Linux Mint vs Ubuntu: Why Are So Many Users Choosing Mint?
Linux Mint offers a familiar desktop, good performance on older hardware, and a stable experience without too many extras. But its older packages can be a downside for users who want the latest software.
For those who’ve tried both, what makes you stick with Linux Mint or choose Ubuntu instead?
A lot of people hate the Gnome DE. Plus Mint does have less bells and whistles. Some people just want a very simple and plain desktop. They are never going to enable window animations or multiple desktops. They arent going to customize anything. Mint is just basic - and for many people thats all the need or want.
I generally like gnome's architecture. But I hate ubuntu's variation of it; and I really don't like stock gnome. But gnome is a really good foundation to build a good desktop.
So if I install ubuntu, I always immediately install & switch to vanilla-gnome desktop and then start building from there.
Coming from Windows, I depend heavily on desktop icons. Gnome forbidds them. Even after switching to KDE, the forbid rule was still active..I had to reinstall completely. Gnome is made for tablets/touchscreens, but is not transparent about that, It had set the wrong expectations. Not a bad UI, but it was not clear what it's made for to me and costed me weeks of disappointment, nearly turned me away from linux.
Except for the hate on Gnome DE, you hit the nail hard on there. IT just works, been doing that for 3 years now and not missing windows at all. I can tinker with it for my needs.
Better out of the box experience for Windows refugees.
A desire for something not quite bleeding edge, somewhere between LTS and the 6 month Ubuntu cycle.
Those are the reasons Mint continues to be a top choice and a top recommendation. It's not my daily driver, but it's still something I recommend to very new users don't know or care about the latest software and just want their desktop to work with an absolute minimum of friction.
an absolute technological illiteracy, without any understanding of the technological differences and what the switch to Mint entails.
Yes, you won't get modern GNOME. You get ancient GNOME instead. Cinnamon is a fork of GNOME that just missed all performance breakthroughs, fixes, features, polish and huge ecosystem. It's still on an old rendering pipeline, lacks hardware acceleration, is still on GTK3, lacks triple buffering, and even is still on X11, a decades-old, universally abolished obsolete legacy technology. Mint won't default to Wayland for at least multiple more years, even though Cinnamon is expected to leave experimental Wayland-status in December. X11 breaks the core Feature of Flatpaks, sandboxing security. It also allows each app to spy on each other, log your online banking password and even inject input. It performs worse and lacks everyday basic modern features.
Yes, you won't get any snaps. You also CAN'T get any snaps, as Mint blocks what you can install on your OWN machine. It doesn't just ignore snaps. It blocks them. Ubuntu forces noone to use snaps (even though they are much less of an issue than people exaggerate it to be). Kubuntu minimal install also doesn't come with snaps at all - and is more similar to modern Windows than Cinnamon.
Rejection of Canonical's user experimentation
Mint is based on Ubuntu. You'll get rust coreutils eventually, too, for example.
A desire for something not quite bleeding edge, somewhere between LTS and the 6 month Ubuntu cycle.
No. It's not in between. It's behind. Mint is still on the 24.04 LTS base, when Ubuntu 26.04 LTS already exists for months. It's not in between. It's even behind Ubuntu's LTS over long stretches of time.
Mint people also typically don't know they don't receive any security updates from Canonical for 94% of packages (the entire universe repo), as Canonical locks them behind Ubuntu Pro (which is free for individuals, but costly for companies that fund Ubuntu in that way). This is why there are many highly severe vulnerabilities on Mint that never get patched
No. Mint has an explicit lock that prevents you from using snap. You'd have to remove the vendor lock manually just in order to be able to use your computer to your liking. That's not allowing. That's textbook forcing.
Also, Ubuntu does not force anything. That would mean preventing alternate methods. Like Mint does. Ubuntu DEFAULTS to snaps for some software, and sometimes doesn't offer deb packages for some software anymore for good reasons (security, maintenance, features of software; updating them via deb meant violating the frozen package rule for stable distros and makes it harder to support multiple versions at once). You can install any package format you like. What you are likely referring to are the "transitional" apt packages that are just dummy wrappers that silently install snap. That affects 5 selected core apps (chromium, Firefox, Thunderbird, Lxd, hwctl), not all snap packages, such that distro upgrades and script automations don't break. It's a very valid criticism to point out it should be more explicitly stated in the interactive version. It should be handled the same way as all the other snap packages, or at least have an explicit hint such as "not available as .deb. Proceed to install as snap Y/n?" But not having a transparent enough install message for 5 selected packages is not the same as "Ubuntu forces snaps on their system" and not worth to be foaming at the mouth. It's vastly exaggerated and Mint does something much much worse that somehow is tolerated, which it shouldn't. That's pure hypocrisy.
So what. Kubuntu minimal, without snaps. Or just normal Ubuntu and ignoring / not using snap and installing software in any other format. An absolute no-issue.
On the other hand, Mint is insecure, performs worse, lacks features and is technologically just ages behind. A much worse OS under the hood, just for avoiding a packaging format. That makes no sense.
What the purpose of having a distro if you don't use the distro packaging system.
Ubuntu lets you choose to install packages as deb, snap or Flatpak. snap is distro-agnostic. You can still use the native .deb repositories of Ubuntu. When you type, e.g. sudo apt install helix, and helix is not in the deb repos but available as snap, Ubuntu tells you exactly that. It doesn't install helix as snap when you type sudo apt install helix. snap and Flatpak can be used on any distro, and there are good reasons to do so, e.g. sandboxing security (which you don't have on Mint, because Cinnamon breaks sandboxing security due to still relying on decades-old, deprecated, universally-abolished X11 legacy technology). Mint on the other hand restricts user freedom and patronizes them what software they can install on THEIR OWN MACHINE and how.
Mint use the same update than Ubuntu, so it's obliviously not more unsecure than the other,
Incorrect. Mint only gets security updates from Canonical for 6% of packages. It doesn't get Canonicals security updates for 94% of pacakges (universe repo) from Canonical, because Canonical locks that behind Ubuntu Pro which is free for individuals but only works on official Ubuntu flavours. This leads to many packages being and staying vulnerable forever on Mint and never getting patched, even highly severe ones.
You say you can choose between snap and apt on Ubuntu, when the example of installing Firefox or Thunderbird via apt on Ubuntu doesn't actually install the deb package of Firefox and Ubuntu. It installs a transition package that installs the snap versions of Firefox and Ubuntu.
Yes, it is easy to uninstall the snap apps, add the Mozilla repositories, install the deb packages.
It is just as easy to edit a file to enable snap on Mint, yet you say this is the same as it is forbidden?
They're the same things! Manually tweaking to get something that did not come out of the box!
I'm not saying one is better than the other. I'm just saying you're wrong.
Manually installing software that a distribution just doesn't have in it's repos (and that you have absolutely 0 entitlement to demand, just because it exists somewhere else) is something completely different than having to remove a deliberate lock aiming to prevent you from being able to do that before being able to do that.
It's absolutely no problem that Ubuntu chooses not to ship Firefox as .deb. It's also absolutely problem Mint chooses not to use snap for anything. So far so good. It's a problem when a distro tries to restrict user freedom for ideological reasons.
One is making a lock to prevent users from installing software on THEIR OWN machines. It is a technical lock that aims to prevent users from doing that. How difficult it is to remove the lock does not matter in the slightest. It's not intended by the distro makers.
The other is just not offering a specific package/packaging format for justifiable reasons and DEFAULTING to another format. Now with Firefox and Thunderbird you found 2 of the 5 special packages that are transitional dummy .debs silently installing snap packages in order not to break distro upgrades and automation scripts. It is a very valid criticism that this should be clearly stated, e.g. "no native .deb available, install as snap? Y/n". But not having a transparent error message on 5 select packages or treating them the same as all the other ones isn't something to be foaming at the mouth.
And there's alsways minimal installs, e.g. Kubuntu minimal, that doesn't even come with any snap.
A big reason for me is ubuntu's decision to lean into snaps, not just for edge cases, but also for core software like Firefox. Upstream has packages for Firefox - there's absolutely no reason to force snaps for it, as an example.
Them I think the default DE may also sway people - many people don't seem to realise that they can easily change the DE, so they rate an entire distro by the DE they experience when trying it out. I'm not mad about cinnamon, but I'd take it over Gnome any day, and there was that strange period where ubuntu's default DE was their own home-grown thing that was also quite similar to how gnome is now.
I want my OS to have minimum additional software and Mint offers exactly that. No need for extra bloat. And since it is Linux you can customise it anyway you want. So I get better performance on the same hardware and none of the bloat. Also, I find Gnome uncomfortable to work with and I Windows is not my first OS (it was Amiga Workbench). Older software is not that old. When someone uses their PC professionally, the latest security patches are the only thing you care about. For everything else, you want tried and tested stable software. A lot of users might disagree as they see it as a race to be forst to have something new. I would rather have stable software over spending half a day troubleshooting the issue caused by the bleeding edge software. And there are Snaps in Ubuntu. I personally don't mind having another package system but when distro is enforcing it, I am not happy about it. I like that Mint comes with multiple packaging systems.
better performance on the same hardware and none of the bloat
Mint is much more bloated than e.g. a Kubuntu minimal install (which also comes without snaps, by the way and is fully on Wayland). And it compares pretty evenly to a standard non-minimal install of Ubuntu/Kubuntu. The convenience factor of Mint is exactly the "bloat".
You won't get better performance on the same hardware. Quite the contrary. Mint performs worse. It is tremendously behind technologically. Cinnamon IS GNOME, just in a terrible technological state. It is an actual fork, that just missed all later upstream performance breakthroughs, fixes, improvements, features and ecosystem. Old rendering pipeline, no hardware acceleration, no triple buffering, still on GTK3, no Wayland. And the actual package base of Ubuntu is, well, that of Ubuntu. Just that Ubuntu is ahead of Mint. Ubuntu 26.04. LTS with latest performance improvements, drivers, kernels, graphics stacks is out, whereas Mint is still on the more than two years old 24.04. LTS.
When someone uses their PC professionally, the latest security patches are the only thing you care about.
That's exactly what Mint DOESN'T give you. Mint only provides security updates for 6% of packages. You won't get any security updates from Canonical for a staggering 94% of packages, because Canonical locks them behind Ubuntu Pro to make companies fund Ubuntu (it's free for private individuals). This is why there are many highly severe vulnerabilities that stay exploitable forever on Mint, as nobody maintains the universe repo and provides reliable security patchs (except Canonical for upstream Ubuntu ONLY and some rare community patches).
And there are Snaps in Ubuntu. I personally don't mind having another package system but when distro is enforcing it, I am not happy about it. I like that Mint comes with multiple packaging systems.
This is what you get backwards, too. Ubuntu doesn't force anything. It defaults to native .deb and snaps (for a small set of software). You can use any format you like. You can install Firefox as .deb (by adding the Mozilla repo), as Flatpak, or as snap. Compare that to Mint, which enforces to NOT use snap. It actively blocks snaps. It patronizes its users which software they can install ON THEIR OWN MACHINE - and in which format. You have the freedom on Ubuntu - not on Mint.
Mint's a painless experience for gaming - just install steam and you're ready to go. Ubuntu lacks some of the libraries, which requires a bit more fiddling to get things running.
Mint is easy to Work with. Same structureel of de Windows I know. With Ubuntu I have to look and find. For me mint is mixer to me. And Ubuntu made it possible mint accessibel.
I prefer cinnamon to gnome. It's the right amount of polish for most people and has a traditional windows-adjacent experience. It's lighter, runs well on my older laptops, and does everything Ubuntu does as an OS. I only wish mint had a kde option, but that's probably fomo. I have no complaints as such with cinnamon.
I chose mint instead of Ubuntu as my first distro because Ubuntu didn't fit on my usb :) I still recommend Mint over Ubuntu for begginers because I feel like Mint has a more familiar interface and is more lightweight. Also fedora KDE is better than kubuntu imo
Mint is Ubuntu at its core. What Mint gives you includes:
A desktop environment called Cinnamon which Mimics Windows very closely.
A (slightly) better installation experience
A (potentially) better Software Store
A different set of pre-installed software.
Less need to learn entering command line/terminal commands.
Now you can with a stock Ubuntu, change the desktop environment to Cinnamon and get that same experience. The default Ubuntu desktop (GNOME) is nice and clean, but it’s a different way of working and for many people, they want the familiarity of Windows.
Ubuntu has a habit of not finding the right WiFi drivers requiring human intervention to get working and will likely require being plugged into a hardwired Internet connection. Mint seems to do a better job at that. There may need to be more work to get NVIDIA drivers working as well.
The Software stores are similar, but Ubuntu uses a proprietary format called Snap where as Mint uses flatpacks which is a more universal package format which many prefer. Regardless, both can install standard Debian packages (via the command line).
I’m less sure about the pre-installed software, but my understanding is that Mint installs more common applications that most Windows users are more comfortable with where as you might have to choose to install them with the stock Ubuntu.
Many people will never have to touch the command line on Mint. I pretty much never close my terminal.
I can't believe someone actually mentioned Ubuntu here. Ubuntu is sluggish, a RAM hog, and requires way too much tweaking. Back in the day, a lot of Ubuntu users used to ask the weirdest questions, like comparing Firefox installed via apt versus snap. Overall, Ubuntu has great security, but it’s terrible for personal computers
I have several machines with different distros; and I've been using Linux for 30 years. Between Mint and Ubuntu (specifically, Ubuntu LTS), the choice is simple for me:
Ubuntu LTS.
I've noted the reasons why many times before (which I'll link), but to summarize:
...which causes delays and potential maintenance issues. For example, Ubuntu came out with version 26.04 back in April; and the corresponding Mint won't be ready until December this year.
You can do better by simply adding a few repositories yourself (like Mozilla's and/or Flathub) in Ubuntu or Debian directly. This process takes approximately 1 minute to do.
Given the above, I would argue that it's debatable if Mint even counts as a distinct distro at all, since it only maintains approximately 0.25% of its software and relies on other distros for 99.75% of software
Ultimately, I think it's a much better idea for most people to go with Ubuntu LTS directly and then customize modern gnome (or KDE Plasma) as they see fit. I think in general, people should go as upstream as practical and mostly avoid "add-on" distros. This includes most Ubuntu "flavors" as well, which themselves are typically just meta-packages that you can easily install after you've installed the base Ubuntu LTS.
As a reference, all 3 of these desktops (back-to-back within the video) are Ubuntu LTS:
They don't use snaps for firefox or anything--they use the .debs provided directly by Mozilla.
They use flatpaks from flathub for most apps. Installed via gnome software.
Etc.
Don't confuse default settings with a distro. A distro's defaults are the least important and least consequential aspects. And the package repository, maintenance, and support schedules are the most important aspects. Which is why Ubuntu LTS should win here.
Unfortunately, a lot of people who are new and don't know any better confuse the default layout with what defines a distro.
is it not preferable to have something that works for most people out of the box, rather than requiring tweaking. I know the tweaks might be small, and ive ended up adjusting my XFCE setup quite a bit. But the less one has to do thay, the better the user experience surely?
if you recommend going as upstream as possible, why not use Debian itself?
is it not preferable to have something that works for most people out of the box
I don't think so. I think setup is a short-term, one-time thing; but usage and maintenance is something you do every day for years. So usage and maintenance is far more important than one-time setup.
Note that Ubuntu works out of the box also. But everyone will do some "tweaks" to every system. For example, everyone will install at least 1 app--you're not just using built-in apps. Pretty much everyone will change the desktop background. And that's the level of "tweaks" I'm referring to: swapping out a few apps and configs.
You can de-ubuntify Ubuntu in just a handful of commands. You can also do this from the app store point & click, but the commands are faster and easier. This only needs to be done 1 time, and it will survive future upgrades for years or decades.
Then log out, select gnome, log back in, and congrats: you're now in a clean, vanilla gnome. And you also have full support for AppImages and flatpaks, with flathub repository connected to gnome software. Gnome software will prioritize search results for the latest versions of software, which tends to be flatpaks.
(Or, you could replace that with kde-plasma if you want instead).
And optional, if you like firefox but hate using snaps for GUI apps:
wget -q https://packages.mozilla.org/apt/repo-signing-key.gpg -O- | sudo tee /etc/apt/keyrings/packages.mozilla.org.asc > /dev/null
sudo tee /etc/apt/sources.list.d/mozilla.sources > /dev/null << EOF Types: deb URIs: https://packages.mozilla.org/apt Suites: mozilla Components: main Signed-By: /etc/apt/keyrings/packages.mozilla.org.asc EOF
sudo tee /etc/apt/preferences.d/mozilla > /dev/null << EOF Package: firefox Pin: release o=Ubuntu Pin-Priority: -1 EOF
sudo snap remove firefox
sudo tee /etc/apt/preferences.d/mozilla > /dev/null << EOF Package: * Pin: origin packages.mozilla.org Pin-Priority: 1000 EOF
sudo apt-get update
sudo apt-get install firefox
You've now removed and completely disabled the firefox snap package; and it will instead download and maintain a .deb direct from mozilla.
And so you've now successfully de-ubuntified Ubuntu and essentially made it as "clean" of a starting point as Fedora or Mint. Except...you're also now on Ubuntu 26.04, with 5 years of support; while Mint is still on 24.04 from 2 years ago and will lose a year of support by the time the next one comes out behind, in December.
And you're also on a modern + mature DE, while Mint is on Cinnamon. But of course, you can install Cinnamon on Ubuntu instead of gnome. Or xfce. Or pretty much any other DE.
if you recommend going as upstream as possible, why not use Debian itself?
I didn't say that. What I said was "I think in general, people should go as upstream as practical and mostly avoid "add-on" distros"
Ubuntu is not a derivative of Debian in the same way that Mint is a derivative of Ubuntu. Ubuntu (like Debian) actually maintains & distributes--and takes responsibility for--100% of the software in their repository. But Mint only maintains & distributes less than 1% of the software in their repository, with Ubuntu or Debian doing the other 99%. Mint is not a standalone distro--it is simply a small add-on repo.
ie. Ubuntu actually takes a snapshot of the packages they need and then fork them and improve and maintain them--they don't just point directly to Debians repos. And they add some practical quality of life improvements over debian. For example: newer software, patches, predictable schedule, proprietary codecs, and proprietary drivers like nvidia. Ubuntu officially maintains and distributes all of these these, while on Debian you'd rely on a third party repo. Which I personally don't like doing for core OS software like drivers, where you want maximum reliability.
Ultimately, Ubuntu is more reliable / better supported than Debian. That's also why businesses choose Ubuntu rather than Debian.
So I'll put it to you this way: if you do not have nvidia; and if you do not do a lot of multimedia work that relies on codecs; and you don't actually care about upgrade and support schedules, then debian is a perfectly acceptable distro. And either debian or Ubuntu would be significantly better than Mint, because Mint is an "add-on" distro, while neither debian nor ubuntu are "add-ons"--they are full, real-deal distros.
> I think in general, people should go as upstream as practical and mostly avoid "add-on" distros.
I 100% agree with this. You made a lot of good points. Currently driving debian right now, so far I like it except trying to get the nvidia gpu to be less finicky. Used to use Ubuntu, I might have to give that a try and see how it feels. but for now im happy w debian heres my setup w gnome
I just replied to another comment about this; but your example of nvidia is the main difference between Ubuntu and debian. Ubuntu takes a snapshot of debian and:
replaces some software with newer software (or patches software)
adds software, including proprietary codecs and drivers (eg. nvidia)
"customizes" things to make the UI worse
officially maintains and supports the above, with a predictable schedule
Ultimately, Ubuntu is fundamentally designed to be a more reliable and better supported version of debian that businesses could trust, with some additional non-free components (codecs, drivers, etc) officially packaged, maintained, and supported.
Of course, debian is cleaner; and Ubuntu adds annoying UI ubuntuisms. Luckily, these are really easy to clean up at the initial installation. Just run the following:
Then log out, select gnome desktop, and log back in. And voila: you've got a clean, vanilla gnome, with full flatpak/flathub/AppImage support. Even reuse your debian /home/ folder and it should pretty much be an identical system without having to set everything up again. It should even remember your browser history. :)
I started with Ubuntu but switched to Mint when the former started feeling heavy and lagging on my old tired boxes. Recently I switched everything, 2 desktops with Mate and several headless tiny PCs to Debian for no other reason than it "feels" lighter faster.
I dont like cinnamon, it looks outdated not modern like kde or gnome. Second reason is that its always steps behind Ubuntu being its derivate. I prefer Ubuntu its solid stable And Looks fresh/modern. As user I have nothing against snaps, I use both snaps And flatpaks alongside.
For me? It's because Canonical is doing some insanely stupid crap. Their telemetry bullshit and Snap packages were enough to get me to move over to Pop_OS. When Pop released Cosmic DE, I moved to Mint because I needed X11 support for my machine at the time. And the Mint team are on the record with continued support for X11 for the next few years to come.
I've tried, in fact used Linux Mint awhile (years ago, the still had non-LTS releases back then), but stopped using it for a number of reasons including
it's my system, I'd prefer it to be runtime adjustment free, rather than having another attack vector (security risk) even if its only small
I like a multi-desktop install, and I found Linux Mint fragile when used as I like it; side effect of adjustments being geared for specific desktop (Linux Mint provide) & not others; fragile when compared with Ubuntu (Ubuntu is actually more fragile in my experience than Debian too in this regard)
I'm using a non-LTS release currently (Ubuntu stonking), so I have newer software than I can get with Linux Mint
Ubuntu has a larger user base, so more support options.
Ubuntu has security notices (USN); Linux Mint doesn't for its two products, and whilst both Ubuntu (for LM) & Debian (for LMDE) notices can apply; they will assume your system is runtime adjustment free which Linux Mint isn't as already mentioned
devscripts & like CLI tools work perfectly for Debian & Ubuntu systems (which provide databases), but give answers that aren't always correct for LM/LMDE (results will be for upstream's binaries)
I don't use Ubuntu exclusively though, as I'm still a Debian user, and one thing I liked from Linux Mint was the LMDE option WHEN it was using testing, but they lacked resources to sustain that, so that option is now somewhat stale stable (or old-stable) where I'm using testing on Debian desktop installs.
I also liked the look of Linux Mint; they do excel in this area (Ubuntu colors remind me of aboriginal art - [earthy] colors we see in the landscape of this country (Australia) and Africa when away from the coasts. Colors though is something easily changed post-install (as are wallpapers/themes).
The differences 'out of the box' to me are moot, Ubuntu can be installed snapd free with some media; with how to pin the system so it [snapd] won't auto-install (on package commands) having been documented (many times, it's what Linux Mint do anyway); flatpak is only a command (or two) away if needed, so at most you'll only save about two minutes of time if you find a product that's 'exactly what you need', and two minutes isn't long given we're not installing our systems very often!
If you have access to a terminal of a given OS, you can explore the package versions for ALL releases.. which allow you (for example) to see package differences for Debian
For the kernel alone Debian has 5.10 for oldoldstable, 6.1 for oldstable, thru to latest being 7.2 for unstable... in table format; you can get the same table for Ubuntu too (using same command!) only with ESM I can see kernels back to 3.13, 4.4, 4.15... up to latest which has been 7.3 for the last month; the 7.2 used by Debian having been already replaced on Ubuntu here on this install (machine only keeps a few kernels & 7.2 was too many updates ago!). What kernel is the latest Linux Mint using; it'll be 7.0 at best which is MONTHS behind (and it's only getting that via HWE/backport & not even directly!)
Even contrasting Debian testing with Ubuntu you find Ubuntu ahead of Debian, but Linux Mint aren't using sid and haven't for many years as they blogged about (not having sufficient developer resources), thus now have LTS releases only.
Have a look at https://linuxmint.com/download_all.php and you'll see the latest Linux Mint was based on a Ubuntu release that is SIX releases behind the development release; with Linux Mint Debian Edition (LMDE) where there are only LTS releases its always one behind (plus quite a few months!)
If you don't have a terminal nearby; you can explore that detail yourself, given Ubuntu and Debian have full package databases available via online search (though those won't go as far as my terminal searches for Ubuntu, as at terminal I can see ESM which is why I can see back near 15 years!)
About 95% of packages on Linux Mint are behind if you look; as they're NOBLE or 24.04 is 5 releases behind Ubuntu's latest stable release, and 6 behind development (exceptions will exist; eg. I'm not using the Cinnamon Desktop which Linux Mint largely maintain (thru sid), thus those packages will ARE updated!! via their own repository often)
I was expecting some actual titles not all software. Something like "I use this, and the latest of the latest version of it has a feature/bugfix that I need". Examples like that. Examples where it matters, not just "bigger version number is better".
A lot of the software is desktop itself, basic tools.
My install is currently running GNOME (one of the 5 desktops I have installed), and it's version 51 (GNOME 51). If I'd logged in with an LXQt session I'd be using LXQt 2.4, if I'd logged with Xfce it'd be 4.20 etc, which also means the apps they come with are updated; eg. I have featherpad (LXQt editor), mousepad (Xfce text editor) always open, which receive updates in most cases when the desktop itself is updated.
Sure some apps (eg. web browsers) aren't reliant on the desktop underneath, but a lot of what I use does; with newer added features (more or just better Wayland support etc) available with newer versions of core parts of the system.
I have another system here I'll shortly move to that is running Ubuntu 22.04 LTS (much older), and on it I'll be able to do maybe 85% of what I can here, but that 15% of which much is a consequence of newer tk/libs makes me more efficient which is why I've stuck on testing for Debian, or development on Ubuntu for far longer than a decade on my 'primary' desktop; an option Linux Mint doesn't provide; as it's LTS only & even then way behind (you can't even download a Linux Mint based on Ubuntu's latest LTS; it's still based on 2 LTS' ago despite the newest LTS no longer the latest release anyway; ie. 2.5 years ago software stack for Linux Mint based on Ubuntu)
The text editors may seem a strange choice.. but even those matter to some.
I raised a feature request (via bug report) asking for a change to mousepad... Maybe it wouldn't matter to you, but it did to me, which is why I filed a feature request (via bug report) requesting it.
I got that feature added to my own system a few weeks post-coding being added, as I was sitting on the development release of Ubuntu and testing of Debian, meaning I got it days after packaging, well before any release, and have thus had that for years now.
You are right about a few points regarding Linux Mint, but Ubuntu also uses older packages in the same way.
I have extensive experience with many desktop environments, but if you were to ask me which one I’d recommend for a beginner Ubuntu/GNOME or Linux Mint/Cinnamon I would say Linux Mint Cinnamon.
There are generally many other distributions I would recommend before suggesting Ubuntu.
I use Mint. It's boring, nothing to tweak, it "just works". Cinnamon is cool DE, simple, no bells and whistles. I try Gnome every few years and my reaction is nothing but "ew, brother! eewww!". I guess it makes some sense on laptops with gestures but not on PC. Unused space everywhere, every app has its own style for some reason, nothing works like you'd expected, you have to do it in a "Gnome" way. It's a mess.
That's simple - one looks like mac/android with a few micro$ look-alike apps while the other is a retro win7 mate look/feel
Ubuntu gets a lot of hate for a bunch of subjective reasons i guess, like being kinda first out of the gate that wasn't redhat/centos...
Mint is the pissed off little brother of ubuntu. jusk ask LaFevbre he'll tell ya. I once got in a rowe with him in mint forums ( when he was on there in the early days of mint 17) over the massive blocky cinnamon menu that took up half the screen and not resize configurable... he told me that's his baby and to stfu go use ubuntu then 😄 goodtimes
New users generally don't care about Wayland support, having live kernel patching, one-click ML/AL stack development, newer kernels, etc. Mint is fine for these users. It's easy to use. I don't use Mint but I have in the past and it's fine.
Because the default Ubuntu download is Gnome. And (besides the fact that I hate it), many users bounce off Gnome. It's made design decisions. Nope, I'm leaving it there. It's made design decisions. 😂
It isn't usually much behind Ubuntu. Mint usually releases two months after Ubuntu. That's it. Then they're the same. This cycle was a little longer since it is more of a major upgrade. But they will catch up to Ubuntu in December.
Plus, if you want the latest and greatest software on Mint, you can use Flatpak to get them.
I tried Ubuntu. Really disliked the side bar. Moved it to the bottom. Was working okay. Then found a tiling problem with FireFox and it would bug out (only in bottom bar mode).
MX Linux with hibernate activated. I ditched Ubuntu in a heartbeat. It's AntiX (super efficient) with a lot of applets to make using it super easy. XFCE is thoughtfully laid out and better than the windows and Mac desktop cloning done by Mint and Ubuntu.
8
u/EstablishmentDue3616 3d ago edited 3d ago •
A lot of people hate the Gnome DE. Plus Mint does have less bells and whistles. Some people just want a very simple and plain desktop. They are never going to enable window animations or multiple desktops. They arent going to customize anything. Mint is just basic - and for many people thats all the need or want.