Linux Distro Recommendations needed, please!

No, where's the "common sense" ?

Linux Mint is the "fully setup debian"

 

You mean reinstalling every 3 years? Screw that.
Set Debian up with Debian repo's only, and choose stable in sources.list.
They'll just click update for decades..

But hey, choose the one you also feel comfortable setting up. The ''best'' solution isn't necessarily the best for you or them.

Ubuntu does have some advantages when adding hardware easily. Debian, though not hard, could take a bit (minutes) reading.
That's an important point with maintenance also, who is using it when changing hardware; though i have to admit, it's mostly about proprietary drives and such. If it's supported by free software, fugget about it

 

I just remembered that i don't really know how does it work in Ubuntu.
I've read here, somewhere, that a clean install is 'better'. However, now that i think of it, is that actually necessary? Is that the Windows mindset still hanging?

Isn't Ubuntu able to dist-upgrade its way to the next LTS? APT certainly allows packagers to plan for it, and it doesn't really make sense if Ubuntu can't. Or Mint for that matter.

 

Dist upgrade works, but I found it quicker to reinstall though.

Only reason clean install could be better is that upgrading is not as extensively tested as clean install. I dist upgraded from mint 5 to 6 no problem. I'm now back with Ubuntu 9.04.

 

What is the advantage of Mint over Ubuntu nowadays? Ubuntu pretty much does it all out of the box with ease, so I wonder how Mint is any better?

 

Mint comes with all needed stuff like mp3 playback/encoding, flash, java pre loaded whereas in Ubuntu you need to install them from the repos.

 

Ok, still Ubuntu makes it easy to do so... I'd opt for Ubuntu myself.

 

I would too as Mint bases itself one the older distro whereas in Ubuntu you get the latest.

 

+1 for Dreamlinux. Mint is sweet too.

 

Yep, good point....

 

Ubuntu has caught up with Mint in terms of compatibility with wireless devices, compositing desktop, closed source video drivers etc which a few years ago was a huge gap that made reduced a whole load of pain installing and configuring and known breakages that Ubuntu suffered when trying to setup the above.

Currently the real difference between Mint and Ubuntu is in the different default layout and theme and the mint tools (eg Mint-Menu, Mint-Update).

 

Umm...Linux Mint *IS* Ubuntu...Virtually any problem you could ever have with Mint (which should be few and far between because it's SO easy to install,use and maintain), you could get an answer in the Ubuntu forums. Virtually anything that works with Ubuntu should work with Mint. They even both use Gnome.

 

Mint come with proprietary codecs "out of the box", so you don't need to install them later. It's also looks much better.

 

Any Mint specific problems would probably NOT be answered in the Ubuntu forums, and the Mint forums, if any, are most likely not as well developed as the Ubuntu forums. Ubuntu is a more popular and mainstream choice with better support.

 

Ubuntu is period the cleanest, most tested and stable distro out. They take a conservative line and usually they prefer stability to cutting edge and speed. The Hardy LTS is a prime example of a distro that works without quirks, even in their short term releases, they take a far more cautious approach to implementing new stuff. They never compromise stability and in terms of patches they are among the first to release critical patches. For Windows refugees Ubuntu's on the fly codec install and other touches makes it an easy transition. No wonder Mint gets based on Ubuntu and so does other distros.

Also give PCLOS a try, it works out of the box and is another stable well written distro.

 

Mint always takes the current Ubuntu, Mint 6 is based on Intrepid, Mint 7 which is due out soon is based on Jaunty.

Mint at one point was forked from the Ubuntu base, but they were finding it hard to maintain (eg merging new Ubuntu features).

 

One would think that distros based on Ubuntu should work like Ubuntu but that simply isn't true. I know of a couple of problems I've had with Mint in the past that weren't a problem with the Ubuntu distro it used as a base. One was a sound problem where the volume was very very low. The only way to get it back was to reinstall. Another problem was Vbox being unusable because everything ran too slow.

Currently, I'm having problems with the latest SuperUbuntu based on Jaunty that I don't have with Jaunty itself. First of all, the LiveDVD is so slow I kept thinking is was hanging. Something like ten minutes to get to the desktop. Once installed it still runs slower than Jaunty but is usable. But TVTime won't start. A window pops open and immediately closes.

So saying these distros won't have problems that Ubuntu doesn't have sounds good but isn't really accurate.