Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Ubuntu Mate

ubuntu-mate.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 96 posts

Re: Ubuntu Mate

#31

Post by sfilipov »

Pacabel wrote: post #21
scrollaway wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Different defaults" is not really something that differenciates distros. Lubuntu, Xubuntu, Kubuntu etc have a name: They're remixes of an existing distro.

That's not very good reasoning. You're basically saying that Fedora and Ubuntu are the same distro, because differences in the default package manager and other core software are irrelevant. Clearly that's not the case. It is the defaults that matter. They're what give a particular distribution its unique characteristics. Sure, you can go out of your way to install the software necessary to make one distribution comp…

What makes distributions different are mainly the package manager and the packages in the repositories.

Your example with Fedora and Ubuntu is a bad one because they use different package managers. Fedora uses yum and Ubuntu uses apt. This is one of the biggest differences that two distributions can have. They are different enough people get advice to stick to one and build some experience with it. If a person is using Debian on the servers, then he better stick to Ubuntu or Mint as a desktop (if he uses Linux as a desktop at all). On the other hand CentOS users are better off with Fedora or OpenSUSE.

The difference between Debian, Ubuntu and Mint is more subtle but they are still different. For one they are maintained by different people. One could argue that Xubuntu and Ubuntu are also maintained by different people which is true for the Desktop Environments, but it is also true that the kernel of both is maintained by the same people and they use the same kernel at any given time.

Another one is that Ubuntu and Xubuntu have exactly the same repositories for a given release. Mint is based on the repositories of Ubuntu and many (most) packages are the exactly the same, but then Mint has some extra packages specific to their distro.

As a result most of the time you can follow a 14.04 guide and apply it to Mint 17 and everything will be OK but there is the occasional difference.

Re: Ubuntu Mate

#32

Post by andyl »

I switched to Xubuntu and have grown to love XFCE more than I loved Gnome2. Best features: ability to script and directly hack configuration settings, basic features for window tiling. With scripts I can fully configure a dev box with a single command.

Re: Ubuntu Mate

#33

Post by thejdude »

someperson wrote: post #10

Really exciting that people still yearn for classic GNOME2 desktop environments! I know quite a few people who jumped ship from Ubuntu when Unity starting being forced on everybody by default. Lubuntu (LXDE) has always been a bit buggy for me, but still makes for great systems (especially on older laptops). Though I for one think the "halcyon" days of Ubuntu didn't just include a snappy/stable user interface, it also…

Hell, I even switched to Windows 7 for a while, back when Fedora came only with Gnome3. It didn't help, that at the time the Linux kernel also had some general problems with power consumption.

By now, Gnome 3 is actually quite good, but still uses more power than MATE.

Cinnamon is slow and buggy as hell. Unity is just slow.

XFCE has become quite good, but still can't handle docking (or un/plugging an external monitor) correctly. KDE neither (plus I don't like the IMHO horrible interface).

So even after many years and years, Gnome2/MATE is still - IMHO - the best desktop in Linuxland (and I also like it more than Windows 7, and a lot more than Mac OS; back in the day I switched from Mac OS 10.4 to Ubuntu). It's not about classic - it's about functionality, stability, performance, configurability. But mostly that it just works and does everything the way you expect.

Interesting that you liked the old Ubuntu colors. I liked them much better than the current ones, but still considered them quite ugly compared to the typical blue desktops of Windows, Mac OS or Fedora.

Re: Ubuntu Mate

#34

Post by the_af »

fingerprinter wrote: post #26

Gotta love how people just won't let go and move on. Imagine if all the diehard mac users ported OS9 to OSX because "OSX was forced on them". It's called progress. Gnome2 was a dying project when Unity was announced. Gnome3 was "coming soon", but flailing around. Unity is different, sure, but so was OSX to a degree when it came out. People need to move on. Unity is the present and future of Ubuntu. We've been talking…

I absolutely agree with you and, in fact, I'm a user of Unity who doesn't hate it and has moved on from Gnome (which I didn't hate either). Sure there's stuff I don't like about Unity, but no deal breakers.

That said, it's wonderful that Free and Open Source software has a place for conservative diehards, even if I'm not one of them.

PS: disclaimer: I was a user of KDE from the good old days who abandoned ship when KDE 4 got weird :)

Re: Ubuntu Mate

#35

Post by jacob019 »

fingerprinter wrote: post #26

Gotta love how people just won't let go and move on. Imagine if all the diehard mac users ported OS9 to OSX because "OSX was forced on them". It's called progress. Gnome2 was a dying project when Unity was announced. Gnome3 was "coming soon", but flailing around. Unity is different, sure, but so was OSX to a degree when it came out. People need to move on. Unity is the present and future of Ubuntu. We've been talking…

You are certainly entitled to your opinion. At my company we use Mint Mate on all desktops. It's clean, simple, works great, and doesn't require training for employees who have never used Linux.

Re: Ubuntu Mate

#36

Post by jacob019 »

fingerprinter wrote: post #30
jhasse wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What about people with old computers?

They should probably not upgrade from OS9 to OSX or maybe not upgrade from Leopard to Yosemite. Depends on what is supported and how it runs.

That's rediculous. You're recommending that people stick with old versions that are riddled with known vulnerabilities. There are some great lightweight modern OS's, like CrunchBang and Lubuntu that work well on old hardware.

Re: Ubuntu Mate

#37

Post by thejdude »

higherpurpose wrote: post #16
someperson wrote: post #10

Really exciting that people still yearn for classic GNOME2 desktop environments! I know quite a few people who jumped ship from Ubuntu when Unity starting being forced on everybody by default. Lubuntu (LXDE) has always been a bit buggy for me, but still makes for great systems (especially on older laptops). Though I for one think the "halcyon" days of Ubuntu didn't just include a snappy/stable user interface, it also…

I've just put Linux Lite (XFCE) on an old netbook, and it works great, better than Windows 7 did, with 1/3 RAM usage. Make sure you upgrade after you install or Chrome won't work. I think the upgrade even installs Chrome itself. https://www.linuxliteos.com/ I also liked Zorin Lite, which is LXDE based, but 7.1 was very buggy for me. Maybe 8.0 will be better, and should come out this fall. But I'm happy with Linux Lit…

I agree, LXDE has never looked very sophisticated. I'm curious what the merger brings (LXDE+RazorQt -> LXQt).

If you're not too starved on memory, I found MATE a better alternative compared to XFCE, almost the same performance, but worked a bit better. But YMMV. MATE doesn't seem to have a working window-snap (Winkey+left/right), but XFCE doesn't really work with hot-plugging external monitors.

Re: Ubuntu Mate

#38

Post by thejdude »

steanne wrote: post #24
sspiff wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

At first I thought the same, but then I remembered the problems I had with Linux Mint. Most specifically, the inability to upgrade across releases.

Linux Mint has a Debian edition that is semi-rolling. I chose LMDE Mate, though I recently installed xfce and am thinking about keeping it.

I'd really like to switch to a Debian-based system, but ALL Debian-based distros seem to have TERRIBLE battery life, whereas Mint 17 has an excellent one (better than Arch/Manjaro or Fedora and on par with Windows 7). Sigh. And yes, I'm using powertop. Without it, Linux battery life is horrible.

Re: Ubuntu Mate

#39

Post by bryanlarsen »

JasonFruit wrote: post #6

Looking at the recommended hardware specs, I see that it absolutely requires 512MB RAM and recommends at least 2GB, yet it says it has modest hardware requirements. Ubuntu Server has a minimum RAM requirement of 64MB and recommends 256MB; I know an X server takes some memory, but does a reasonable desktop environment have to require 448MB to 1.75GB to run? Probably memory use is not a high priority, but it still seem…

I'm sure that are DE's that work well with less than 512MB of RAM, but there aren't any modern web browsers that do. They're going to put 512MB as a requirement no matter what the DE itself requires.

Re: Ubuntu Mate

#40

Post by fingerprinter »

jacob019 wrote: post #36
fingerprinter wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They should probably not upgrade from OS9 to OSX or maybe not upgrade from Leopard to Yosemite. Depends on what is supported and how it runs.

That's rediculous. You're recommending that people stick with old versions that are riddled with known vulnerabilities. There are some great lightweight modern OS's, like CrunchBang and Lubuntu that work well on old hardware.

I think you're missing the point. It's common practice to sunset something. Apple, Google, Microsoft do it all the time. The fact is the support for some version of OSX has been deprecated and not supported any more. What are those folk to do?

Ubuntu 12.04, which has a version of Gnome classic, is still supported until 2017 (https://wiki.ubuntu.com/Releases). If someone is running hardware past this date, well, they are going to be on their own. That's life. That's software.

Post reply on HN