Here’s a video review of Linux Mint Debian Edition.
Find the best desktop Linux distros!
Are you a modder? Join the Popular Mechanics modding community to share your modding tips, tricks and cool case mods. Drop by the message boards to talk modding with other members. Check out my modding blog and set up your own blog to share your mods.
(25 votes, average: 4.64 out of 5)
Loading ...
Related Posts:
I gave this distribution a whirl yesterday and found it to be pretty good overall. I chose a pretty slow download mirror site, unfortunately, so it took quite a while to download the software. I also found that the default Debian repositories to upgrade packages were quite slow as well, so I changed them to a local mirror site and found much more rapid updates.
I was dismayed to see that, once again, the Mint software management programs are unable to cope with package authentication keys. I explicitly checked and enabled all of the Debian related keys and used apt-get instead of the good looking (but under-protective) package management tools, and then had the results I was looking for. I say this and it disturbs me because the typical audience for Mint isn’t going to know anything about package keys, and won’t see or know what they are missing, especially since the Mint tools silence those kinds of messages. If that doesn’t bother you, then ignore me, but I think it bears repeating because not many people know about the issue. Package authentication keys are safeguards against having felonious packages substituted for packages in the system. Mint takes safeguards, I am sure, but even the much heralded Debian project has been compromised in the past, so don’t be too smug or secure in thinking it couldn’t happen again. It could, so that’s why I am issuing the warning.
Other than those small quirks and the few minor ones that Jim mentioned, this is pretty solid overall. It is probably the easiest Debian Testing system to deal with.
I do, however, want to take small exception to Jim’s comment about the Debian installation. Try out a current Debian installation for the new Debian Squeeze (Testing) version that is in code freeze, hopefully for a release soon. The installation program is not as well streamlined as the Mint release, but believe me, it is not difficult at all to understand or use. I just used it yesterday and it does a great job. Yes, the Mint installer puts the few things it needs to get from you in a few spots, gets your responses, and goes and does it’s thing, whereas the Debian installer sometimes interrupts you two or three times during the installation, but the Debian installer is much maligned. It’s not over the heads of most people who are capable of reading and installing software. It’s extremely flexible and it handles more scenarios than any other installation program that I can think of, so I can forgive it’s propensity to interact a bit too often instead of asking all questions right up front.
So is the Debian spin of Mint worth it? To me it is, and it is probably the only version of Mint that I’d consider using, but I do have that caveat that I change the package key setup and run the command line package management tools so I can keep an eye on what’s really going on. So I don’t really trust the security and integrity of what Mint sets up for software management, and that’s my one big beef with it.
I was also very surprised with LMD, I have had little problems apart from i installed exaile and it does not load, and some times when I reboot I have to use my password it thinks I’m a guest had the same with Parsix.
I use Arch as my primary distro and like the rolling release but it is harder for newcomers to maintain. The sudo system is also a drawback as it is not so easy to install drivers or to upgrade without xserver running, that is where Arch scores over debian as with init files that are much simpler to maintain.
The term ‘rolling release” is confusing and really not an accurate way to describe a distro. Ubuntu 10.04 could be described as a rolling release because it gets updates on the roll, and doesn’t need to have a major upgrade for at least three years, or five years on the server version. Whereas PCLOS claims to be a rolling release, yet PCLOS2010 had a major upgrade that wasn’t combatible with previous releases.
As for debian distros, one of the best is Mepis. In my opinion Mint has a long way to go to equal Mepis.
@Mary: There really is such a thing as a rolling release. Examples of rolling releases are Debian Testing, Debian Sid (Unstable), Arch Linux, and PCLinuxOS. Arch and PCLinuxOS periodically come out with CD snapshots so you have a starting point that is a bit closer to the system that’s currently available, but the essence of it is that you install it once, then just periodically update the package cache and run a distribution upgrade (for example, the command sudo apt-get update && sudo apt-get dist-upgrade, run once a week, once a month, whatever your comfortable with, will keep the system up to date as long as the system continues to exist.
Linux Mint 9 is a traditional release. When a new release comes out, you obtain the new release and install it. Yes, a few traditional releases, such as Ubuntu and Kubuntu allow you to upgrade from release to release, but this is NOT a rolling release, it is a release upgrade. There definitely is a difference.
Rolling releases are designed to work all the time, except where defects arise. But the rolling release system itself can be used to back out the defect until the fix is available. Try that elsewhere; I don’t think you see it very often.
So to get back to it, the usual Mint is one of those traditional releases. This Debian one does not need a version number. As improvements become available they will get rolled out through the standard upgrade process, and that’s why it is a “rolling” release.
Oh yes, Ubuntu 10.04 LTS is definitely NOT a rolling release. Unless you change it’s repositories to something else manually, it will most definitely have an end of life, though since it is a Long Term Support release, that life is pretty long. The software gets crusty pretty quickly though.
Watch the Debian Mint distro and compare it side by side to the Ubuntu 10.04. I suspect that the Debian Mint version may already have some components that are newer than those in Ubuntu 10.04. If not, it most certainly will once Debian Squeeze moves from Testing to Stable and the floodgates of changes start flowing from Debian Sid to Debian Testing once again.
If you want Debian Mint to rock and roll that way, change occurrences of testing in the apt repository to sid and you will see much more volatility, even now.
Brian, PCLinuxOS claims to be a rolling release, yet their latest release,ie, PCLOS2010, is NOT compatible with previous releases. In order to use it, it needs a fresh install – you cannot upgrade from previous releases. So how is that a rolling release ? Furthermore, with PCLOS2010, the user might get two or three years use out of it before the next mandatory change, but how is that any different than Ubuntu 10.04 – which is good for three/five years without needing an upgrade ?
My point is that we should stop using the term “rolling release”, and replace it with something more accurate like what Ubuntu does with their LTS version, which means “long term support”.
Right now my main distro of choice is Arch Linux, because I got tired of having to hunt for updated packages for Ubuntu. They don’t even have VLC updated to the newest version in 10.04. In Arch I’m using the latest version of VLC, and the 2.6.35 kernel. As I’ve gotten comfortable with Linux, a rolling release is the only way I’ll go for the time being. This really makes me interested in Mint again. I don’t think Mint brought anything to the table over 10.04 like it had in the past, and I think this will go a long way towards making it more relevant. Perhaps over the weekend I’ll set up a Mint Debian partition and give it a go.
@ mary:
I’ve never used PCLinuxOS, so I can’t speak to weather or not it’s a rolling release, but they do exist. Arch Linux is most definitely a rolling release (so is Gentoo). You install a base system that is just the command line, and install the packeges you want to it, and then Pacman (Arch’s package manager) keeps the whole system completely up to date, without never having an LTS version, or even numbered versions. The install disk you burn is only updated once a year on the website, just to keep everything more up to date from a fresh install.
The main distinction is this. Ubuntu might have updates for packages, but on an LTS release they’ll never mess with the kernel or any other big part of the system. You’re locked in until the next LTS release. With a rolling release distro nothing is excluded from updates. The whole system is open to be updated, and nothing is set in stone. It’s more work, and more maintenance, but man is it rewarding and educational.
Hey Brian,
You said you don’t trust the security of Mint. Could you explain what you mean ? Aren’t their packages coming directly from Debian ?
mary wrote:
I don’t remember reinstalling PCLinuxOS on both of my systems, only one of them, but I did definitely do a fresh installation on one of my systems because I had been playing with the test versions, which definitely are not in the rolling release scheme. If I am forgetting some facts (that’s possible, then PCLinuxOS only CLAIMS to be a rolling release. If you need to install new releases periodically, then it is NOT really a rolling release at all.
However, Debian Testing, Debian Sid, and Arch MOST DEFINITELY are rolling releases – install once, run forever, or as long as you have had your system, unless you hopelessly break something.
We are arguing semantics here. I have run Debian Sid based systems, carefully controlling and holding packages that have mismatched versions, and I’ve been able to change literally thousands of packages, upgrading them over and over again, and I’ve also run a few release upgrades. Mandriva used to be able to do them, (and maybe still can, but they are not recommended for the average person). Ubuntu can be upgraded from release to release too. Those are release upgrades.
The Mandriva Cooker, super volatile as it is, can also be considered a rolling release system, but you have to be good with it or you can break it and you’d have to reinstall, so by your definition, you may not feel that qualifies. I’m going on two years with my current incantation of the Cooker. Prior to that, I had one going another two years. About two years ago some stuff was pretty badly messed up. I could have disemboweled about 3/4 of the system and then installed the latest stuff. Instead, I installed the most current Mandriva release, then changed the repos to the Cooker and upgraded; I could have done it the other way, but since so much was broken that one time, it was quicker to just superimpose some stuff over it and upgrade from that point.
I don’t have those kinds of issues with either Debian Testing or Debian Sid, and people who are Arch buffs will tell you the same – they’ve been going for years using the same image. In fact, that’s why the Debian Installer seems to have trouble getting frequently updated and improved – because most Debian veterans, unless BEGGED by the project team or members of the Debian Installer development team seldom install, they just perpetually upgrade, and THAT is what a REAL rolling release is – and – getting back to the original point, that is why it IS CORRECT to call Debian Mint a true rolling release. Whether they release another ISO image in two weeks is not the point. I can take the image that is out there now and run it until my current system dies, and upgrade packages as often as necessary.
Tony wrote:
I don’t like the Mint handling of packages using their GUI based tools that Jim likes so much. They are simple, but they hide and obscure the fact that the package signatures are missing on a lot of packages.
Turns out that at least on the Debian side, you CAN install the package signature keys. I did that, grabbing them from the Debian repository. Once I did that, I manually installed some stuff using apt-get and then it worked the way that I want it to work. The way that Mint ships it is fundamentally insecure, and leaves them wide open to package attacks. They’d better lock down their repos like a fort. Debian thought they were so tightly and carefully controlled, but in the decade that I’ve used Debian, they’ve had their servers attacked two or three times. Debian was right on top of it, but the intruders did get in. Perhaps Mint will be on top of things too. It’s just that since package keys are widely available and Debian has them, Mint ought to enable them. The reason they don’t seems to be that their Software Manager can’t handle them properly. The Mint guys don’t know how to set the package priorities to prefer their packages (which may have fixes that they’ve implemented) over the upstream packages – at least that was the claimed problem when using Ubuntu repositories. Mint developers have not (at least not yet) fixed this issue even though Debian has great keys and excellent authentication.
Brian
You are so right if you have to even change the repositories that’s not a rolling release. I installed Arch in 2006, I check the website and update every day do not use testing and its never broke the system get the odd glitch when some software like printer does not work after cups but it only take 2 mins to set up printer. This is what Mint is offering I hope its a success
Hello!
Forgive my ignorance, but I was just wondering if the upcoming March release of Gnome 3, when eventually integrated into Debian Testing, will necessitate a re-installation of LMDE? I’m only concerned because the package dependencies are naturally going to be so different. Any light shed on the matter will be greatly appreciated! :)
[...] Podedes ler algunhas reseñas (en inglés) aquí e aquí. [...]
@ jaycee:
Very unlikely.