want at first install (Awesome is my preferred tiling window manager), and updates are performed when I want, which is much better than automatically. Apart from systemd, which I haven't gotten around to excising yet, there is no cruft anywhere. Plus the added bonus of never having to upgrade to the latest distro version.
I'm a little picky in my desktop distro, and the two metics I judge by are these:
1. How quickly after a fresh install I can get the desktop into a state where I like it. This is mostly just adding things that aren't included, removing things that are, tweaking keyboard shortcuts, etc.
2. How many of what I'll call "mundane IT issues" I bump into in the course of daily, non-developer use.
Note that #1 is based almost entirely on a personal preference and #2 is based on what I happen to need to do on any random day of the week. I don't expect it to carry over perfectly to anyone else's experience.
I will say, however, that I am more impressed with Linux Mint 17.3 (Cinnamon) than with any desktop Linux since middle years of Crunchbang, when it had hit its stride. If Mint 18 is just as solid, Mint might become the desktop distro I've spent the longest single stretch of time with. It would need 2 more years to hit that mark, but because they are basing each version on the 2-year Ubuntu LTS cycle, it seems possible.
I guess nobody has to speak of openSUSE yet. I would say, if you've never tried it you really should. I had the best experience with openSUSE I've had in many years. Now with openSUSE LEAP it will be even better. If I ever needed a package I could easily find it online via package search[0] which I used to get Steam and other software. I only ever really had issues with the DMD compiler. I must of used it for 6+ months on my old laptop. It is definitely a great successor to Slackware which was my first use of Linux (at least it used to be based off Slackware waaaay back when).
I wouldn't say it is perfect, but I haven't seen a better looking linux distro.
The main reason is consistent looks. They have chosen to create a very flat ui, thats a good choice for enabling consistency. Flat ui happens to be the design trend nowadays, which makes it also fashionable.
Manjaro still managed to make the icons look distinctive enough to be useful. Further strong points are good spacing, good use of fonts and consistency throughout the whole interface. The file manager is more powerful than the file explorer from mswindows, but the gui is still cleaner.
Manjaro offers a pleasant surprise to people coming from windows (like me).
I have tried mint, ubuntu, elementary os, and manjaro but I feel manjaro looks like the most modern and advanced desktop.
Man, those Elementary OS screenshots look sexy. Has anyone used it? How is it for development work? I'd like to give it a shot; one of the big things holding me back from going all-out on Linux is how beautiful OS X is.
It's certainly simple to use; it has fewer customizable features out of the box than any distro I've ever seen.
I primarily install it on adults' whose children have left home and older people's computers (which are disproportionately devices powerful enough to run Vista but with <4GB RAM), put the three or four apps they need in Plank, integrate their email, and transfer over their bookmarks and contacts, and leave them to it. I don't even tell them it's Linux.
It runs well on older hardware, has excellent support, and looks nice. Besides Skype's shit Linux support, it's a perfect platform for them to digitally reconnect with family and friends without having to worry about any unnecessary details.
For it's downsides, it's less responsive than OS X, or animations and actions don't feel as tight, and it really doesn't want to be tinkered with. As a general use OS, though, it's pretty complete.
Interesting. Probably a good call not to tell them what OS it is; I've been in that situation before and if you can avoid it, it's definitely better to do so. Thanks for the insight.
90 comments
[ 3.8 ms ] story [ 26.5 ms ] threadI don't understand how Mint is better than Ubuntu. Ubuntu is a total OS X replacement for me (I'm a full stack dev). The only reason I see to use Mint is if you prefer traditional desktop interfaces over more modern ones.
>If you are looking at running a server, but you can’t afford or don’t want to pay a subscription fee for RHEL or SLE, then there is nothing better than Debian or CentOS. These distributions are the gold standard when it comes to community-based servers. And, they are supported for a very long time, so you won’t have to worry about upgrading your system so often.
I've been really satisfied with Ubuntu server, it just works. Debian isn't bad but I find it takes more configuration than Ubuntu. I use Ubuntu on my home server to run containers which I remotely connect to and use as development environments. I've found that Ubuntu seems to have the best out of the box support for lxc-containers so I have no reason to move away from it.
No, for many of us it is not about modern.
I love modern. Ubuntus problem is they copied a bunch of Mac-isms for what seems to be no good reason.
Now hear me out: I almost love Apple, I just cannot get myself to use their products (OK, did, three years, was happy to get a PC again) and there are a lot of things that should be learned from Mac. Out-of-the-box experience etc.
Other Mac-isms are just bad IMO like inconsistent keyboard shortcuts, Alt-Tab that is not a consistent stack etc.
Ubuntu copied the dock, moved Window control to the left, messed with the menus and Alt-Tab all while delivering a less impressing OOTB experience (IIRC).
There is a very good reason for the direction Ubuntu went with Unity. The clue is in the name.
The Unity interface is the way it is because it's designed to work on both large screen devices and small screen devices, and with mouse and keyboard and touchscreens. Take a look at the Ubuntu Touch interface, notice how similar it is to the UI on desktop Ubuntu (side menu, scopes, etc...)?
http://www.ubuntu.com/phone/features
Going back to Unity, whilst I have only used it in passing, based on that experience I can't think of a feature that I'd miss from a more 'traditional' desktop interface. The only minor things I found jarring were the online search results in desktop search (which I believe has been disabled in 16.04) and a slightly clunky look to the search results (which is just an implementation detail, could be something that is refined in the future). Is there something you'd want from Unity that it doesn't currently offer?
FWIW, I think the Windows 8 desktop interface was a mistake. There was too much hidden away. It also didn't feel cohesive to me (the jump from metro to desktop and vice versa was too jarring IMO). Metro works really well as a phone UI though (I'm using it now, I think its greatest strength is probably the speed of navigation through the interface).
It's also, IMHO, ugly as heck out of the box.
Only if you don't value any sense of security
https://lwn.net/Articles/676664/
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11149839
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11142986
Also, kernel.org was hacked because a rootkit gained access to their servers, not because they used a weak password like `upMint`, so you shouldn't compare both incidents.
This is clearly hyperbole. "no effort"? C'mon.
> no idea how long they were compromised, and couldnt even respond effectively.
The hacked .iso was up for less than 24 hrs, so that puts a hard limit on the worst part of the compromise. The forum issues they fixed in a couple of days. This seems like a reasonably effective response to me.
> I was a big fan of Mint usability who reluctantly had to ditch it.
Did you really have to ditch it? Or did you just decide to go with a distro that emphasizes security over convenience? (Which is, of course, a completely reasonable thing to do, but others may make other (also reasonable) choices.)
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11142986
The hacker who's comment is number one should tell you what level of security they have going on.
Also, is ryanlol a well-known hacker or something? (I had never heard of him.)
I went back to modifying Ubuntu for the Mint use-cases since they do combine usability and at least attempts on their security.
your firewall won't help against socket re-use; and most configs won't stop connect-backs since they allow unfiltered outbound access to quite a few destination ports
Your points about socket re-use and connect-backs may well be true, but they miss the larger point. How much security is enough? Your computer is less vulnerable if you air-gap it. Do you do this? Likely not, because that's inconvenient. The Mint devs sacrifice some (not much, it seems to me, but some) security for convenience. Maybe you don't like the tradeoffs they made. Fine. But saying some blanket statement like "Mint is insecure" is just silly. It's like saying "Connecting your computer to the Internet is insecure." Yeah, there's some truth to it, but it also ignores the fact that sometimes it makes sense to trade some security for convenience.
The "bleeding edge" thing might be a turn-off for some, though. I've only had Korora (a Fedora spin with some pre-loaded apps and themes) for less than a month and I've already downloaded two kernel updates.
I agree with you though. I got fed up with Ubuntu and switched over to Fedora a few months ago and have been pleasantly surprised at how well it works now. The Fedora team is even willing to fix stupid obvious bugs so I actually have my zsh manpages now and gmplayer works.
I like the idea, I just haven't taken time to go back and try again since then, and other distros have stepped up so I didn't have to either.
Maybe the author has had similar experiences that might have affected the choices?
yum (now dnf, which is a name I hate) is also my favorite of the mainstream package managers. It nearly perfectly balances ease of use with advanced capabilities, and maintaining private repos is an absolute dream (stick signed packages in a directory on a web server, run createrepo; repository is done!), compared to anything else. apt is a great, but managing repos for it is just awful (though I haven't had a chance to try aptly, which appears to potentially resolve this issue, though it still seems to be vastly more complex than createrepo).
So, yeah, Fedora remains my favorite, through many years and many attempts using other distros. I've flirted with Ubuntu a few times, going so far as having it as my primary laptop OS for a while. Partly it was because of the popularity of it; it's sometimes easier to install stuff on Ubuntu because the developers are more likely to be using Ubuntu. But, it's not worth the other trade offs, to me.
Also, I like that Fedora ships a close to stock, very clean, version of the most recent Gnome desktop. It feels very nicely integrated, while some of the alternative desktop variants feel bolted together from different pieces. Lots of folks seem to want to revert to the old 2.0 style Gnome, but I don't dislike modern Gnome (except that it has some awful quirks for multiple displays, where both displays do the shrink-and-dim thing, which is terrible for use with projections, presentations, watching movies, etc.).
(sorry :>) I didn't use Linux for any desktop/laptop for years until it got easily bundled last summer with Fedora. Thanks to Mint for that, though.
They tell you.
The claims about how great arch is are almost word for word what people used to say about gentoo.
Sure both distributions let you build your system from scratch but the days upon days of compiling just to slightly optimize a binary is squarely a gentooism.
full disclosure: used to be a gentoo dev / am currently an Exherbo (rolling release/source distro) Dev.
Gentoo Linux is a great distro for those who want to learn everything about Linux. Because you have to install everything manually, you learn all the bits and pieces of a Linux-based operating system.
Gentoo is the most customizable distribution.
Gentoo also one of the best rolling releases. It’s always updated. Users always run the latest packages.
Gentoo is also known for having excellent documentation. The Gentoo Wiki is my to-go resource for everything Linux related.
What I like the most about Gentoo is that is offers almost every package and software that’s available for “any” Linux distribution
In contrast to something like Buildroot, which is a set of config files and dependency matching scripts that allows you to compile your own tool chain, and build your custom software with the same tooling you compiled your target uboot/rootfs/kernel on. Buildroot was great for being able to compile your boot loaders, kernels, rootfs, apps... and it was simple to use. But supporting multiple boards deploying the same programs was difficult, and moving up versions of the kernel and things like that was also difficult.
Enter yocto. The sweet sweet glory of yocto. Yocto defines a common base layer of configuration scripts and uses a system called bitbake to build your recipes. (bitbake emerged from portage). On top of that base layer you add layers you need. A lot of arm manufacturers are in the openembedded alliance (which yocto is built on top of) so you'll find git repos from them supported just about every chip and SoC they make. so you pull that layer in. Then you browse the yocto repos for other layers you need to pull in, as well as develop your own layers containing your code. Cross-compilation is a snap, and most interestingly: their developer mode which puts you in a shell with a correctly configured environment so you can debug build breaks while cross compiling is amazing (and git aware)). So it's pluses are -tremendous board support -easy ability to migrate to boards that aren't supported (as easy as it can be anyhow) - ability to put your product code in one layer and just drag it into multiple yocto projects utilizing different board support layers allowing you to easily maintain your product on different processors. - It's the cleanest system I've seen that does what it does. And by cleanest, I mean a pretty big jump over it's predecessors into something unlike anything I'd ever seen in the embedded world. - It does have a harder learning curve than something like buildroot, which has a harder learning curve over something like Arch ARM (where Arch ARM supports your exact SoC)
It's made me enjoy using Linux again and reminds me of how fun Linux was when Enlightenment was still cool. Mint really let me down the last couple of versions.
One of the most underrated Debian based distros out there right now.
i have no interest in setting up pulseaudio/alsa or having to set nomodeset in my grub config for the 20th time.
If the userspace people had their way, the option would likely have been ripped out long ago.
I think the author means CentOS and RedHat.
I don't know if I'd use it or not, but I'd like to see an attempt to make an ubuntu or debian based distro centered around a tiling window manager(preferably i3). From my experience, i3 provides to the desktop what tabbing provides to browsers. One thing I like about tiling WM is that there is not "native" GUI so there can't be any snort of snobbery about what is or is not native.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wx0eNaGzAZU
There are tools available that make it easier to create a custom Linux distro, including ones that allow you to customise Debian and Ubuntu, so it might not be that hard to do what you're suggesting:
https://www.linuxvoice.com/build-your-own-linux-distro/
* http://www.voidlinux.eu/
Just download your configuration.nix (and dotfiles) on another machine and you're pretty much safe.
Maybe, two configurations that can be run on one machine to transform the machine then?
It's strange to look back. It's both good and bad. Qubes OS is the one OS I might tinker with in the near future but other than that I'm a consumer now.
Ubuntu on Windows 10 (UbuNTu)
This has already massively improved my productivity in writing cross-platform C++ code.
TBH, If I had to choose between "any real Linux distribution" with WINE and Windows with "a real UNIX terminal", I would prefer the latter.
Personally I prefer MATE since it's a fork of the good old GNOME 2, but I don't use a DE in my servers, so having SSH (installed by Git for Windows) is enough to connect to them.
I also install GnuWin32[1] to avoid getting the `'%s' is not recognized` error whenever I'm using the console and I type by muscle memory some basic commands like ls, or pwd, or grep, and ConEmu[2] with Clink[3] to remove several annoyances of the Windows Command Line.
Having a "good enough" UNIX terminal like OS X is something I'm waiting to see in the next iterations of Windows.
[1] http://gnuwin32.sourceforge.net/
[2] https://conemu.github.io/
[3] https://mridgers.github.io/clink/
PS. Don't patronize all the people who prefer Windows like a freshman who drank the Linux cool-aid for the first time, most of us need to exchange files with people from different areas. The need to use Photoshop, Word or Illustrator over GIMP, Writer or Inkscape is not a matter of preference, but a matter of being productive by not troubleshooting issues that arise due to the lack of popularity of FOSS alternatives, to give an example: Try to open a .docx and a .odt attachment in Gmail for Android without an Office app, you'll get really surprised and disappointed at the same time ;)
The opportunity window to eat Windows 8's market share is gone with Win 10. And I see no voice recognition on any distro.
Honestly, Android on the desktop is the future of desktop Linux.
There will never be a year of the Linux Desktop based on any of the Gnome / KDE / whatever window managers.
1. How quickly after a fresh install I can get the desktop into a state where I like it. This is mostly just adding things that aren't included, removing things that are, tweaking keyboard shortcuts, etc.
2. How many of what I'll call "mundane IT issues" I bump into in the course of daily, non-developer use.
Note that #1 is based almost entirely on a personal preference and #2 is based on what I happen to need to do on any random day of the week. I don't expect it to carry over perfectly to anyone else's experience.
I will say, however, that I am more impressed with Linux Mint 17.3 (Cinnamon) than with any desktop Linux since middle years of Crunchbang, when it had hit its stride. If Mint 18 is just as solid, Mint might become the desktop distro I've spent the longest single stretch of time with. It would need 2 more years to hit that mark, but because they are basing each version on the 2-year Ubuntu LTS cycle, it seems possible.
[0]: https://software.opensuse.org/find
Imo this award should go to manjaro kde.
The main reason is consistent looks. They have chosen to create a very flat ui, thats a good choice for enabling consistency. Flat ui happens to be the design trend nowadays, which makes it also fashionable.
Manjaro still managed to make the icons look distinctive enough to be useful. Further strong points are good spacing, good use of fonts and consistency throughout the whole interface. The file manager is more powerful than the file explorer from mswindows, but the gui is still cleaner.
This video shows some of the looks. http://linuxscoop.com/video/manjaro-15-12-kde
Manjaro offers a pleasant surprise to people coming from windows (like me). I have tried mint, ubuntu, elementary os, and manjaro but I feel manjaro looks like the most modern and advanced desktop.
I primarily install it on adults' whose children have left home and older people's computers (which are disproportionately devices powerful enough to run Vista but with <4GB RAM), put the three or four apps they need in Plank, integrate their email, and transfer over their bookmarks and contacts, and leave them to it. I don't even tell them it's Linux.
It runs well on older hardware, has excellent support, and looks nice. Besides Skype's shit Linux support, it's a perfect platform for them to digitally reconnect with family and friends without having to worry about any unnecessary details.
For it's downsides, it's less responsive than OS X, or animations and actions don't feel as tight, and it really doesn't want to be tinkered with. As a general use OS, though, it's pretty complete.
I always run into tedious issues with Ubuntu and Mint regarding to Atheros Wifi and NVIDIA cards.
Is there a distro with good chances of running out of the box?