Hi, how’s it going? I’ve been daily driving mint with i3 for a while now, (takes like 500mb idle ram) but I always hear mint being called a newbie distro, I know arch is harder to set up and more customizable for example, but overall im wondering, in which cases one would go from mint to another distro? what can make other distros “better” than mint? i’ll end up using a window manager (i3 or if thats not availible some other lightweight one) so differences in desktop environments i dont really care that much about
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
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.
Fair, I meant it more in the user space sense. If your OS came with Blender and you never use Blender, uninstall it.
the other thing is the release cycle, if you’re constantly fighting that then maybe switch distros
Thats fair.
Uh, there’s definitely some different kernels. Cachy etc apply a lot of patches focused on speed and performance. That said there are other distros that offer the cachy patched kernel.
There are also server focused kernels. There is a ton of stuff “in the kernel” whether it’s applied to yours is a different question. So it’s not that simple.
But with flatpak etc, I’d say the real choice these days is immutable, stable, or rolling.
Do you really think that matters in OP’s context?
Of course I was simplifying things
Neither you nor I can say with 100% certainty it does or doesn’t. They didn’t go deep on their hardware that I saw. All I was pointing out was that that was a bit much of a simplification. There are reasons to look at the kernel. Just not a lot of them. Largely I agree with you though. Debian, fedora, or any of their offshoots on hardware from the last ten years potato potato right?
But on a potato. I have an old laptop with a core 2 duo in it. A late 2000’s laptop that only ran windows 7 at best. It’s still surprisingly capable despite its age. Put something like a modern fedora on it, though that’s a different story. It becomes slow almost to the point of being frustrating to use. No matter which desktop environment I’m using. Drop MX or similar and it’s a whole different experience. Part of it kernel patches, part of it run times. Even i3/i5/i7 haswell or older can see a solid boost on kernels not compiled with modern processor extensions primarily in mind.
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.
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.
damn really? I’d never would have guessed that
It’s kind of confusing because back ten or twenty years ago that wasn’t really the case. They were way more different, architected entire processes different, and were more disjointed messes with way more pros and cons different between them. That’s where a lot of the distro hopping and distro wars you might hear about stem from. It was harder to change them to mimic each other.
There’s some more subtle differences like some distros choose to hold back updates until they’ve been tested and some push them out ASAP, immutable vs not immutable. But for the most part, problems you might come across from the distro itself causing you to need to move instead of just pulling in a package are much less now.
I mean the main thing that makes Mint Mint is the desktop environment (cinnamon). I often argue that this interface is dated and will drive away users looking for something more modern. But functionally, it’s perfectly fine.
Personally, I just think it’s fun to install different distros and see the way they handle things and find one I like the most, but I’ve never used one that was unacceptable (except Ubuntu).
The difference between distros is just what they come packaged with. i.e. which kernel, systemd, desktop environment, update manager, package manager, etc.
If you start watching distro review videos, you’ll get the itch to hop. Grass is always greener on the other side of the fence.