From Linux Mint’s About page: “Linux Mint’s purpose is to produce an elegant, up to date and comfortable GNU/Linux desktop distribution.” To reach this goal, lead developer and founder Clement Lefebvre used (surprisingly) Ubuntu as the base, and added multimedia codecs to the distribution, by default. Later on, Mint deviated more from Ubuntu by adding its own artwork, web-based package front-end, and configuration tools (MintTools) to the mix. I installed the latest stable release, Daryna (4.0), released on 15 October of last year, to see what’s what.Ubuntu users will feel right at home on Linux Mint. Daryna uses Ubuntu’s Gutsy Gibbon as the apt base for its packages, and you could say it is loosely based on this release as well. The CD boots to a full live CD from where you can start the installation. The installation routine is the same as Ubuntu’s: fairly easy to use, but as I have said before when it comes to Ubuntu, a bit more control here and there would be nice (especially when it comes to package selection).
Mint 4.0 comes with GNOME 2.20, and version 2.6.22 of the Linux kernel. It is important to note that Mint is compatible with Ubuntu’s repositories, and as such, has access to all of its packages. In other words, Mint is not forking anything. I installed Mint on a machine with an AMD Athlon XP 1600+, 640MB of RAM, and an nVIDIA Geforce 6200 with 128MB of video RAM.
Mint’s artwork and desktop
The first obvious difference between Mint and Ubuntu is of course Mint’s artwork, which , I must say, is a lot more appealing than Ubuntu’s brown and orange. Ubuntu’s Human theme is a regular discussion starter, and personally, I do not like it at all. For some reason, brown and orange just do not work for me as the contrastive colours in a user interface. Sure, it helped define the brand “Ubuntu”, but the first thing I do after an Ubuntu installation is applying my own combination of window decor, icon set, and interface theme. Mint uses the more traditional (dark) blue as its contrastive colour, with elements of mint green (really?) scattered throughout the desktop (icons, mostly).
They also applied some other cool tricks like diagonal striping on menu bars, menu item highlights, and the GNOME panel, which looks pretty slick. It is also refreshing to see UI people who are actually not trying to ‘unify’ everything. Unifying the title, menu, and toolbars seems to be all the rage these days, but I detest it as it seriously hinders differentiation between the various elements. On Mint’s default theme, the title, menu, and toolbars are clearly separate entities.
Mint’s changes to the user interface go beyond mere themes, though. The desktop layout itself has been changed too. Instead of the usual GNOME two-panel layout, Mint sticks to a single bottom panel, which houses all the important applets (taskbar, system tray, menu, etc.). I never particularly liked the two-panel layout (especially the top panel wastes a lot of space) so I always switched to a single-panel layout anyway after installing Ubuntu. I have a 1680×1050 21″ flat panel, so I have enough space to house everything I want on a single panel.
Mint also chooses to disregard GNOME’s default Applications/Places/System menu, preferring its homegrown MintMenu instead. The MintMenu is one of those ‘everything-in-one-menu’ menus, and while I usually really do not like these types of menus (Vista’s or KDE 4.0’s are absolute garbage, for instance), MintMenu is fairly acceptable in when it comes to these types of menus. It is still often a struggle to use, and it is easy to get lost in these types of menus. Luckily, GNOME’s default menus are still there, so changing to them is trivial.
It is clear from the get-go that the Mint team has put a lot of effort into creating a coherent look for its distribution. We are not talking about some kids picking a few random themes with cartoon penguins on them from GnomeLook.org and putting those on an Ubuntu live CD. The artwork is custom, and well thought out; all the way from the GRUB theme to the icons, and everything in between, it is consistent. This way, Mint offers a refreshing alternative to Ubuntu’s Human theme.
Minty tools and applications
Mint also comes with a few configuration tools you will not see in Ubuntu. MintInstall allows you to download .mint files from the Mint Software Portal, which act as metapackages for all sorts of applications, such as Real Player, Opera, Evolution, and more. MintDesktop is a configuration tool where you can configure some GNOME options that would normally require gconf-editor (Nautilus mode, desktop items). It also turns on and off the Network Autobrowsing feature, a great tool that automatically mounts SAMBA machines on your network.
MintUpdate is Mint’s software update tool, which works pretty much like you would expect an update tool to work (notifications, exclusion, etc.). It actually rates updates from 1 to 5, telling users how important the update in question is. MintUpload allows you to upload a file to Mint’s servers (right-click on any file), where it will stay available for two days, so you can share it with friends.
While the MintTools are not in any way very special or unique, they do add some nice touches to the Mint desktop. Not something to switch distributions for, but they are nice tools all the same.
On the application front, Mint deviates a little from stock Ubuntu. The first thing I noticed is that the default (and only) email client is Thunderbird instead of Evolution. For 95% of the people out there, the choice between Thunderbid and Evolution will be arbitrary, but personally, I am not particularly a fan of Thunderbird for reasons that I will save for another article someday. Of course, installing Evolution (which I hate just a little less) is easy enough (you can use the Software Portal or apt-get/synaptic), so the point is a little moot.
Where most GNOME-centric distributions choose a Gtk+ or Mono-based audio player, Mint decided to go with KDE/Qt’s Amarok, most likely due to popular demand. I do not like Amarok at all, but this is again a moot point due to the wonders of package management. There is one thing though: Mint does not seem to ship with a cross-toolkit theme, which means Amarok (and other possible Qt applications) will not sport the same look as Gtk+ applications. Just so you know.
Conclusion
Linux Mint is a nice distribution. It is certainly not revolutionary, and it would be hard to find any specific advantages Mint has over ‘plain’ Ubuntu (apart from its looks), but overall, it does feel as a very coherent package, with considerable thought put into all aspects of the system. Especially in the looks department, Mint kicks Ubuntu’s butt. To me, using Mint just means I have to do a lot less work after an Ubuntu installation. The looks fit my desires much better than Ubuntu’s, it offers easier access to some important configuration options normally reserved for gconf-editor, and offers some nice touches like the web-based Software Portal, pre-installed multimedia codecs, and Flash.
There are multiple versions of Mint – KDE, Xfce, and GNOME – so there should be something in there to everyone’s liking (there are ‘light’ versions too, which lack any patent-encumbered packages). Mint carries all the advantages of Ubuntu, and adds its own distinctive ideas to the mix. Whether those ideas are interesting enough to choose Mint over Ubuntu will be entirely up to you.
If you would like to see your thoughts or experiences with technology published, please consider writing an article for OSNews.
One of the best looking distros (default installation) out there, imho.
http://www.thecodingstudio.com/opensource/linux/screenshots/index.p…
Really, for me the best looking distro right from the beginning would be OpenSUSE.
I have used Mint on and off ever since it was 2.0, and i have fallen in to the habit of simply installing Ubuntu, then going over and grabbing the Mint packages and using those behind the install to customize my Ubuntu.
I love the tools that they have, nice i think, i dont like amarock, well, actually i DO like amarock, but i dont want the KDE base installed just for one app.
All in all, i agree with what you said.
As long as you’re aware that Linux Mint is NOT Ubuntu. Linux Mint forked from Ubuntu somewhere around Ubuntu 6.10 and diverges ever more with each successive release. While it may be compatible with Gutsy’s repositories, the two are not interchangeable. Daryna is a bird of a different feather.
To my knowledge, the actual “guts” are still Ubuntu, which is why the Mint release cycle is so influenced by the Ubuntu release schedule.
Yes, Mint makes a lot of it own tools that affect how the system can be used (as with MintUpload) and how it runs itself (as with MintUpdate), but it’s still very much Ubuntu-based.
Thom’s article claims this is not a fork. Who’s right?
What’s a fork? Is Andrew Morton’s kernel tree a fork of the Linux kernel? How about Ingo’s? Is Xubuntu a fork of Ubuntu? How about CentOS and RHEL? CentOS has a different theme. All the trademarked material has been replaced. And it includes some value added features ala centosplus. Fork? Or not?
Keep in mind that cmost has an ongoing anti-buntu agenda (as anyone can verify with a glance at his posting history), and I think you can see whence this “confusion” arose.
Edited 2008-04-07 15:20 UTC
If you like KDE (I do), try the KDE edition. It has TastyMenu by default and is the best menu IMO out there.
That is the one I am using right now.
Very nice. I am looking forward to a Linux Mint release with KDE 4 … perhaps towards the end of this year.
If I can have KDE 4.1 with Tasty Menu … it should be the best option of all.
Edited 2008-04-07 12:14 UTC
If the updated menu and tools from the romeo repo had been used in this review there would have been more of a difference from Ubuntu. Mint 5 will have the new tools by default. There is also a user manual that is very informative and is of great assistance to new user’s.
LinuxMint has come a long way in a very short amount of time!
Am I the only person on earth that actually LIKES the default Ubuntu theme?
Yes.
I like it. I do think that brown is a very dangerous color to try to base a theme on, since there is a large variation in how it looks on different monitors and in different lighting conditions. When I’m running Ubuntu, I really enjoy the combination of the “Outdoors” theme, available in the standard repositories, and basically “Human” done up in olive green, and the wallpaper at the link below. I find the result to be very peaceful, which is something I find I really need more of these days.
http://interfacelift.com/wallpaper/details.php?id=441
I like it too.
Yes, you are.
No, you’re not alone. I like it for two reasons:
1) Done the right way, a brown theme can be very gentle for the eyes. Lately Ubuntu has gotten a lot better and especially the new Human and Tangerine icons help the theme become both brown/orange AND happy in a non-screaming way. It’s well-balanced. Except maybe for the 8.04 wallpaper.
2) Ubuntu has ethics. This world lacks ethics. Ubuntu is different – even from other distros, and the theme is essential for showing this difference.
And heck, how hard is it to customize!? If having a blue/glassy theme was so important, then Ubuntu surely wouldnt be this popular. Apparently people either like the theme or don’t care.
Personally I just switch colors once in a while. Even blue/glassy themes can get boring.
One thing, I would like to see, would be Ubuntu being shipped with more pre-defined color themes.
No. I do too… Let’s hug!
No, I like it too.
Actually I quite like it, I’ve been using ubuntu for several years now and don’t think I’ve changed the default theme once. It’s just so very well made
… nvidia closed-source drivers (and ATI equivalent of it) on CD. It is somehow … unclear to me that they put common proprietary codecs and not essential graphic card drivers?
I believe that the Nvidia license specifically disallows redistribution, whereas the codecs are more of a gray area. At any rate, restricted drivers manager deals with the situation nicely.
This page:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_media_players
has a list of media players, many of which are free.
I can get codecs for free by downloading any of the free media players (Windows or not) on this list.
Most of those players do not require that I have any sort of contract or license with Microsoft in order for me to be eligible to download them, just like any other person who does have Windows.
Therefore, codecs are not a gray area at all. They are offered to anyone at all for free download quite openly.
MultimediaWiki says that the FFmpeg project has reverse-engineered a bunch of proprietary codecs, including some QuickTime and Windows Media codecs. It says that FFmpeg is Free Software but “FFmpeg’s legal status varies by country”. Go figure.
http://wiki.multimedia.cx/index.php?title=FFmpeg
The FFmpeg project has not paid royalties for the codecs. Only in some countries would such a tax^H payment be necessary.
If you download and extract binary codecs from, say, RealPlayer or iTunes, this should not be an issue. Real and Apple have paid such royalties for you.
And you get around the patents on the codecs… how? Beyond that, the issue is about the legality of redistribution. Not about what the end user can do himself, legal or not so legal.
I get around the patents on the codecs in the exact same way that any person downloading RealPlayer or iTunes for Windows does. They download it (for no charge) & run it on Windows … I download it & extract the codecs and put them in a directory where xine or mplayer or both can use them, and run it on Linux. What is the difference?
Even more to the point … how can you even expect that they should be able to download & use something that I am not permitted to when neither of us has any contract or license with Real or with Apple?
You are still avoiding the question of liability regarding distribution of the codecs. I find it amazing that you try to argue that there is no gray involved there. Pretty much everyone is aware that individuals can obtain the codecs, in some way, and no one is likely to come after them… yet. But mass redistribution of patented codecs… installed with a player, no less… without paying royalties? That gray is dark enough that I would not risk it. Not here in the US, anyway. God Bless America! My home, sweet home.
Edited 2008-04-08 00:55 UTC
This is a question to SoloDeveloper and others: could you tell me how I can use the mint theme and menu on a stock (let’s say Hardy) ubuntu system?
and then there was no way to login. I tried user root diff passwords. not much info in Mint forums for default root passwd on live-cd.
Why should it go to GUI login shell? instead of starting as other live CDs do.
Mint was no-starter for me. Although I have installed plain old stable Debian on ‘Same Computer” without any problem.
Edited 2008-04-07 13:33 UTC
On the Dell Optiplexes in my workplace, it takes quite a lot of tweaking to get X and dual-monitors working with Ubuntu. That is, if it will install at all. Since we received updated models, Ubuntu’s installer refuses to run.
In contrast to that, Linux Mint installs fine on any workstation we have, X works out of the box, and we’re only left to fiddle with ATI’s wonky acceleration drivers. One coworker installed it on his wife’s machine in place of Windows, and the base interface is intuitive enough that though inexperienced with Linux, she was soon installing applications and changing settings.
I never expected Mint to work better, I originally thought it was just a Ubuntu remix with different tools tacked on, different looks, some tweaks, codecs. So all that was a pleasant surprise.
Mint is good stuff. If I wasn’t already so committed to what I use now I would switch.
hmm I had the opposite experience, while the mint live cd failed to boot properly on my machine I had no problems with ubuntu