Communist @ communist @lemmy.frozeninferno.xyz

I'm an anarchocommunist, all states are evil.

---

Read more

Posts

1

Comments

731

Joined

1 yr. ago

...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...

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...

Do you have evidence of this?

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.

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.

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.

Give me evidence that there are more issues with wayland than X11 and i'll believe you.

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.

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!

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.

Wellp, those are bad points, which is why i didn't make them, sorry!

But I don't think that's true at all.

No, not at all, twitter is not decentralized, with a lemmy instance, if you leave, you lose nothing at all. With twitter, you can't take the content or your account

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?"

That's a bad example because it got forked and it wasn't an actual problem?

Please correct me if I’m wrong, but aren’t the main dev(s) members of lemmy.ml[3]? So I can certainly see how differing political views could skew the development of the main branch of Lemmy.

People say this all the time but never can give even one example of a potential problem. Preemptive forking sounds insane to me. The notion that lemmy might enshittify because you don't like their politics is also ridiculous when their politics are anti-capitalist... aka the politics that are least likely to enshittify.

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.

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...)

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

I don't see how, it's covered by a good license, and if it did it'd be forked in an instant. Can you give a historical example?

It's well out of the testing phase and used by default on both major desktops.

It's impossible by design. If an instance enshittifies people will just leave the instance.

Ubuntu, the release right before unity was the one I started actually using.

After that I switched to arch for a very long time, and now i'm on nixos.

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.

Dunno, a long time ago at this point.

That would've been true 5 years ago. Wayland is plenty tested these days, give me some data indicating the rate of issues is significantly higher and I'll agree, elsewise I think the most secure well supported option is the best one. X11 is being deprecated left and right for a reason.

gnome is wayland by default, kde is wayland by default, even XFCE is transitioning to wayland at this point... that's just not a valid argument in the modern era.

Simple, it was the best choice for a long time and hasn't done anything to piss people off.

it's no longer the best choice but mint people are still happy so they still recommend it even though it is objectively the wrong choice to start with for a beginner.

I agree I honestly don’t like immutable distro’s at all because you can’t install packages the way everyone else does: via package managers.

this is false, rpm-ostree exists and works for this exactly. There's nothing you can't do on bazzite that you can do on a non-immutable distro.

Even if that wasn't true... package management is just done through flatpak, there's no real fundamental difference, it's just an abstraction layer, I don't see why that would be important to you at all, and comes with numerous benefits:

1. You cannot break your system with these, ever.
2. Significantly less burden on package maintainers
3. You can have many versions of software installed
4. These applications are sandboxed and thus more secure.
5. This enables complete graphical management of software, no longer requiring the terminal.

It not having packages you may need applies to any package management solution, other distros do not package everything either. In fact, the distro with the most packages is an immutable one, nixos.

Here's the problem: what you just did can be done with literally any distro. There are anecdotal stories of every single distro on earth being broken. Even non-linux distros, windows and macos have such stories.

Do you have any actual statistical evidence that fedora works less often than mint?

I've given it to quite a few people and nobody has had any issues. There are anecdotal stories of literally every single distro failing for somebody, them going to another distro and it just working.

here's a counter example: https://lemmy.frozeninferno.xyz/post/53716147/18213941

"UPDATE 2: Ok, Fedora seems waaaay more stable than Ubuntu (and Mint). No strangeness like before…"

And their problems were MUCH worse than yours.

I have cancelled out your one claim with this, we can't make progress until there's proper statistics, no amount of anecdotal stories will make fedora less stable or more stable than mint.

less up to date software is a double edged sword, if you don't have statistics I don't think you can really make the claim that mint just works when fedora/bazzite don't.

Then there's the things that are objectively broken in mint for everyone until cinnamon properly supports wayland:

1. Every single app can read your keyboard input without asking
2. Every single app can see what every single other app is doing without asking
3. Apps can fullscreen themselves and go over everything else, because they can control their own window placement to any degree they want, again, without asking.
4. HDR
5. mixed refresh rate and dpi display configurations.