Wow Roy. I usually respect your posts, but this one is so far
off base I cannot let it go. Hopefully, you were just having a
bad day.
--- In LINUX_Newbies@yahoogroups.com, Roy <linuxcanuck@...> wrote:
>
> Mint is Ubuntu late because it comes out one month after Ubuntu.
Uh, isn't the fact that Mint is built on Ubuntu pretty much going
to force Mint to come after Ubuntu? I run both Ubuntu and Mint
and to describe Mint as a follower just because it is based on
Ubuntu and therefore comes out a month later is just wrong.
> It is just
> one step to install the codecs and not an impediment to a new user. Even
> Windows does not provide all of the codecs that you need.
>
> Ubuntu is a leader. Mint is a follower. You can choose what you want to run,
> but should know what is what.
So Ubuntu is a follower also since it is built on Debian? The
logic does not hold in either case. Ubuntu is just based on Debian.
It is not a follower because of it. Same with Mint.
By the way, I have heard people state that Ubuntu moved the
windows buttons to emulate a Mac. I personally do not believe that
but if there is any truth to that, Ubuntu would be a follower.
> Mint sees what Ubuntu is not doing and reacts
> to that. Ubuntu looks forward and tries to innovate. When Ubuntu switched
> window buttons to the left it was no surprise that Mint stayed on the right.
> No surprise there.
And this is the comment that made me write. Mint's desktop has
nothing whatever to do with what Ubuntu is doing. The Mint desktop
is the same regardless of what Ubuntu is doing. The Mint desktop
is developed totally independently and is added to the Ubuntu
base after Ubuntu comes out and the Ubuntu desktop is ripped out.
If you look at Mint 6-9 you will note that the menu and desktop
have not changed dramatically but LOOK NOTHING LIKE the versions
of Ubuntu that were the basis.
>
> I do not wish to malign Mint
Sure you do and it is obvious. You just need to say so.
> but it is not all that it is cracked up to be.
In your opinion. I have no idea why Mint ticks you off, but it does
and it is obvious.
> Most people are lazy and Mint exploits that.
OK, I guess I am lazy then. Or maybe I prefer a desktop that works
beautifully. I will let you decide.
> Ubuntu's stance on non-free
> codecs and drivers is based on principle.
No offense but it is totally disingenuous to on one hand say that
the codes are one click away and to say that not having them is
principal. Principal would be that you don't allow it to be
installed.
> They could provide them but they
> make the user accept responsibility for them based on their personal
> principles and their country's laws. Mint does not appear to have any
> principles to stand on except to capitalise on the laziness of users and
> users who extol this are missing the point. You may be flaunting the law by
> using non-free codecs depending if your country such as the US recognises
> software patents. This is why Ubuntu walks the fence. I have nothing against
> Mint but Ubuntu should not be penalised for taking a principled stand and
> Mint should not be given a free ride.
Again, see my comment on disingenuous. Do you mean that every
person who installs the codecs on Ubuntu fully understands the
legal and ethical choice they are making? Bullsh*t. The user
decides they want their stuff to work, find out how, and install
it.
> I look forward to Mint being
> innovative and doing something new and worth bragging about. Anybody can
> copy someone else's work and change the branding and then flaunt the law.
> The only things that someone may want Mint for that you cannot do in Ubuntu
> IMO is the Domain Blocker and Backup Tool and I have no use for either. So I
> take a pass on Mint and stick with Ubuntu.
>
Nothing wrong with sticking with Ubuntu. But being so biased when
having obviously never done any deep research just sounds petty.
Have you seen the software manager in Mint 9? To say it is far
superior to any other software manager is not doing it justice.
I am a die hard Synaptic user and the value of this tool won me
over.
How about the menu? More intuitive? Check. Can modify it in
place? Check. Easier to navigate than tying to remember "what
top level menu do I use to start?" Check. Remember I have been
using Ubuntu for a year and a half. CentOS about that long. I
don't throw this out lightly.
What about the backup tool? Completely redone for version 9. BTW,
what were they following Ubuntu on there?
New for version 9 desktop settings tool? Mint has that. It is
a big improvement on old versions in Mint. Following Ubuntu there?
Not at all.
> I would recommend SimplyMEPIS (Debian based with KDE), PCLinuxOS (unless you
> want 64-bit), Ubuntu and Mint. Notice that I recommend Mint, but I do not
> give it credit for things that it does not deserve credit for. With Ubuntu
> installing the restricted extras is easy and simply done and with it you are
> joining the largest community and it is a leader in the Linux world. With
> Mint you get Ubuntu a month later with some things thrown in, some of value
> and some not. It is not a leader, but reactionary. They follow Ubuntu or
> take an even more conservative approach and stick with the status quo.
Well, I pretty much stomped on this assertion. No need to keep
piling it on. Ubuntu is a wonderful distro. I use it myself
and if people prefer it, I have no problem. However DO A LITTLE
RESEARCH on Mint before the slams. Don't just spit out baseless
opinion.
>
> <snip>
>
> If you think that I am being hard on Mint then think carefully about the
> principles involved and why Ubuntu does things its way. Usability is its
> main focus.
You mean like moving the minimize/maximize/close buttons to the
left for no apparent reason?
> But that usability should not be at the expense of the rights of
> others. It is a trade off and Ubuntu recognises that and makes the drivers
> and codecs available, but it forces the user to agree to the EULAs and
> accept responsibility. <snip>
Uh, you could download the Mint version without the codecs, but
I am sure you knew that having done so much research. Come on Roy,
you normally do better than this. Where did this blind bias come
from? As far is EULAs? 95 to 99% of people never read them. So
you can say the people agree with them, but in reality, they just
click <Agree> because not to do so means they don't get what they
want.
>
> Roy
> <snip>
Just know Roy that tomorrow I will be back with you. Your posts
are normally very good and very well informed which is why I so
shook my head on this one.
Loyal
No comments:
Post a Comment