Could Linux Mint Replace Ubuntu?

This is completely not true. For a newcomer Linux Mint is probably the BEST way forward especially if you have come from Windows.

I agree with you. It's actually one of the better choices for a newcomer, and the changes from Ubuntu are designed to make it a more user friendly experience.

> I agree with you. It's actually one of the better choices for a newcomer,

I'll second that agreement.

I generally like Matt's stuff but my experience of Linux Mint is completely different to his.

First of all I don't get all the fanfare for Arch. I appreciate that for some people it may seem like the bee's knees but for the average user it requires too much maintenance and too much reading.

I like Ubuntu. I like Unity. I recently watched Brian Lunduke's 2016 version of Linux Sucks and as usual it was very amusing and he loves to have a dig at Ubuntu and Unity but I like the Dash and the keyboard shortcuts. For me it is fine. The big let down with Ubuntu is the software centre which they are getting rid of anyway.

What I don't agree with is that Linux Mint shouldn't be used by beginners on a laptop. I think it is the perfect distro for a laptop. I have never had touchpad issues. I agree that some of the applets are hit and miss but has anybody tried the KDE plasma widgets? They truly are shocking. By comparison Cinnamon's work very well.

For familiarity's sake Windows users might find Linux Mint a much better distribution that Ubuntu.

Interestingly, it is often said that Linux Mint, Zorin and other similar distributions will be more familiar to Windows users but there are a whole generation of people now growing up whose first experience with Windows is Windows 8 and above. Therefore the old menu and panel interface might not be that familiar to them after all.

Yet my experience with Mint KDE suggests you can get a considerably longer battery life under Mint KDE than Mint Cinnamon. Is that still true today? I dunno. I last compared the two about a year ago, and Cinnamon has rapidly evolved since then.

And, gary has a point, many of KDE's widgets are far less than ideal. But even without them KDE offers features that you simply cannot find in Cinnamon (period).

It's up to personal preference. Both are extremely usable, both are considerably more stable, secure, and feature rich than any malware you can get from Redmond.

The contention that Linux Mint is not for beginners however, is simply irresponsible. In my discussions with University student newbies, I would not recommend anything else.

I think that Arch Linux is a good way to learn quite a bit about Linux under the hood. It's also a good way to stay on the bleeding edge if that's where you want to be (I generally don't want my main desktop/laptop to be on the bleeding edge, but that doesn't mean I wouldn't run Arch on a secondary computer). For beginners, I think Arch is basically a non-starter.

For a beginner, I think Mint is pretty good. The only problem I've ever really had with Mint is that it doesn't upgrade to new versions very well. This is mitigated somewhat by the extended support you receive for, as I understand it, basically every version.

A lot of Ubuntu variations seem to make good beginner distributions to me, but Ubuntu itself I'm not terribly thrilled with. The variations I like for beginners are Xubuntu, LXLE (or Lubuntu, especially for 32 bit systems where the LXLE version is much older), Ubuntu Mate, and even Kubuntu (though I'm more a fan of lightweight environments).

On really underpowered hardware Debian and Salix variations set up by someone else can work quite well even for a beginner. The only problem with Salix is its limited repositories (which you can compensate for if you know what you're doing and don't mind a little extra work, but could be a problem for a beginner).

> On really underpowered hardware Debian and Salix variations set up by someone else can work quite well even for a beginner.

The only full distro I've seen that's faster out of the box than base Debian XFCE is Slackware using XFCE, and there was very little difference. So I have to agree.

I just shipped a Core i3 Lenovo ThinkPad with Linux Mint Cinnamon 17.3 to my mother and father-in-law, to replace their older C2D ThinkPad running XP. If I had known it was still running XP, I would have done this sooner. Their old laptop's keyboard keys are not working properly, and I thought they would appreciate a newer laptop with an HDMI port for streaming Netflix to the TV in their RV.

Mint Cinnamon runs great on this laptop, with Intel HD 4000 video. Mint XFCE runs better on older laptops, and Dedoimedo just gave it a 10/10 review.

http://www.dedoimedo.com/computers/linux-mint-rosa-xfce.html

Vector Linux is also very good for older and underpowered hardware, and very fast.

@jdixom,

>> The only full distro I've seen that's faster out of the box than base Debian XFCE is Slackware using XFCE, and there was very little difference. So I have to agree.

I'm told that nothing beats a custom-tailored and fine-tuned install of linuxFromScratch for raw speed on even the most underpowered hardware ;) NEVER EVER FOR NEWBIES though!!!

2c

Realistically though you can have an ultra fast computer running Linux From Scratch but then you have to put in an awful amount of work yourself to make sure it is kept up to date and runs properly, including resolving security issues.

When compiling all of the programs required for Linux From Scratch there are a lot of little issues that occur from device to device and the make files have so many different compiler switches.

I think you are entering a world of pain unless you really are an expert.