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

21–30 of 96 posts

Re: Ubuntu Mate

#21

Post by Pacabel »

scrollaway wrote: post #17
Pacabel wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think it's fair to consider them as different distros, at least in practice, given how much the choice of a desktop environment can affect the user experience. A lot of the software available by default will differ, obviously. Instructions about how to use the system differ, as well. The default capabilities and functionality will differ. The bugs affecting them will differ. All of those differences add up.

"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 comparable to some other distribution, but that doesn't mean they're really the same to begin with, even if their names may be similar.

Re: Ubuntu Mate

#22

Post by Touche »

sampo wrote: post #19

Personally, I think Xubuntu desktop is better that Gnome2-based Ubuntu ever was. It's just that the default settings – only one panel (at the top), ugly blue theme & background image – are not very appealing and feel dated. But after adding a second panel, reorganizing panel contents, changing icons & windows themes and background image, Xubuntu desktop is very nice.

How does XFDE how HiDPI? I'm using Gnome 3 now primarily because its the only DE that handles HiDPI well by default.

Re: Ubuntu Mate

#23

Post by Touche »

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 don't think 512 is asking much in 2014.

Re: Ubuntu Mate

#24

Post by steanne »

sspiff wrote: post #11
facorreia wrote: post #2

I looked at the site but I couldn't find any explanation of why this exists when there is Linux Mint Mate.[1] [1] http://www.linuxmint.com/edition.php?id=160

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.

Re: Ubuntu Mate

#25

Post by crdoconnor »

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…

XFCE/Xubuntu has been the solution (for me) to pining for 10.04 days.

I tried Lubuntu first on the presupposition that lighter was better, but it really was too buggy and lacked some necessary features.

Re: Ubuntu Mate

#26

Post by fingerprinter »

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 about it for, what, 3 years now? Move on, one way or another.

Re: Ubuntu Mate

#27

Post by facorreia »

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.

Until 2016, future versions of Linux Mint will use the same package base as Linux Mint 17, making it trivial for people to upgrade.

Re: Ubuntu Mate

#28

Post by jhasse »

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…

What about people with old computers?

Re: Ubuntu Mate

#29

Post by crdoconnor »

facorreia wrote: post #2

I looked at the site but I couldn't find any explanation of why this exists when there is Linux Mint Mate.[1] [1] http://www.linuxmint.com/edition.php?id=160

I used linux mint mate for a while - while it's a generally serviceable fork of ubuntu, there are a number of problematic issues which crop up due to it being a fork - especially when doing routine upgrades.

I'm somewhat wary of forks now. Deviating from the standard configs is asking for trouble when it comes to upgrading.

If I preferred MATE, I'd probably use this over mint for this reason.

Re: Ubuntu Mate

#30

Post by fingerprinter »

jhasse wrote: post #28
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…

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.
Post reply on HN