Yes, but I don't see how that's the fault of a rolling release model.

They may not be for everybody, but they are extremely good for certain needs: I need to be on the cutting edge with most of my development tools for work, so rolling release is a must in that case. Plus, I hate the huge updates to other distros every 4/6 months, in my experience those tend to break things much more frequently than a rolling update you perform every day. It's been 6+ years since I had to reinstall my main Arch and Debian Testing boxes, and that alone makes me a very, very happy man.

make sure you have apt-listchanges installed :) Reason why I departed from testing is huge breakage in kde between plasma and kwin, which did not stabilize for several weeks. Even libpng update in Gentoo was less damaging :)

/ nothing about rolling model or arch by that

And that's why Linux is not reliable.
There is no one who decides the important things. Too many people decide and everyone thinks to himself. I personally liked the Canonical's efforts in trying to establish itself permanently. At least they try to be a true alternative to windows for everyone.
Linux "big" need to do a conference and vote for an official distro and an official DE. Or the next Linux distro on desktop will be Android.
Sure lots of things are better now then in the past... but there are still lots of things to do to get a complete alternative to windows for everybody (again, not for me. for my mother, for my friends etc...).
I know how many step ahead they have done, but it's not enough.

And that's why I don't think Linux will be a true alternative to OS like Windows, Mac, Android, iOS, Windows Phone.
Linux Mint is not something like a MOD in Android.. it is not a way to change something power user don't like the the stock OS.
Distros become "competitive" with each other but no distro is really better than the others in every way.
And if a user want to try Linux he/she need to understand what to install and a simple user will receive lots of recommendations different for each user.
A simple user don't know what distro is better for him/her. A simple user need a simple answer.

For who don't depend upon Canonical is a plus?
It is really important to depend on someone?
For the normal user, is not it a plus to count on a professional organization?

We both know power user (like me and you) don't need any standard... If there is a limit we will try to find a workaround.
A normal user don't want to do that. He/she want a out-of-the-box ready-to-use system that don't need anything to work more or less well.

You are right consumers are lazy, but this is not something bad. I'm lazy if you ask me about cars... I don't want to know how an engine works... I just want to use a car when I need to.

And Windows 10 is not bad at all so if Linux want to establish itself, the open source community need to work to create a good, easy to use, ready out of the box OS, just like Windows.

Why there are many user that change the default browser to Chrome or Firefox? Because there are as easy to use as Internet explorer and they offer something that Internet explorer don't offer.
Linux is not as easy to use as Windows (not even to try it since you need to choose between a bunch of distros), and it does not offer the some experience.

That's why even people like me (that know how to use linux) usually don't use only linux as system.
While, there are lots of people that use Mac os without even install windows on dual boot (and there is an official supported and easy to use way to install windows on a mac called bootcamp).

I think Linux Mint is not enough professional to represent Linux, just compare:
http://www.ubuntu-it.org/ (this is a professional site)
to
https://linuxmint.com/ (this is a fanmade site)

The customisability is one of its strongest features; it allows it to be set up to perfectly suit its intended purpose. As for the standard distro, as I've already said, it's pretty clear that the de-facto "standard" general desktop distro is Ubuntu and its derivatives.

Valve/Steam? Supports Ubuntu
GOG? Ubuntu
Engine developers? Ubuntu
Game developers? Ubuntu
Majority of gamers/general users? Ubuntu
Linux distro preinstalled on the majority of the few prebuilt systems that don't include Windows? Ubuntu

There's nobody that can officially rubber-stamp it as such, but based on the users and support that it has it's obvious that the Ubuntu family is effectively the "standard distro". At least when it comes to gaming/general desktop use.

Also nothing else but Windows being taught in schools, network effect, lock-in, and more.

Children in third world countries that have been given cheap Linux systems have had no trouble learning how to use it, and even how to modify it

you don't need to convince me. For me Linux as easy as any software/modern OS out there.
You need to convince user that try to install linux but decide to buy a new license for windows.
Yes Windows is in advantage incorrectly, but that's also true for OS like mac... Still if a user decide to go back to windows from linux usually is because there was a problem... if a user decide to go back to windows after a mac is because there are no money to buy another expensive mac.
And there was also my previous example of Internet Explorer (preinstalled but used by few people) and Chrome and Firefox (both open source used by many people).

The first step to improve linux is to admit its faults.

You are right, use Linux is easy. But if there is a problem of any kind usually the GUI answer is different from distro to distro (because there are different DE). So usually power user suggest to use a command line fix... a bash script... or something universal like that.
But this is a bad thing because the user don't understand what he/she is doing.
Use Linux is easy but there is always something missing, something not supported...
Use Linux is easy, but before use it you also need to choose a distro, because linux alone is just a kernel.

It's true that use linux is easy, but since windows is easy and pre-installed, and if there is a problem there is always a way to fix it in the GUI, and there is only one windows (yes there are different version, but windows pro is not that different from windows home), and, if a user decide to use linux, still don't get access to all the applications, so why switch to linux at all if you are a normal user?

if I put linux to my parents computer they will call me evey minutes to "fix" something, and sometimes there is a real problem to fix (something like "I cannot connect. The wireless card is not recognized by the system") and they ask me to put windows again... if I put windows they call me once in a while to "fix" something that is not a problem (something like "how can I attach a jpg to a mail?").
If I do the same thing with a mac... big shock, there is no real problem or "where is windows?". Just the usual after few days of acclimatization.

Maybe I was not clear:
I love and use linux. I just think there are many ways to improve it.
Sure I don't hate windows or mac... but I hope this is not the reason why my arguments are considered wrong

The Ubuntu family lays its focus on reliability, stability and user-friendliness. It's what makes it the most commonly recommended distribution family for newcomers and those who don't tinker with their system.
While Windows doesn't allow you to configure your system extensively, the Ubuntu family willingly sacrifices this Linux advantage for other things. Ubuntu and friends still are very configurable, in fact you can do almost anything with them, but that's not what they're for.
Arch Linux and stuff like that just have completely different goals.

A developer or company like Steam and GOG.com need their supported systems to be stable to support them.

There are literally hundreds of different distributions out there, something for everyone, but one has to be "king" for things like Steam support to exist.

And I don't want to kill it. I just think this is a feature for power user. Normal user need a not-costumable and stable base.

Another Ubuntu-based distribution I like is Zorin : https://zorinos.com/
Latest version (Zorin 12, with long time support up to 2021) has been released 2 months ago with Core and Ultimate versions. Educational, Business and Lite versions are on the way.

I would simply suggest to get rid of some graphic effects in parameters if you have an old computer and to replace Chrome by Firefox or Midori as web browser.

They totally hosed it with "Debian Edition". It offers no advantages and all the disadvantages of Debian. Solyd did proper job. When they decided to semi-roll with own repo, it all ended.

Means support is LMDE-only, Debian channels would refuse. Packages would lag behind. No extra software. For codecs, Debian already has it all (libav, ffmpeg-extra, libdvd-pkg). Totally hosed. :)

No, Mint only depends upon Ubuntu's packages. But majority of Ubuntu packages are just taken from Debian recipes and recompiled for Ubuntu.

So with Mint its layered like this: (Mint (Ubuntu (Debian)))
Mint can easily be done from scratch, but it'll need a lot of server space host and a build farm to build for no big reason. They could go like Arch or its derivates, or Gentoo and its. But there is no reason for this.


Ok, so then lets make Ubuntu default and burn all other binary distros. Whats the profit?

If you have the bug, you filter it via disto's channels and then send upstream anyways. No duplication here.
Like Adamhm said, we all depend on same upstream projects: Linux, Xorg, (Wayland sometime?), glibc/gcc, Freedesktop standartization, DRI/mesa (applies to nvidia too), ffmpeg/mplayer, one of shells, one of init engines, one of audio subsystems, a fistful of other libraries (libjpeg, libpng, libopenssl etc) - and sdl or allegro unifying all. Its same codebase, non-embedded-use distros are flexible in adding or supporting stuff.

As of availability of distros themselves, they all have different attributes. Depending on user goals, these attributes can change significantly. For example, a distro to automate apartment is different from gamer distro. A distro to specify software and versions explicitly is different from distro to learn and develop current software stack. If some distro is identical to another in everything, then it will loose in userbase or devbase.

Once you know your priorities and criteria, the amount of distros becomes quite scarce.


Yes and no. Ideally distro should be completely independent and driven by interested organisations (in form of non-commercial entity too) instead of one commercial entity. Like Debian and Arch, compared to RH or Ubuntu.

This is because their decisions are then based on best interests of users and distro philosophy instead of commercial interests. Company can really stirr something and its users will have to suck it up. It can build a closed garden (like Ubuntu app store).

Amount of software is very important for user, but if distro is a "MOD" or respin of base distro this becomes irrelevant.

Oh, I need a standard! I became lazy and want to dedicate my current time somewhere else, hence I went a swift route from Gentoo to Debian and now to LMDE with its lazy "apt" :) Why not Ubuntu? Because of Canonical and because extra software never hurts :)

Perhaps at some time later I will be exploring Exherbo or join Calculate.. Its just right now I don't want to generate heat for no real benefit :) See, - criterias, priorities :)


Just to make it clear.. are you on planet Earth right now, and the year is 2017 right?
Because, WOOHOOOOO :)

But if you don't need your car keys, voice samples, bank accounts and WLAN pass, you share them with general public without Windows 10, you know :))) You don't need computer hardware for that, just a plastic bag :)

The "WOOHOOO" precisely decribes my experience installing *it* in a VM, cause my wife needed it for training. It was remarkable experience :) And I still find Win 3.1 sexy =)

I hope I am allowed to remove "Windows" reference from your post. Then its fine. We build something sweet, me likes it. I am happy when software and games I purchase work in Linux. I have cyanogen and Linux for my tasks here and at work, they suffice really :)

Slowly the dreaded Ribbon interface tries to make it through LibreOffice, but I like how they solved it - having different interfaces. So if I hate Ribbon and you, for example, love Ribbon, we can both use LO.

Yeah, I love when there is no single answer! :)

Well, I changed Firefox for Chrome, when Firefox started to leak RAM like crazy at some time.
On that day, I hated that I had Ubuntu installed instead of Gentoo. Yeah, I know one can compile it from source and auto-package, just back then I wasn't giving it a thought.

But then Chrome started to crunch through RAM and Firefox got fixed.
Perhaps some like Chrome more - because of whatever, I like Firefox more because its not google and because of plugins. Go ahead start a new thread with a poll, this is a good topic.

Well, I don't know why you don't use Linux as only system, I use it as only system. But you could have different background or goals, which makes use of Linux sometimes disadvantageous. Its fully ok not to use Linux, sure.

Well, those are websites, not OSes. I don't use website, but the OS. :) But LM website has a forum and there is IRC and bugtracker. Its enough to make everyone happy. :)

Sure, you can put a LM label on the rocket and send it to space, or write a book of "Zen of Mint". But I use OS, not rocket-ads or lifestyle-ads. :) Leave it to Windows, it has helped it a lot so far (lol) :)

Wait, what? The solution all along was RTFM? :D

You have, however, described a user with a minimum of knowledge and passion for informatics and computer science.
If we talk about a simple user we need to reason as if nothing had granted.
So we:
- need a general purpose distro (simple user don't know what they want to do with a computer... if you ask them they say something like "I want to go to google, send mail, and watch videos" .. things that you can do on any modern os... and you don't even need a computer).
- don't need to burn distro... just decide what is base and what is "DLC" (XD).
- need a good site, because the user need to understand where to find support and where and what he/she need to download.

I don't have prejudices, I use any OS to be able to choose what to use. Right now I think Windows is not a bad OS compared to Linux and Mac. About the privacy problems of W10 I think there is something you need to read: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conspiracy_theory
Sure there are some privacy problems but I think most users have a facebook or a google account... and they are much worst.
The main reason why I don't use Linux as only system is that I find the update system of any linux distro a mess. Incompatible packages, removed libraries can be really annoing.
The other reason is that I prefer to use multiple OS (even when I don't need multiple OS), I like to change, and I think there are some positive thing in any OS.

Doh!

Ubuntu!

Wait, I dislike gtk3..... Kubuntu!

No, I am not everyone... Ubuntu MATE!

Or Linux Mint.. sometimes? :)


You can pin a package. Also, apt distinguishes between auto-installed and manually installed.
Its when it finds a modified system config on upgrade, it may request 3-way merge (99,999% of time its not happening). But answering Y there (overwrite with upstream version) is good there - been default on windows since ages. Because fsck user config data, thats because :)

No, but if you want you can find or port a 4-way cfg merger... and learn to use it (who does that? so fsck user config data :) )

You might be interested in Cytrix, if you want to work with all your oses... at same time. :)

I already use virtual box and vmware.