Talk:Linux Mint/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Page not rendering correctly[edit]

I'm using konqueror and find the Edit links from both the main infobox and the section titled "MintSoftware" appear next to each other and overlapping the text of that section part way down. In Firefox they both appear just below the lower left corner of that infobox. I can't see any cause, anyone? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fitzhugh (talk • contribs) 21:38, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

64bit vs 32bit[edit]

Simply wrong and an understatement that there's basicly no difference for normal users. WRONG! Just put 4GB RAM in your desktop machine and FEEL the difference.... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.4.205.7 (talk) 23:46, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Multimedia Codecs[edit]

The reason codecs are not present in Ubuntu has nothing to do with them being non-open source. It has to with them being patent encumbered. Mpeg formats are patent protected formats which require a licensing agreement to distribute. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.209.217.45 (talk) 13:31, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Notability[edit]

I undid the removal of the prod notice. Although I believe that this distro is notable, the article doesn't say anything about notability; anyone can make a distro derived from Ubuntu, but that alone doesn't make it notable. Please find sources and then remove the prod, or let the prod run it's course. Bjelleklang - talk 01:08, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

MintTools[edit]

Updating the MintTools section for new tools like MintNanny, and revamping of tools like MintInstall and MintUpload. 91.108.114.215 (talk) 21:58, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

x64 Felicia[edit]

Just to let you know, RC1 of Felicia x64 has been released, not sure if it's the practice to update the page with Beta/RC releases, but I just thought I'd put it out there. Old Marcus (talk) 14:47, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Updating[edit]

Hi all, in the process of updating the article, and seeing if I can sort out some of the issues with it. I'll put a little changelog here if anyone wants me to. If anyone wishes me to cease and desist, feel free to tell me so. Old Marcus (talk) 23:40, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Changed colours of releases based on feisty and earlier, as the Ubuntu versions they are based on are no longer supported, and Mint doesn't support versions of their OS based on non supported ubuntu releases. I'll find a source for that info in a bit. Old Marcus (talk) 01:16, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Removed the template for updating, as the page is now up to date as far as I can see. Old Marcus (talk) 15:40, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Popularity[edit]

Should I change this to a general 'Reception and critical response' section, citing reviews etc? It would fill out that section better and keep with the whole 'neutrality' philosophy. --Old Marcus (talk) 10:07, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Some review links[edit]

Here are a couple of links, which can help with citations, development, etc.. Some more sourcing of info can help with reliability, notability charges. Tangentially, I certainly think it is also quite valid to cite linux mint's own site(s) with regard to motivation of distro, release schedule, etc. Otherwise, it's like saying, here's an article about (well-known author) Philip Roth, but don't use Philip Roth's words from his book intro to define his motivation for writing X.

Skandha101 18:08, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Cheers, I'll rewrite the section when I get the chance. --Old Marcus (talk) 13:34, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Critical Reception[edit]

Rewritten the section, could do with advice on improving it. - Old Marcus (talk) 14:30, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This section seems to have disappeared with no reasons on the talk page why, to be replaced with a clumsy comparison with Ubuntu. Since I can't see why anyone would remove that information, I'm reinstating it and combining it with the Ubuntu section. --Mistsrider (talk) 08:17, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sources[edit]

Does the article have enough sources from third parties to warrant removing the notice? Old Marcus (talk) 14:08, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Removed Sources box, I feel there are enough third party sources in the article now. --Old Marcus (talk) 10:33, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Too many colors in release table[edit]

I think there are way too many colos in the release table, I think at maximum we should have 3: unsupported release, supported and future release. Just like in the Ubuntu article: List_of_Ubuntu_releases Any opposes? SF007 (talk) 15:24, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would agree with that, get rid of the 'old release still supported' colour and any test releases should be labelled as such, i.e. 'Linux Mint 7 Gloria RC1' --93.96.175.64 (talk) 20:19, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Removed the old release colours, tell me what you think. --Old Marcus (talk) 14:28, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It is now better, but maybe "test release" and "future release" can still be merged? --- SF007 (talk) 08:35, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Good idea. This means RC releases etc. can be shown as they are technically test releases. --Old Marcus (talk) 23:34, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Done. --Old Marcus (talk) 15:03, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Info box releases question[edit]

Should the community editions be counted in the releases section of the infobox, since they don't have their own articles, or should this be restricted to the main edition only? --Old Marcus (talk) 23:45, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say maybe not as the base Linux edition stays roughly the same with the major difference being the window manager, but they are releases so hmmm. If you think so change it. Gazab1 (talk) 12:27, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps I should keep it to the 'official' releases e.g. Main, Universal and x64? --Old Marcus (talk) 14:16, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Debian-based distro[edit]

Mint is not Debian-based. It's Ubuntu-based. OK, Ubuntu is Debian-based, so technically it's true, but misleading. Markfiend (talk) 10:36, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but I have to disagree. If you were to look on the disto's website, you'll see that that Linux Mint was "Originally launched as a variant of Ubuntu" but is now considered "a Debian-based distribution and as such it is very solid". Is says so literally on the website. I know that Ubuntu is based on Debian, but so are many distro's. Linux mint used to be a Ubuntu variant, but as Linux Mint changed dramastically over the years, they decided to make the distro Ubuntu compatible, rather than solely base it upon. Resilldoux (talk) 11:55, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, it says that on the Mint's about page, but still, the code is based on Ubuntu, not directly on Debian. It even says as much further down the article. Markfiend (talk) 14:58, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sourced it:

Based on Ubuntu 9.04 Jaunty Jackalope, Linux 2.6.28, Gnome 2.26 and Xorg 7.4, Linux Mint 7 "Gloria" features a lot of improvements and the latest software from the Open Source World.

from http://www.linuxmint.com/rel_gloria_whatsnew.php :-) Markfiend (talk) 08:48, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe a mention of Mint Debian Edition would be useful from http://www.linuxmint.com/blog/?p=108 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 211.30.178.195 (talk) 02:43, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mint is both a "Debian-based GNU/Linux distribution" and an "Ubuntu derivative". Both statements are true. -- Clem. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.46.174.103 (talk) 15:24, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Linux_Mint/Archive_1&oldid=361741455"