Discuss

Discuss.

>inb4 both are shit get X instead
valid opinion, but not part of the discussion, so please be nice and don't post it

Attached: asdsadasd.jpg (1243x575, 175K)

>both
I meant "all"

Manjaro is a shit arch
Mint is shit ubuntu
Ubuntu is shit debian
What to discuss?

If Mint was an Ubuntu flavor it would easily be considered the best one.

>Linux Mint
Very easy to install, with lots of useful programs for most users. Best distro for new users on Linux.

>Manjaro
Uses pacman, but it doesn't use the Arch Linux repositories, as far as I know. At least it has access to AUR, if you have to use it.

>Ubuntu
The distro that lots of Linux users use, even if they use derivative distros like Linux Mint.

young babby
comfy babby
old babby

Just install debian with binary blobs enabled.
You DO know how to install debian, right?

I use Manjaro right now, even if I'm thinking of switching right now. It's the only rolling one of the bunch, so if cutting edge software is important to you, pick that. Otherwise my only experience with Mint is that it was fucking dark on my computer, even if I turned the brightness all the way up. But between it and Ubuntu, it's kinda whatever. Shit can happen everywhere.

Started using linux for real (not just on a lab computer or virtual machine like on a real reg basis) back in Jan. Since the computer is 10 years old I went with xubuntu and it's not been a major problem. When I get a new computer was thinking of going over to Mint or something else instead I just went with xubuntu due to hardware concerns and knew about that one.

What are the advantages and disadvantages of rolling release vs lts? Which is better?

I only use 2 flavours of linux.

I currently use ubuntu mate minimal, because regular ubuntu lags on my old laptop and mate just works. I also installed manjaro lxqt minimal as second os, but has a problem of heating my gpu during hot summer hours. They are pretty much the same, low cpu load otherwise, making it best out of all other flavours.

Arch and ubuntu has the most searchable wiki base and you could probably do anything with it. However, if I have obscure program I want to run, arch user repository is a godsend, and I can use "downgrade" program to find different versions of the program I am looking for. Ubuntu, it's a crapshoot looking through the debian database.

I used mint regularly before, but their update sometimes broke my comp and I got fed up with it. I know if something goes wrong with manjaro or ubuntu, at least I can look for a fix.

Ubuntu just works out of the box, manjaro you still have to fiddle something to get it to work but better program selection. Mint I will never touch again.

Attached: Fludd-SublimeSun(744x721)[1].jpg (744x721, 497K)

Rolling means you get newer hardware but you also get all the bugs. LTS means you'll only get bug fixes. It's just a question how badly you want new software and how confident you are in fixing your machine. Incidentally, I was mostly fine with rolling releases so far but stuff broke when I updated from one LTS to another, which is always a pain point.

we could have a Cubuntu

all are shit, use arch or fedora instead

Attached: Screenshot_20190917_145950.png (402x132, 16K)

You've touched it a bit, but can you get into more detail about why you wont touch Mint again and why you cant look for fixes but can with Ubuntu? Isnt Mint basically just Ubuntu?

both are shit get X instead

They all provide very similar user experiences. New users wont notice or care about most of the differences. Just use whatever logo you like best, its all the same shit even though Jow Forums will happily bicker about it all day.

If I install regular Ubuntu (gnome) and then install other environments like XFCE, will the performance basically be identical to Xubuntu when using it, or will my computer be slower because it still has all that gnome shit on it?

It shouldn't matter if you have multiple DEs installed. You'll get a drop down menu on your login screen to select your DE, and after that it runs pretty seamlessly. People who distrohop just to try a new DE are idiots

The performance will be identical but stock DEs are always ugly.

Does it keep all your icons and folders and stuff?

I use manjaro on my personal laptop, windows on my desktop, high sierra on my work laptop and rhel on my work desktop. So I predict everyone will be triggered by at least one of my choices.

Of the three shown,

>Manjaro
Is the worst. Based unstable Arch it will break your shit but hey it's preconfigured so any breakages can be blamed on you daring to use the AUR or some shit.

>Mint
Literally just Ubuntu with Cinnamon. Gab knows why they keep doing the MATE and Xfce versions when Xubuntu and Ubuntu MATE exist.

>Ubuntu
The default distro for everyone to start out with. If you stay here that's fine and I still use Ubuntu LTS on my server, but it's also fine if you move on.

Mint used to be the best for non-autists, as had the option of pre-installing a bunch of proprietary codecs so you could watch movies on your computer, etc. However, that is no longer the case, and as such Ubuntu is the best normie distro.
Manjaro really is a shit arch. It has all the same footguns as arch, yet presents itself as a noob-friendly distro. If you're skilled enough to keep Manjaro from breaking then you're skilled enough to keep Arch from breaking.

Not him, but when you change DEs? The theming won't be exactly the same, but you don't lose your files or anything like that.

both are shit get laid instead

dilate

die late

I tried all three
I had issues with the nvidia drivers in mint and ubuntu.
Im using manjaro and Im not thinking in change it.
I recommend using the architect installer

centos+xfce
you will never want another distor ever again

you have to be retarded to break some shit on arch. Read the RSS feed once every 6 months fishing for major update and then you will know what will break once every 6 months

Attached: arch5.png (381x399, 29K)