Because switching from Windows can be intimidating and Mint is the literal opposite of intimidating. It's boring, simple, and clean, thus the perfect stepping stone. At least, it was for me and quite a few others I know. I still install Mint first on new hardware
Warning, this is my opinion:
No, a distro with a modified depricated non-upstream window manager is not a good introduction to Linux.
I am looking at you Cinnamon. Cinnamon is for Linux users who don't want to use Gnome 3 or KDE Plasma, I think.
I always recommend Fedora to newbs and Debian to newbs with existing Linux knowledge, because all the desktops are as close to upstream as possible. This is why I cannot recommend Ubuntu or any Ubuntu based distro for the desktop. ubuntu-server can ve good enough on servers only.
Cinnamon is the reason I don't recommend Mint to people, but it's mainly because I don't like it. The default UI has so much wasted space it's revolting, they tried to get the windows XP/7 feel with the app launcher and ended up with blocky, boring blank space.
Unless someone is familiar with MacOS and wants to use something similar w/ GNOME, I've only been recommending KDE spins or distros with it as default.
I've been using Linux for more than 20 years. I've started with Ubuntu, then I've used Arch for a long time, then back to Kubuntu, then... I've recently switched to Mint.
I need to do work and not worry about anything: Mint is super clean, fast, with old school GNOME vibes (GNOME 3 is utter shit).
Would you say Linux Mint is ... refreshing?
I don't get why everyone and their mother has to shit on Mint. I started my Linux journey on servers, but my first home computing distro was Ubuntu 16. It wasn't what I needed so I stuck with Windows 10. After migrating my homelab server to Almalinux 9 and realizing how much better life could be if I just purged Microsoft from my household, I installed Linux Mint on my laptop and have used it ever since. If I had any less of a warm welcome into Linux for home computing, I might have just stuck with Windows 10.
I consider myself somewhere between a layperson and a power user. I'm pretty comfortable with BASH since I work with servers a lot, but low-level stuff is still black magic to me. I'm aware that KDE Plasma has a ton of cool bells and whistles (I use Nobara on my gaming rig), but other than KDE connect for sharing clipboard, I don't really need any of that fancy stuff on my laptop. And I think the typical layperson probably won't even set them up in the first place.
I think Mint gets shit on because it's based on Ubuntu (which already gets shit on a lot) and only gets a new release when the Ubuntu LTS does, so it's kinda out of date.
Rolling release distros get recommended over it a lot because having a newer kernel gets you better gaming performance and a lot of the techy people who'd even care about switching, also like gaming. And nowadays, immutable distros get recommended a lot so you can't fuck things up with a weird config change. Mint just doesn't do anything significantly better than any other distro, it's lukewarm.
I don't think the desktop environment actually has much to do with why people dislike Mint. It's just fine IMO. I'll take it over Ubuntu, but these days I'm on OpenSuse Tumbleweed. Rolling release, and comes with snapshots configured straight out of the box so when I fuck something up, it's fairly quick do undo.
If there's one thing the majority of people that are still on windows won't care about is "being as up to date as possible". Hell, even people on android phones complain about updates, "they changed everything, I have no idea where is what!"
Mint being based on a LTS that lasts a while is a desired feature for a lot of people, the kind that don't follow tech news and don't want to bother understanding computers.
The people who don't want any change aren't going to move to Linux anyway. I meant more the people who stayed this long for games, but are now giving up.
But also these updates very rarely change the UI significantly in most applications and desktop environments. It's more bug fixes and performance improvements that you're missing out on by being on Mint.
I'm on TumbleWeed and I don't remember the last time the UI for my desktop or any application I use, had a significant change. But I'm always on a new kernel and new graphics drivers, which makes playing newish games using Proton a smoother experience.
The vast majority of users don't need "more meat" in their OS. They need stability. Linux Mint works great on that front, I don't see the need to loose focus with multiple new distros. Not everyone needs to jump distro every month.
Disclaimer: i've been using Linux Mint for over 10 years without ever hopping to something else. And I'm a software engineer, not a casual user.
As long as people are moving away from Windows and Mac, who cares? You're never gonna convince most people that their OS should be interesting and worth talking about. Take the W.
As long as people are moving away from Windows and Mac
If people don't like it or Linux Mint doesn't meet their needs, they will go back to Windows or switch to MacOS. The article points out that there may be better stepping stone distros these days
I guess I had a kneejerk, a lot of times when someone starts up like this it always feels like a veiled "people don't like my favourite one" type of thing. He's pretty even handed and nuanced beyond that, credit where credit is due.
I strongly dislike how the zone is getting flooded with "now it's not X, but Y" in terms of distro recommendations.
Not knowing what a distro is and where to start is one of the main issues with people who may want to switch to Linux but don't know how to do it. If Mint getting called out as a good place to start allows them to switch, then they should install Mint. If Ubuntu is all they have heard of, and it makes them try the switch, then they should install Ubuntu. Tbh, the only really dangerous approach is starting with something like Arch which, despite fantastic documentation, is probably more likely to turn new users away.
Don't let perfection be the enemy of progress. Someone who starts from either Mint or Ubuntu or whatever can distro hop later. Let's not muddy the waters even more for our would-be Windows refugees.
Install the distro your Linux using friends use.
Install the distro with the coolest default wallpapers.
Ubuntu circa 2008 it is, then.
Hannah Montana Linux it is then.
Default? I think the first thing I did once I settled down with my current setup was find a background of my own liking, not something curated. And it's all mine; no one else has it.
For those that care, all zero of you, it's a bunch of frames from a cool star field animation, timed to rotate to the next every few seconds or so. Because I could not find anything that would simply play a video as a background, I made something that worked. If that's not Linux level, I don't know what is.
Thank you! I switched to Linux last year after a few years of flirting with the idea. My main work computer is a 2011 iMac and I got really tired of not being able to run some things and the whole planned obsolescence aspect despite the hardware being perfectly serviceable. So, I went and, I kid you not, borrowed Linux For Dummies from the local library. Prior to this I had no idea what a shell was or even a “distro”. And, honestly, the For Dummies book over complicated Linux a bit. It front-loaded everything and made it way more intimidating than it needed to be (and I’ve been using computers since DOS days and built a PC back in 2000). Which I feel like a lot of Linux guys do as well.
Realized that Linux was lots of things and felt a pull toward Ubuntu, I installed it on the iMac and was instantly in love. After a few months, though, Canonical started pulling some nonsense and making changes to my system with updates like they were Apple. So I hopped over to Mint as I kept reading about how great it was and how “it just works” (a sentiment that brought me to Apple back in 2005). Now I stick Mint on everything. I kind of want to distro hop for the fun of it, but I’ve tested a few on distrosea and haven’t really found anything that draws me away from Mint. Yeah, I’m a bit of a normie. But normies deserve better OSes too!
Totally. Linux is (in part) about choice. If you like Mint, use Mint.
I've been a Linux user for 5+ years and played with a bunch of different distros. I have Arch (btw) on a laptop that I don't have to depend on. But my gaming rig is still running Pop. Why? Because I like it and it's stable. A bonus that it's now bundled with Cosmic, because I like Cosmic too.
But at the end of the day, it's true that you can kind of do anything with any distro. The package manager is one obvious difference. I do like Pacman (from Arch) more than apt on Debian derivatives, but like, it's just a package manager. Not worth changing a comfortable system over.
Don't listen to people who say you can't run a "beginner distro" until the end of time. If you like it, you like it.
If the majority of Linux users had your mentality, we would have passed "the year of Linux" a decade ago.
I think the problem here generally stems from the view that a system which is explicitly not Windows should be suitable for "Windows refugees". (Haiku would come to mind sooner than Linux, but I don't want to open that can of worms here.)
Mint isn't "like Windows", not even Zorin is "like Windows". No operating system (except perhaps ReactOS) that isn't Windows aims to provide a good sanctuary for "Windows refugees". The expectation that a Linux distribution must be "suitable for Windows users" will lead to many more disappointments.
Bill Joy (google him if necessary) once said (quite rightly):
What was the goal of the Linux community--to replace Windows? One can imagine higher aspirations.
Take Linux for what it wants to be (a free implementation of parts of V7 UNIX for reasonably modern systems), and you'll immediately be less disappointed.
(Disclosure: As far as Linux is concerned, I currently only use Gentoo myself—not because it's great for Windows users, but because it's a great Linux distribution.)
A distro for Windows refugees isn't an exact copy of Windows. They can stay on Windows for that.
It is the Linux flavour that is the easiest to use after working with Windows your entire life. It should have all the advantages a Linux system brings, but have the same type of logic how UI is organized as Windows, and offer the same advantages.
Like out-of the box drivers that work on every hardware. A setup with easy to understand questions that aren't technical. A file system with similar structure. A GUI setting menu where the most used settings can be changed without opening a command window. ...
I always hate it when people seem to try making the decisions for others based on what they use.
It was bad enough when Ubuntu was losing faith with people because of its poor decision making, now we got you here saying Linux Mint is not the answer?
Confusing people on an already confusing mess on which distro to choose when leaving windows is not how you win favorability with linux. Mint is the choice because it is not pitching freshly disgruntled Windows users into steep learning curves from the get-go. If you push them into something like Arch, you're going to have people both pissed at Arch and at you for making their experience miserable.
Mint is the one I've used the longest and for some reason keep coming back to, so its still my jam, even if its a little basic.
If it works and doesn't cause any friction, I see no reason to not use it.
Mint on my game PC and Debian on my laptop.
Much as I love KDE's beautiful themes, Mint is just... easy. I've spent so many years hunting dependencies like lost scrolls in ancient tombs and beseeching ancient wizards of the right incantation to fix my Bluetooth that I just quit. As soon as it stopped being broken, I stopped trying to fix it. Mint hasn't broken on me. Everything works exactly as intended, right out of the box, with few exceptions.
I have been dreaming of this day for ten fucking years. For now? Hon, I am good. I'm not having to spend hours digging for old posts on AskUbuntu or some other forum for the solution to errors no one else has had since Obama's era.
Are there actual computer scientists with some hard evidence what works when switching OS? Because this article is just making stuff up to say anything, ie filler content/debate.
I've used Mint, popOS, and some others. I always recommend new people use the desktop version of Bazzite now.
It's super newbie friendly. So much stuff is installed and set up for you that the average person won't even need to touch command line. Also, the Bazaar has pretty much anything someone would need for day to day stuff.
Obviously, if you are the type of person to make serious changes at the OS level then it's not great for that, but most people just need something to browse the internet, play some games, and maybe do some word docs and stuff.
As someone considering Win to Mint, why do people keep saying it's basic? What would I be missing? I need the computer for playing games, some hobby media work, internet.
You're not missing anything. Mint is perfectly good for the vast majority of users.
Linux distros are a bit like vehicles. For most people, a Honda Civic or Toyota Corolla will do everything they need. But if you go onto forums of car-enthusiasts, you can probably find thousands of voices that say those vehicles have such low horsepower, or they're not perfectly streamlined, or arguing about the buttons on the seat belts. Things that the average user doesn't care much about.
I started 20 years ago with Slackware, tried out FreeBSD, and a number of others. I switched to Mint as a daily driver years ago. These days I found what I like (CachyOS), but I'm fairly knowledgable and quite comfortable on the command line, which is definitely not the case for most newer folks.
Mint is a great distro. When I put it on my wife's laptop, literally everything worked right away. Have fun!
It's not that people generally say "basic" ... they say "boring". It's designed to just work and be stable with some nice features but it has a slower release speed and the dev, intentionally, keeps things slow so that they can polish up all the features before they go mainstream on it. So it isn't doing anything revolutionary and it isn't giving you bleeding edge everything... it's just nice and stable. It's become one of top recommended distros for a reason.
The main hiccups I see with it is that they are lagging behind on Wayland support... which is slowly becoming the defacto standard for desktop display tech. If you aren't really up on the x11 vs wayland debate... this likely isn't even an issue for you. Suffice to say they've tried to hang back on x11 for a while, which is the older but much more thoroughly tested way of doing the user space display. Secondly would be... because it's a slow burn on updates, you might not get the latest greatest updates for the kernel with the display drivers. So for gaming that could make things a little more finicky. People do use it for gaming... so don't think it can't be also used for that, just might run into hiccups.
Good thing is you can test it out, and if it doesn't work out, try something else.
Dude, "boring" is what I want from an OS. No surprises. No sudden changes. I'm 40.
Exactly. Like I said... it's a top recommendation for a reason. There's still tons of bleeding edge stuff to play with... but Mint has really nailed down "here... this will install painlessly, and your laptop is going to work fine".
Then I especially recommend Linux Mint LMDE edition. It's built on Debian, which is known for its stability, instead of on the flashier Debian-derived Ubuntu.
Not much. Mint generally works very well. It's not bleeding-edge fresh and is based on Ubuntu. I don't think it would cause you to be unable to do any of your use cases any more than any other Linux distro - like the kernel level anti-cheat thing for games, or Adobe Creative Suite products. Doesn't matter which distro you run, those things ain't gonna work.
I was the same as many others here, started my journey on Mint. I eventually moved to Fedora because I like KDE and wanted quicker package updates and stuff.
Mint is fine, there's nothing to worry. Complaining about linux distros is just a long tradition in the community, you will get used to it
I switched to mint for a few months to have the same thing I recommended my friend, I decided to switch again to something i consider bdtter for me.
There's nothing wrong with mint, at most you're missing a thing or two that are part of other base distros that you can add on your own, it's preference, that's all
Technically there can be some performance gains on a different distro but then you have to do tinkering and stuff. If I had to keep maining mint I wouldn't mind at all (and some things are way easier and painless).
One thing: browsers have had some issues in every distro I tried other than cachyos, nothing major but a bit of frame drops here and there
See, I've been looking back at my still-new Linux experience of nine months, and wondering how my own journey can help other people get started with FOSS operating systems.
An expert opinion, fantastic. 🍿
why not just skip the middleman
Because many people take for granted their advanced understanding of Unix systems that allows them to get into the "meat".
If you're the type of person that is excited by a terminal display and prepared to read a whole pile of documentation, then sure--go straight to Arch, or Alpine if you're insane. But most people want something that's familiar, easy to set up, and will never force you to open a terminal. That's Mint (plus a number of other beginner-friendly distros). And most average people are perfectly happy to stay there. And that's perfectly fine.
I've seen a similar thesis in video form yesterday, I feel like in both cases the author forgot the fear they had before making the choice and think that sidestepping the solution to that part is no biggie.
But we're talking about people who are afraid of a black box where you type text, they need as little friction as possible.
Hindsight is 20/20
XDA, experts on not being the answer for OS refugees anymore.
I think it really depends on the type of refugee we're talking about here.
If they're interested in tinkering, the starting point doesn't really matter that much. Just let the refugee know that distrohopping is allowed. If you hear that some new distro has an awesome feature, give it a go.
If we're talking about a person who hates tinkering and tweaking, the first distro suddenly begins to matter a lot more. That's the distro they will be stuck with for several years, so Mint is definitely a solid option. Actually, most distributions that are Debian or Ubuntu based should be fine.
It's all linux. I distro hopped because I heared another distro handles the problem I'm facing much better than the current one.
I haven't had problems in years - or I simply don't care anymore. I've got my base system and I don't fuck around anymore. It works like a charm.
I would recommend Linux Mint because, first, it's the one everyone says, and second, it was the Linux OS that I started with, fresh off Windows.
Both are bad reasons to pick a distro to recommend. Better reasons would be
why not just skip the middleman and get right into the distros that have a bit more meat on them?
Because a middleman distro is practically unavoidable.
You don't know the best distro for someone else; and if the person is a newbie, odds are they don't know it for themself either. So the odds the person will eventually ditch that distro you recommended and stick with something else are fairly large.
Cinnamon vs. KDE Plasma
I have both installed although I practically only use Cinnamon (due to personal tastes; I do think Plasma is great). It's by no ways as finicky as the author claims it to be.
Plasma is more customisable than Cinnamon indeed, but remember what I said about you not knowing the best distro for someone else? Well, you don't know the best DE either. You should rec something simple that'll offer them an easy start, already expecting them to ditch it later on.
So, why don't I just recommend Linux Mint with KDE Plasma? Well, the cool thing about abandoning Cinnamon and embracing KDE Plasma is that it unlocks a ton of distros we can pick from.
That's circular reasoning: you should ditch Mint because of Cinnamon, and you should ditch Cinnamon because it allows you to ditch Mint.
Bazzite, Novara, CachyOS
Or you can install all those gaming features in any other distro of your choice.
Isn't he actually talking about the DE and not that much about the distro?
It's a realization that will be made eventually.
I watched a few "jumping to Linux" videos from IIRC, Switch and Click, and the host eventually realized she could have tried different DEs instead of distro jumping instead.
A community for everything relating to the GNU/Linux operating system (except the memes!)
Also, check out:
Original icon base courtesy of lewing@isc.tamu.edu and The GIMP