3 ms·

>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

by zxcvcxz 10y ago

>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.

Scarbutt 10y ago
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.
reitanqild 10y ago
> ...over more modern ones. 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).
- ZenoArrow 10y ago
  > "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...)? http://www.ubuntu.com/phone/features http://www.ubuntu.com/phone/features
  - nycticorax 10y ago
    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.
    - ZenoArrow 10y ago
      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).

by zxcvcxz 10y ago

Scarbutt 10y ago

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.

reitanqild 10y ago

> ...over more modern ones. 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).

ZenoArrow 10y ago
> "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...)? http://www.ubuntu.com/phone/features http://www.ubuntu.com/phone/features
- nycticorax 10y ago
  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.
  - ZenoArrow 10y ago
    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).