this post was submitted on 24 Apr 2025
188 points (98.0% liked)
Linux
53508 readers
1703 users here now
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Linux is a family of open source Unix-like operating systems based on the Linux kernel, an operating system kernel first released on September 17, 1991 by Linus Torvalds. Linux is typically packaged in a Linux distribution (or distro for short).
Distributions include the Linux kernel and supporting system software and libraries, many of which are provided by the GNU Project. Many Linux distributions use the word "Linux" in their name, but the Free Software Foundation uses the name GNU/Linux to emphasize the importance of GNU software, causing some controversy.
Rules
- Posts must be relevant to operating systems running the Linux kernel. GNU/Linux or otherwise.
- No misinformation
- No NSFW content
- No hate speech, bigotry, etc
Related Communities
Community icon by Alpár-Etele Méder, licensed under CC BY 3.0
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Dunno, a long time ago at this point.
Stupid autocorrect. Why was it the best choice?
Back then ubuntu had pretty much all of linux cornered, the vast majority of distros were ubuntu based or ubuntu adjacent, and ubuntu was beloved, however, it came with a number of flaws, mint just rectified those flaws and was otherwise basically just ubuntu.
By being ubuntu based and getting rid of the stuff that made people angry, you ended up with a highly supported, beloved distro. These days things have changed, however, fedora is just as if not more well supported than ubuntu, same with arch based distros.
The only reason Mint is suggested to beginners is because it's "a highly supported, beloved distro"? A reason that has very little to do with beginners?
That does NOT have very little to do with beginners, being a highly supported distro is one of the most important things for beginners, having guides for how to do things written specifically for your distro is fantastic for new people.
It being beloved is why it's recommended, yes, and that doesn't benefit new people, but that's an obvious reason why one might recommend it...
There's also the fact that it's designed to be easy to use, but that also applies to fedora, and fedora is significantly more well-developed, so it's not really relevant here.
Beingly highly supported is a prerequisite to being a good beginner distro, but it's not a reason to recommend a distro. If we take it as a reason then Mint having a GUI is also a reason to recommend to beginners.
This is where we're going to completely disagree. Guides in general are good, but I doubt any beginner actually cares about guides, unless it's a guide telling you what to click where on the GUI. A good beginner distro has to work for the user without the need of any guides.
Instead of playing the prying game where I keep prying until you give straight answers (because people don't love Mint just because it's an Ubuntu fork) I'm just going to conclude that either you deliberately don't want to say why people recommend Mint to beginners or you actually don't know why people recommend Mint. I don't care which it is because both invalidate your opinion of the Mint suggestion being outdated.
Somehow you think the ease of use isn't relevant because it also applies to Fedora, but support is relevant despite it also applying to Fedora? How about some consistency in your arguments.
Mint having a GUI IS a good reason to recommend it to beginners... Arch for example has terrible GUI support, which is why it's not a good choice for beginners (don't get me started on manjaro...)
This is simply not true, i've given linux to countless people, people always google how to do things and end up with guides for a different distro, i've seen this happen countless times because I specialize in giving beginners linux. They absolutely do care about this, and it's extremely commonly cited as one of the reasons to go with mint.
I think it's a bad recommendation mainly made for legacy reasons rather than current ones, that was very clear. Give me reasons it's a good one, I used to use mint, I gave plenty of reasons for why it's a bad choice. You've given nothing in support of it, and expected me to write your argument for you?
Of course the person on the side of mint being a bad choice... doesn't think it's a good choice? I gave the only reasons you'd want to use mint, tbh. Aside from that there's literally no reason to over fedora. Feel free to prove me wrong with a list.
Are you deliberately misinterpreting me? Are you actually trolling here?
My point was obvious, fedora and mint are both equally easy to use, so, ease of use is not a factor when deciding between them... in fact, fedora is EASIER to use (flatpak meaning completely gui updates, kde being hugely standardized and well-developed), so, if it is a factor, it makes fedora a better choice than mint.
It's obvious that ease of use is a massive factor for recommending a distro to a beginner, it's just that ease of use doesn't favor mint.
Specializes in giving beginners Linux, can't name a single good reason why people recommend Mint to beginners (now or in the past), except for it having a GUI and guides. I don't know about the beginners you're "helping" but based on this conversation I wouldn't trust a single recommendation, suggestion or opinion from you.
You were also unable to, at this point, i'm convinced you're trolling. Sorry, it's just not a good choice. And I gave legitimate reasons for why it was great in the past, you just didn't like them!
Having a great GUI, easy installation, a bunch of guides, and being the most well-supported are all perfectly valid reasons to use mint like 10 years ago.
Interesting strategy: "make my argument for me!"
"Oh, you couldn't make my argument for me? why would I trust you?"
The arguments are super simple.
Mint focuses on stability as evident from its decision to use Ubuntu LTS versions as it's base. In case I need to spell it out, LTS versions are generally more stable and reliable.
And you brought up X11 as a negative, but there's a good reason Mint is staying on X11. Yes, Wayland is the future and eventually Mint will adopt Wayland as well, when Wayland becomes more stable. I'm the mean time Mint stays on X11 because X11 is very stable, extremely stable compared to Wayland if you have an Nvidia card.
Mint also has better out the box support. For example to my knowledge for Nvidia Fedora comes with Nouvuea drivers which means for gaming you need to go through an extra process to get proprietary drivers. Mint has out the box support for Nvidia drivers. This is less of a thing when compared to Bazzite, but still a reason why to pick Mint as a beginner distro.
And the reason people recommend Mint is in those first two points. Mint deliberately sacrifices fancy bells and whistles to be as stable as possible. You not knowing that shows how little you know about Mint.
Stability is essential for industry applications, but is actually TERRIBLE for beginners, especially ones that want to game. I could go into the reasons why, but I doubt you care. I don't agree that this is a selling point for beginners in the first place, which is why I didn't mention it. Stability does not mean "does not crash" in a linux context, it means UNCHANGING. Extremely old software is not good for beginners who want things to just work.
Give me evidence that there are more issues with wayland than X11 and i'll believe you.
Bazzite fixes this and is why I recommend it over fedora kinoite. Irrelevant point, not actually true, actually, the opposite is true precisely because of the last point. You realize stability means out of date kernel versions, and out of date kernel versions means... worse out of the box support!
Wellp, those are bad points, which is why i didn't make them, sorry!
Okay, this has turned into a complete waste of time. It's impossible to talk to a person who makes up their own definition for words and demands proof of something most of the Linux community is in agreement. You're the Linux equivalent of a flat earther.
I did not invent this definition, it is industry standard...
https://bitdepth.thomasrutter.com/2010/04/02/stable-vs-stable-what-stable-means-in-software/
you're very confident and not well informed.
"A stable software release is so named because it is unchanging. Its behaviour, functionality, specification or API is considered ‘final’ for that version. Apart from security patches and bug fixes, the software will not change for as long as that version of the software is supported, usually from 1 to many years."
your first point even directly contradicts your second...
From your own article
I'm sorry that English is not my first language and I'm not aware of the subtle difference in meaning you're after, but really all you've proven is that you're a pedantic little troll who understood what I said and still chose to be obtuse about it. Another example how of this discussion is a waste of time.
...but that still means everything I said is correct and you were a jerk to me for being correct, no?
is it my fault you don't know these things and instead of having a learning attitude, you say I have no idea what I'm talking about and am a flat earther when you don't even know what defines a stable distro?
even if I use your uninformed definition it's still wrong... there is no evidence fedora crashes more than mint, or is less reliable...