Welcome to c/linux!
Welcome to our thriving Linux community! Whether you're a seasoned Linux enthusiast or just starting your journey, we're excited to have you here. Explore, learn, and collaborate with like-minded individuals who share a passion for open-source software and the endless possibilities it offers. Together, let's dive into the world of Linux and embrace the power of freedom, customization, and innovation. Enjoy your stay and feel free to join the vibrant discussions that await you!
Rules:
Stay on topic: Posts and discussions should be related to Linux, open source software, and related technologies.
Be respectful: Treat fellow community members with respect and courtesy.
Quality over quantity: Share informative and thought-provoking content.
No spam or self-promotion: Avoid excessive self-promotion or spamming.
No NSFW adult content
Follow general lemmy guidelines.
After using Arch and Debian (two great distros) I have been using Mint for the last 7 years or so and I have yet to feel any desire to change distro: it's just what I was looking for.
'Better' only exists in regards to specific needs: what do you think is not as good as it should be with Mint? Then ytou will be able to decide if this or that other distros offering it are indeed better ;)
The desktop environment (cinnamon) is mostly why it's considered beginner friendly. And it's considered beginner friendly because it is similar to Windows.
If you try a different distro, it's not gonna have cinnamon. If you like mint and it's not causing any issues, you should probably just stick with it.
As others have said, if you're happy with it, no need to change. I switched out to Arch (BTW) because I like to pull my OS apart and tinker with it, but if you're not into that then there's no issue with going with something stable that just works.
Mint is good if OS tinkering isn’t where you want to spend your time and you want something with sane defaults that just works. Immutable distros like Bazzite, Aurora, or SteamOS are arguably more newb-friendly and turn-key, whereas Mint is more readily customized (and broken).
Does it work for you? Yes? Then you have no need to swap distros. When people say a 'newbie distro', it means it is simple for newcomer users to learn it, not that it is akin to a tutorial or stopgap.
You only swap distros if you have a use-case your current distro can't actually fulfill for one reason or another.
And about arch being more customizable, Mint is just as customizable. You can swap the desktop just like Arch, you can change bootloader theme, gtk theme, icon theme, etc all normal
Don't customize shit. Once your tweak one thing it might work for a month or 6 months or longer but at some point it WILL be the domino that fucks your system. I've tweaked everything endlessly for years. Now I run damn near stock. Tired of fixing shit.
Edit: doesn't matter if you document what you tweaked. Files and folders move, layouts change, code changes. You lose items, updates happen. There is no stable tweak ever. Eventually something will happen.
Source: I've ran most common distros and tweaked every one of them. All to wind back up on stock mint. Shit just works.
yea I don't wanna change just to be hip, I literally don't know the differences between distros, I'm just wondering if I'm missing out on something, not in like the way gui and animations works, but the other stuff
I literally don't know the differences between distros
Its just what they come packaged with. Its all the same kernel. Do you like the software Mint comes with? Have you felt a need to replace a bunch? Does your computer do what you want it to?
Thats really about it. Debian is "good for servers" because it comes with software for running servers. Kali is "good for hackers" because it comes with software for hacking. Mint is "good for newbies" because it comes with software newbies expect.
Thats really pretty much it. Theres nothing stopping you from installing the software you want. If you start to feel like your distro has a bunch of stuff you dont need, then maybe you can look to other distros that dont come with that stuff.
Even if the distro has a bunch you don't want, uninstalling is pretty easy now with the package managers I've used. Just strip some things away and see if that's good first.
Also good advice.
If your computer runs smoothly and youre not having a bunch of headaches, you're generally better off tinkering with what youve got than going through the hassle of installing a whole new OS.
If your computer runs smoothly and you're not having a bunch of headaches, you're better off NOT tinkering with what you have. No point fixing what's not broken.
the other thing is the release cycle, if you're constantly fighting that then maybe switch distros
Thats fair.
For the most part the distros are all the same, they just configure things differently from the start or come with different packages installed. Think of it like doughnut shops, you can go to two doughnut shops and they might look a little different, be laid out a little different, ring you up a tiny bit different, but under the hood it's still a doughnut shop, a place selling fried dough rings.
The fried dough rings are the Linux kennel, the core of every distro, the color of the glaze is the distro, the "fluff" on top. You can scrape the glaze off the doughnut at one shop and put new glaze on at the other so it's a bit different, but still a doughnut.
I feel like that analogy got away from me.
So yeah, you're not really missing anything. Some people like Arch because it comes with way less preconfigured/installed so it's easier to make it exactly what you want. Newbies (I use this lovingly here) don't really care if they're using X11 or Wayland (the libraries that power how the desktop actually displays programs, sort of, massively simplifying), so they don't need Arch, they can just install a "newbie" distro and be happy. You could strip your Linux mint down to the bare bones and basically make it Arch by using a different package manager and stuff.
If you're happy with things and nothing is acting weird or badly, You're more or less golden, like folks are saying.
Where you might find that one day you want a newer kernel or packages (which is why you'd switch to Arch or one of its derivatives), is if you ever have very new hardware (or very old hardware that just got a driver pulled into the kernel - I own a Digidesign 002Rack that is ancient, but someone finally wrote a driver for it, and it's still a great piece of audio hardware) that only has drivers in the latest kernels.
But if you're just doing web, Office type stuff, even Steam games, you shouldn't need anything more than you have already.
I am a fan of the KDE desktop, myself, and I recommend that everyone try it out at some point. But you should be able to install it onto Mint and just choose it when you login, again, no need to change distros.
Just a warning, installing too many WMs or DEs can cause….. issues. Two will probably be fine, but before you go wild and install all of them, just be wary as it can cause conflicts between apps and shit. So yeah, just be wary.
On Debian I have freely installed Gnome, KDE, and one or the other of the LX ones, and had no perceptible problems.
However, I just tried to shortcut installing KDE on a vanilla Ubuntu, and boy, they don't handle that well.
Of you like Mint stay with it. A friend of mine has been using it for 10+ years probably.
There are so many distros and you might find each one has something positive or negative about it.
Just use what you like.
if it aint broke it dont need fixin
I've used Mint for about five years now and I see absolutely no reason to switch. It does what an OS is supposed to do, run my computer with minimal hassle.
If it works for you, stick with it. It also doesn't cost anything try others.
Does it serve your needs? If yes, who cares what people think. The OS has 3 functions: keep your data secure, support and run the apps you need and get the hell out of your way.
"Newbie distro" is usually meant to describe an operating system that is easy to get into for newcomers to Linux, who don't want to get into the details yet and just start using it. This is my interpretation of what the communities usually mean by that term.
If you like Mint, then there is no reason to switch off it, especially not for the reasons because people call it "newbie". It's likely that there is no "better" distribution for you and everything that is different will be bother you. One reason why you might want to switch off could be a Rolling Release model, like Archlinux (or something based on Arch that is rolling too). But that comes with its own problems and you might not like it to have an ever changing and evolving system, always updating to the newest. If that doesn't excite you, then maybe you should stick with a cyclic release model like Mint. And nothing wrong with it, if you like that stability*!
*stability=here that doesn't mean a stable system in sense of problems, but more in the sense of non changing stable environment, unstable would mean its always evolving as a rolling release, not that it is less stable in problems
anecdotal experience tells me people who use arch break their system way more than people who use mint, not exactly sure why that happens
I assume that's because Archlinux is designed to be minimal and you to add and change things. You are expected to understand and people maybe experiment or do things wrong. On top of it, the ever changing nature of always up to day can break sometimes (usually it doesn't, but its more prone to breakage than a cyclic upgrade).
My above suggestion wasn't actually using Archlinux directly, but more like EndeavourOS or CachyOS in example. Arch was just an example, there are also Rolling Release models for Fedora and openSUSE as well. I just mentioned this type of Rolling Release as to why you would want to switch off from Mint, as this could be a good reason for.
What do you get out of a rolling release? I get that you get newer stuff faster, but what does that do for your day to day use?
Depends on what exactly we talk about. I don't need to wait years for the new updates of specific programs, where I need or want to have the new features and improvements. RetroArch is such a case. I even compile it from source nowadays, because they don't update it in over a year. And imagine this was part in the distributions stable repository, which would take even longer to get the new version. The Linux Kernel is also updated frequently and contains improvements for performance or compatibility. I used Ubuntu for 13 years straight, starting as my first main distribution. And I was sick of this "stable" thing, where in example GIMP wasn't updated in the repository. I used PPAs to mitigate this, and it was a horror. In example when GIMP released to support long standing requests for features, it was painful not able to use them, because it would have helped me a lot back then.
These are just a few things, not a list of all reasons. With AppImages and Flatpak (or Snap), there is less reason to use Rolling Releases than ever, but its not a full replacement for distributions repository.
I've always thought of Mint as a newbie-friendly distro because there is a convenient UI for everything that you want to do, but that doesn't mean it's somehow limited for more advanced users.
It's friendly to new users but does not block things that more advanced users would want. I don't think there's any reason to stop using it as you become an advanced user.
The only reason to switch would be if some other distro has a specific selling point that you want to try. I've tried a few of them and always just end up going back to what I'm familiar with.
newbie generally means easy. I have been in tech for close to 30 years and have been a nerd much longer. Im not big into spending a whole bunch of time on my personal laptop though so use the newbie distros. if I want to goof around I use a virtual machine.
In the past, yes. There used to be a need to distro hop and find distros that package the applications that you wanted. Unless you were ready to compile them all yourself. Today, the biggest reason to switch would be trying immutable versus stable versus rolling distributions. Which all have their own advantages and disadvantages.
Short answer, no. Don't worry about the long answer and keep doing what you're doing.
If you are happy with what you are running then there is no reason to change.
If it ain't broke
It's a "newbie" distro in that it's interface is very friendly. As far as it's capability, it's as good as any other distro. If you have no issues then you're already living the dream, stay there.
I like Mint because it just works. I see no reason to change.
Mint is not a newbie distro. I use it every day and it's fine for most needs. Distro wars have been stupid for more than 20 years.
I've used desktop Linux as my primary operating system since the early 90s. I currently use Mint.
No, you don't need to make a switch if it does what you need.
Switching distributions should not be done just to follow a trend, but for real reasons. For example, if you have issues with the kernel or drivers, or if there is some reason you absolutely must use a rolling release, then it might be worth considering Arch. And this is on the condition that you do not want to or cannot solve the problem on your current distribution.
Personally, I switched from Ubuntu to Arch when Ubuntu first introduced snap and my old computers, which I use as servers, started to lag terribly. So, usually, a reason like that is needed. If it weren't for that, I would still be using Ubuntu.
I've been using Mint for ten years because I like the features that make it a newbie distro - the Cinnamon desktop has all the important things in the same places Windows does and it integrates new features six months after they're released, to give them time for testing and bugfixing before use.
I enjoy Mint. It's my daily driver, and has been for years. I cut my teeth installing Slackware from floppy disks back in the day, and have been a *nix user/admin for 30+ years (IRIX, Solaris, AIX, HP/UX) and I'm a developer, so I think I qualify as a gray beard rather than a newbie.
It just works. Distro wars are silly, as the other commenter said.
Nothing wrong with it. Its ok to go hopping if you want. But also ok to just...stick with it.
Other than being able to do a minimal install? Nope.
I went from Mint to CachyOS for gaming reasons, on the whole I enjoy it more tham Mint for pretty much everything. It’s just a bit more streamlines and organized, and software storage isn’t as much of a mystery box.
That being said, Mint is a great OS that I didn’t have any issues with outside of some headaches when it came to running some games. If it’s not limiting you with what you need it for then there’s no reason to jump ship if you like it.
my only issue with mint is that full version upgrades are still a hassle. if that's something that bothers you, you could switch to something else. otherwise, just keep on keeping on.
Really? I was lucky then because my experience was seamless. Just clicked two bottons, my password once and boom - upgraded.
Probably the only reason you might switch is for something like CachyOS that probably has the similar problems you get with Arch but with a more custom kernel with their own tweaks/configurations to speed things up and provide newer hardware support in general.
Either something like that, or a want to switch and try something either new and/or more/less advanced... if there's even any distro more user friendly than Mint.
Otherwise, the only other reason I could see for leaving would be if you for some reason don't like how Mint is developing/being developed.
I've been using Linux at home since 2007. In the early-mid days, I tried a lot of different distros. For the last 10 years or so, I'm pretty much only running Linux Mint (Debian edition) on my PCs.