Mint versus Arch versus ??

Alright guys, I've been out of the Linux loop for a while, but I know my way around it well enough to jump into (most) any of the frequently updated distros.

In preparation for my new Lotus P150 I'm researching a distro to dual use with 7. I'll run necessary games and software off of 7 and Linux will handle everything else.

Simply enough, I am looking for the 'cleanest', 'prettiest' build. I want to enjoy looking at my desktop! I've read several reviews claiming that Mint is really a pleasant site to see. However, I've also read that ArchLinux has come a long way this year and is more than ever, completely customizable.

Just looking for users of either distro to jingle in here, I'm not into loading 30 different distros on my Macbook and spending weeks customizing it; only to find out I could "do more" with another distro.

And, I am certainly not limiting this discussion to just these two distros, feel free to post SS's if you feel you have some great looking stuff going on.


THANK YOU!

 

Yeah Mint has a clean look and is very stable, pretty much everything works out of the box. If you want pretty i'd say KDE and in particular openSUSE. It gives Windows 7 a run for it's money in the looks dept. Yast2 is also another reason to go with openSUSE.

Btw openSUSE 12.1 public release is scheduled for 11-11-11. I think they took a page out of the Sega Dreamcast lol.

 

Thanks for the reply rodster. I was also looking into openSUSE but I've haven't been a fan of KDE recently, more of a GNOME person. But it is to my understanding that openSUSE treats KDE differently than other distros, also that openSUSE will run GNOME.

I'm leaning towards MINT at the moment, but openSUSE is definitely a good runner up. I'll likely try Arch down the road as well, but will probably need to freshen up with things.

Thanks

 

You know you can install KDE on Mint right?

It's pretty easy and was very stable although i'm waiting for openSUSE 12.1

 

Arch and Mint both have some rather serious security issues with their package management, although Arch's complete lack of any package signing ends up leaving it a good bit more vulnerable. Mint's issues are due to some silly default configuration issues, and are easily fixed with a couple tweaks.

 

Could you elaborate on that a bit more please? Are the config issues with Synaptic or the Mint Updater or something on the dev's side of things? What are the tweaks you're referring to?

 

Thanks, but I think you misread me, I meant I like the feel of GNOME better than KDE

But good to know I can use either

@ThinkRob - I'd like to know about these security flaws as well, in particular mint's and how I would go about fixing them.


Thank You All

 

1. I know this goes against the Arch ethos but you could easily install Archbang and then install Gnome over openbox. Arch might be the viable option on your new lappy because it may push through support for your new hardware earlier than others.

2. I've been using the Mint Debian version rather than the ubuntu-based Mint. It'll give you Gnome, a rolling release, low overhead and looks just as nice.

3. You might want to think about the fact that Gnome 2.x's days are numbered. If you don't want to move to Gnome 3 or Unity, XFCE looks pretty nice these days and has some new features that are nice. If you can live without nautilus I would recommend xubuntu (xfce 4.8!!!) or crunchbang xfce which runs xfce 4.6 (boo!) but is Debian-based (yay!).

4. There are some other newer contenders that have debuted recently. Pinguy OS is going strong for a while and has its own way of laying out the Gnome desktop. Some folks like Elementary OS which is nice although I would not recommend it myself due to the crappy software selection it offers. Fuduntu tries to Ubuntu-ize Fedora and improve power management via jupiter although I would not recommend it either. The developer is a great guy but he's just getting started on this project so it's more of a spin than a true distro.

A lot of comes down to what you need in terms of software, file management, support, etc. but I would argue you first need to decide what you want to do about the fact that Gnome 2.x is on its way out. Also, given your new hardware, you're going to have test a few systems out to see what works best. In a few months they will most likely all catch up to your system.

Good luck with your Lotus!

 

Let's not pretend this is a big deal. Sure, if you were running a server for the US government, this may be a big deal, then again who would run a rolling release distro in that matter?

@ OP

I have used every distro under the sun at one time or another. For the past couple years I have used Arch. My netbook as well as my desktop both use Arch. You have to decide if "pacman -Syu" every now and then and being nice and up to date or doing a distro update when Mint does new releases.

Linux in general has always been very good at customization. I take any distro and make it look good, I actually find it fun making it look the way I want.

 

By default, Mint has an APT setting that allows unauthenticated repositories.

This is bad, and a hold-over from when Mint didn't really care about repository security. (I believe they're a lot better on this front now -- they responded to several community complaints about this, and they sign their repos/packages for all major releases, IIRC.)

You can disable this by removing the offending line in your apt.conf

Considering that just this month we've seen one of the largest Arch repositories get compromised, I disagree.

It's quite simple:

1) Arch provides no way to verify the authenticity of the packages you install.

2) This means you need to completely trust both the mirrors and your connection to them.

3) At least one of Arch's high-traffic mirrors was compromised recently, which indicates that #2 can be a problem.

So yes, I do think it's worth pointing out. Some people care about their security, and it's only fair to mention this.

Besides, if Arch's lack of fitness for secure operation is such an "obvious" thing, why is it not mentioned prominently in any of the documentation? Surely it's only fair to warn the users, no?

 

And kernel.org and the Linux foundation among others have been hacked as well. Does this mean I have to worry about my kernel? Not really!

There have been people that have used Arch for years without issue. This has become an issue with the "purists" and has not presented problems for anyone, so its only a problem in practice and not in real life use.

Just for reference:
It is being worked on

 

No. If you used mirrors.kernel.org for your Arch mirror though, I'd actually be worrying about *all* of the packages I'd installed during the time the box was compromised.

Millions of people drive without a seatbelt too. That doesn't mean it's equally as safe as wearing one.

And there is indeed malicious software out there designed to poison Arch updates "on the fly". Just because you haven't been targeted doesn't make the threat any less real.

It's been "worked on" for years now. And considering that the developers actively reject interim solutions (such as repo/package list signing), contributions from critics, and generally have a hostile attitude towards anyone who raises the issue, I imagine it might stay that way for some time to come.

If you're interested in watching one developer's struggle with the Arch team over this issue, you might want to read these:

https://igurublog.wordpress.com/2011/02/19/archs-dirty-little-notso-secret/
https://igurublog.wordpress.com/2011/02/25/mirror-mirror/
https://igurublog.wordpress.com/2011/03/24/lwn-picks-up-on-package-signing/

Now obviously he's not an impartial author (having had his own security-improving patches/solutions rejected by Arch devs many times), but he does have a pretty good point: rejecting contributions for being incomplete whilst letting a "complete" solution remain unmerged for *years* doesn't indicate a commitment to security.

If you want to use Arch, do so. But be aware of the risks that involves. (Pretty much the same advice I'd give to anyone running a web server, an SMTP relay, a WWW proxy, etc.)

 

A friend of mine brought me his computer for fixing, a Compaq Presario with XP Home. It was in a reboot loop. I told him about Linux, and all its advantages, and he agreed to try it. I grabbed my PCLinuxOS CD and installed it in a matter minutes. Everything was working, but something about that particular hardware was not sitting well with it. It kept freezing. This is the first time I see this, as all other machines I have installed it on have been very stable. My guess is that it has to do with the graphics. The machine has and old built-in Intel graphics adapter. I did not have a proper graphics card laying around to give him, so I figured I wouldn't fight it.

I went online and downloaded the Linux Mint 11 (Gnome). I was disappointed only by one thing, my Belkin USB wireless card would not connect to my network. A quick search online showed that several other people had the same problem and I could not find any with a working solution. I was in a hurry, so I just picked up the box and placed it next to the router in order to connect it with a network cable. Everything else was rather smooth. I like the look of Mint. I certainly give it props on the looks department. The "Software Manager" is well designed and newbie friendly. I was a bit disconcerted by the fact that all users have permissions to access other users home areas. But, since it was not for me, I left it alone.

I didn't get a chance to test it thoroughly, but it seems to be a very nice distro. PCLinuxOS handles my Belkin USB wireless completely out of the box. So, it is too bad that Mint didn't. But it is too bad that PCLOS had such trouble with that particular hardware. I didn't spend the time needed to get to the bottom of it. But, I guess the lesson is that if one distro is giving you trouble, go ahead and try a different one. Use what works.