I use Mint right now, what would be an good advanced distro for me?

0000

New Member
Joined
Dec 24, 2024
Messages
4
Reaction score
0
Credits
28
I have an old pc (10y), information with inxi -F:

Bash:
System:
  Host: Mint-Jazz Kernel: 5.15.0-126-generic x86_64 bits: 64
    Desktop: Cinnamon 5.6.8 Distro: Linux Mint 21.1 Vera
Machine:
  Type: Desktop System: MEDIONPC product: MS-7502 v: N/A
    serial: <superuser required>
  Mobo: MICRO-STAR model: MS-7502 v: Fab D serial: <superuser required>
    BIOS: Phoenix v: 6.00 PG date: 01/13/2010
CPU:
  Info: quad core model: Intel Core2 Quad Q6600 bits: 64 type: MCP cache:
    L2: 8 MiB
  Speed (MHz): avg: 2399 min/max: N/A cores: 1: 2201 2: 2466 3: 2466
    4: 2466
Graphics:
  Device-1: NVIDIA G84 [GeForce 8600 GT] driver: nouveau v: kernel
  Display: x11 server: X.Org v: 1.21.1.4 driver: X: loaded: modesetting
    unloaded: fbdev,vesa gpu: nouveau resolution: 1280x1024~60Hz
  OpenGL: renderer: NV84 v: 3.3 Mesa 23.2.1-1ubuntu3.1~22.04.2
Audio:
  Device-1: Intel 82801I HD Audio driver: snd_hda_intel
  Sound Server-1: ALSA v: k5.15.0-126-generic running: yes
  Sound Server-2: PulseAudio v: 15.99.1 running: yes
  Sound Server-3: PipeWire v: 0.3.48 running: yes
Network:
  Device-1: D-Link System DGE-528T Gigabit Ethernet Adapter driver: r8169
  IF: enp2s0 state: down mac: 00:ad:24:90:3a:b9
  Device-2: Techsan Co B2C2 FlexCopII DVB chip / Technisat SkyStar2 card
    driver: b2c2_flexcop_pci
  Device-3: IMC Networks AW-NU222 802.11bgn Wireless Module [Ralink
  RT2770+RT2720]
    type: USB driver: rt2800usb
  IF: wlx0015af42fa40 state: up mac: 00:15:af:42:fa:40
Drives:
  Local Storage: total: 931.51 GiB used: 112.91 GiB (12.1%)
  ID-1: /dev/sdd vendor: Crucial model: CT1000BX500SSD1 size: 931.51 GiB
Partition:
  ID-1: / size: 191.67 GiB used: 112.91 GiB (58.9%) fs: ext4 dev: /dev/sdd5
  ID-2: /boot/efi size: 512 MiB used: 6.1 MiB (1.2%) fs: vfat
    dev: /dev/sdd3
Swap:
  ID-1: swap-1 type: file size: 2 GiB used: 1.62 GiB (81.1%) file: /swapfile
Sensors:
  System Temperatures: cpu: 65.0 C mobo: N/A gpu: nouveau temp: 63.0 C
  Fan Speeds (RPM): N/A gpu: nouveau fan: 0
Info:
  Processes: 249 Uptime: 4h 23m Memory: 2.9 GiB used: 1.86 GiB (64.3%)
  Shell: Bash inxi: 3.3.13
 


welcome, this depends on what you mean by advanced.
To be perfectly honest of the 500+ Linux desktop builds available, your machine being of 2007 vintage with limited Ram, I would stick to a Medium or lightweight build, As I always say. What is best for me or any other member may not be best for you , only you can make that decision.
 
what is best for you? I've got kali on an bootable usb because i am into ethical hacking, but the computer is too old to boot from it...
 
I've got kali on an bootable usb because i am into ethical hacking, but the computer is too old to boot from it...
Then you could use Parrot home edition and add the tools to it, as a solo or multi-boot with the existing OS, or if your into pentesting parrotsec ,some Motherboards were USB bootable back then but MSI [media star international] was not among them, [they were optical boot{ dvd/cd}]
 
@0000 :-

Hm. So; what's your definition of "advanced".....and - more to the point - why do you think any other, more "advanced" distro will necessarily work any better for you than Mint can?

Mint may be generally recommended as the best "noobs" distro.....but that doesn't mean you can't kit it out to be capable of doing just what any other distro can. Just because it's simple to use, does NOT mean it's incapable of performing complex stuff if asked to.

As somebody else stated in a different thread earlier today - I think it was @Brickwizard - all distros essentially have access to basically the same giant pool of software. Some may use that software in perhaps a different way to that of others, but ALL can install & use the same stuff if required to.

Methinks you may want to re-examine your priorities. You might be surprised at just what IS possible on this side of the fence.....if you put your mind to it.


Mike. ;)
 
Last edited:
I second what @MikeWalsh said about re-examing your priorities.
And, also are the motives to those priorities going to lead to helpfulness,success and a good use of time?

A few thoughts

Run Mint for a while and get to know the package management system very well.
Then consider running Debian stable/testing for a while. Then the more challenging distributions like Arch, Slackware, Gentoo, Black Arch Linux.

Advancement in Linux can go in 'so many directions'. The skills that you can obtain along the way are good...even that, tho, you may have to put more time into it to sharpen or fine tune those skills.

You have to crawl first before you can walk in almost everything in life.
Learning Linux IMO is a ride all of it's own.

Alex
 
Yep, agree with Mike and Alex. But just to add my 5cents:

Please, please, please... do not start using Kali yet. That you are asking this question tells me you are not ready. We have enough new users who just installed Kali and got lost, broke packages, have hardware problems, can't boot, etc. and I'm afraid it is always (okay 99% of the time) the fact that the are still green.

My advice: When you are ready, install Debian stable from a netinstaller (saves you bandwidth as the live ISO was like 3.7GB or something last I checked) and then enable backports (you can read the Debian docs outlining the repos and apt). Debian, pure Debian, scales to almost anything, including SBCs. It is the base of some of the most popular distros like Ubuntu, Mint (via Ubuntu, or directly in the case of Mint Debian Edition, AKA LMDE), and even Kali. Which brings me to the next point, already mentioned, but still:
You can download every tool that Kali ships preinstalled with, on a Debian system. And Kali being Debian-based makes it that much better. Using Debian stable makes it very hard to break things. It is a little out of date, which is why I recommend backports. Iif you need the latest tools, and they are not in backports, you either download the source and build it against your existing system -- which is a great thing to learn going forwards for any distro, and really not that hard anyway -- or download an AppImage where available (although not all AppImages are perfect). I don't like flatpaks, but they're available, too.

Anyway, just my 5c.
 
Hello @0000 Welcome to the Linux.org forum.
With your specs I would say if Mint is working stick with it. Advanced is a broad term. Any distro can be advanced. But if your looking for most up to date then Arch family or Fedora, If stable then Debian family.
 
Last edited:
I have an old pc (10y), information with inxi -F:

Bash:
System:
  Host: Mint-Jazz Kernel: 5.15.0-126-generic x86_64 bits: 64
    Desktop: Cinnamon 5.6.8 Distro: Linux Mint 21.1 Vera
Machine:
  Type: Desktop System: MEDIONPC product: MS-7502 v: N/A
    serial: <superuser required>
  Mobo: MICRO-STAR model: MS-7502 v: Fab D serial: <superuser required>
    BIOS: Phoenix v: 6.00 PG date: 01/13/2010
CPU:
  Info: quad core model: Intel Core2 Quad Q6600 bits: 64 type: MCP cache:
    L2: 8 MiB
  Speed (MHz): avg: 2399 min/max: N/A cores: 1: 2201 2: 2466 3: 2466
    4: 2466
Graphics:
  Device-1: NVIDIA G84 [GeForce 8600 GT] driver: nouveau v: kernel
  Display: x11 server: X.Org v: 1.21.1.4 driver: X: loaded: modesetting
    unloaded: fbdev,vesa gpu: nouveau resolution: 1280x1024~60Hz
  OpenGL: renderer: NV84 v: 3.3 Mesa 23.2.1-1ubuntu3.1~22.04.2
Audio:
  Device-1: Intel 82801I HD Audio driver: snd_hda_intel
  Sound Server-1: ALSA v: k5.15.0-126-generic running: yes
  Sound Server-2: PulseAudio v: 15.99.1 running: yes
  Sound Server-3: PipeWire v: 0.3.48 running: yes
Network:
  Device-1: D-Link System DGE-528T Gigabit Ethernet Adapter driver: r8169
  IF: enp2s0 state: down mac: 00:ad:24:90:3a:b9
  Device-2: Techsan Co B2C2 FlexCopII DVB chip / Technisat SkyStar2 card
    driver: b2c2_flexcop_pci
  Device-3: IMC Networks AW-NU222 802.11bgn Wireless Module [Ralink
  RT2770+RT2720]
    type: USB driver: rt2800usb
  IF: wlx0015af42fa40 state: up mac: 00:15:af:42:fa:40
Drives:
  Local Storage: total: 931.51 GiB used: 112.91 GiB (12.1%)
  ID-1: /dev/sdd vendor: Crucial model: CT1000BX500SSD1 size: 931.51 GiB
Partition:
  ID-1: / size: 191.67 GiB used: 112.91 GiB (58.9%) fs: ext4 dev: /dev/sdd5
  ID-2: /boot/efi size: 512 MiB used: 6.1 MiB (1.2%) fs: vfat
    dev: /dev/sdd3
Swap:
  ID-1: swap-1 type: file size: 2 GiB used: 1.62 GiB (81.1%) file: /swapfile
Sensors:
  System Temperatures: cpu: 65.0 C mobo: N/A gpu: nouveau temp: 63.0 C
  Fan Speeds (RPM): N/A gpu: nouveau fan: 0
Info:
  Processes: 249 Uptime: 4h 23m Memory: 2.9 GiB used: 1.86 GiB (64.3%)
  Shell: Bash inxi: 3.3.13
you will most likely anger many mint fans with that comment. But I understand what you are talking about. I looked at the specs of your machine and I would stick with mint. Mostly I say because of the CPU being rather low end by today's standard. However if you are wondering I prefer the use of Fedora as it is great on most systems and advanced as you say. Also very up to date. I would however stay away from things like arch or kali because they are not meant for you. They are advanced special distros.
 
Advanced Distro...and Mint isn't.
1735264130924.gif
 
I have an old pc (10y), information with inxi -F:
Here you go: stop using crappy software. Learn proper linux (UNIX) commands. This will be your first step towards advanced linux.
For this you don't need a lot of CPU power.

Abandon so called aplets instead try to configure everything manually.
This would be your second step of learning understanding how linux works.
 
I'll answer the OP's question as simply as this -

Arch

Why?

You have a gig of space on your HDD (used: 112.91 GiB (12.1%)), and 2 GB RAM available.

Arch only requires the following

Arch Linux requires a x86_64 (i.e. 64 bit) compatible machine with a minimum of 512 MB RAM and 800 MB disk space for a minimal installation. However, it is recommended to have 2 GB of RAM and at least 20 GB of storage for a GUI to work without hassle.

I would give it a minimum of 40 GB space.

I would also :
  • get myself an external portable drive 500 GB to 1 TB to store Timeshift snapshots for your Mint, or if not
  • as a short-term solution only carve off a dedicated Timeshift partition of 200 GB on your HDD - remember that if your PC goes kaput, or Mint goes kaput, it will be hard to restore Mint, hence the external storage
I would try installing Arch alongside Linux Mint, so you can use Mint as your daily driver while you are learning and building Arch.

WIZARD'S RECOMMENDED READING

From Here (this site) https://www.linux.org/threads/getting-started-with-arch-linux-a-beginners-installation-guide.53535/

https://wiki.archlinux.org/title/Installation_guide

and Google

"install arch alongside linux mint" and read articles from 2017 to now - put a "solved" after "mint" to narrow the search.

Just me.

Wizard
 
Yep, agree with Mike and Alex. But just to add my 5cents:

Please, please, please... do not start using Kali yet. That you are asking this question tells me you are not ready. We have enough new users who just installed Kali and got lost, broke packages, have hardware problems, can't boot, etc. and I'm afraid it is always (okay 99% of the time) the fact that the are still green.

My advice: When you are ready, install Debian stable from a netinstaller (saves you bandwidth as the live ISO was like 3.7GB or something last I checked) and then enable backports (you can read the Debian docs outlining the repos and apt). Debian, pure Debian, scales to almost anything, including SBCs. It is the base of some of the most popular distros like Ubuntu, Mint (via Ubuntu, or directly in the case of Mint Debian Edition, AKA LMDE), and even Kali. Which brings me to the next point, already mentioned, but still:
You can download every tool that Kali ships preinstalled with, on a Debian system. And Kali being Debian-based makes it that much better. Using Debian stable makes it very hard to break things. It is a little out of date, which is why I recommend backports. Iif you need the latest tools, and they are not in backports, you either download the source and build it against your existing system -- which is a great thing to learn going forwards for any distro, and really not that hard anyway -- or download an AppImage where available (although not all AppImages are perfect). I don't like flatpaks, but they're available, too.

Anyway, just my 5c.
so i would use another pc (an laptop) for kali linux and ill boot from an usb there that i already have (balena etcher). oter people told me use arch, you say debian. Why debian?
 
so i would use another pc (an laptop) for kali linux and ill boot from an usb there that i already have (balena etcher). oter people told me use arch, you say debian. Why debian?
I say Debian because it's a solid system (stable branch) and a primary distro (it's not based on another distro). You just don't get breakages with software or dependencies. You almost never have driver issues either. It's very privacy-respecting (FF ships with DuckDuckGo as the default search engine, for example).
Debian will give you a good insight into maintaining a system without worrying about anything crashing. It's one of those distros that's very difficult to break even if your tinker a little, and it's easy to fix if you do manage to break things. It has good security updates, good package management, it's not super bleeding-edge with software (on stable), but backports will give you close to the latest.

It's geared towards everything from servers to workstations to SMCs. And because so many distros are based on Debian, you'll feel comfortable with them. If you know Debian, you'll be able to navigate everything, from Ubuntu & Mint to antiX and even Kali (If you need any tools that are on Kali, you can still run them on Debian). If you're running Debian, third-party software like Edge or Mega Sync, for example, will always primarily support Debian. So it's very production friendly, from coding to video-editing and graphic design.
The only thing it's not geared towards is gaming. That's not to say you can't use it for that, it's just a bit of a hassle compared to Arch and Arch-based distros, because the AUR is still more complete than all the AppImage sources and Flathub stuff put together... for now. So there'd be a bit of building from source involved and possibly using tweaked kernels. So unless you're a die-hard gamer, this won't be an issues. That all said, Linux users are getting targetted anyway. More and more games are banning all Linux users, the latest being Apex Legends (you can look it up, they say it's because of cheating, but their survey/stats/sampling is a joke).

And when you're ready, if you want, you can switch to the unstable branch (AKA Sid) and get all the latest stuff while benefitting from the knowledge you've built up using stable. So fixing stuff and upgrading becomes easy. Personally, I only use stable on my production machine, but I did used to run unstable on one of my other machines and it still didn't break often. Less than on Ubuntu.

So in short it combines being stable and user-friendly with complete control and learning how underlying stuff works. It's one of the few distros that's a good balance between "for everyday users" and "advanced users".

... and that's the short of it.
 
What I didn’t quite understand is exactly what you mean by advanced operating system.
From what I understand you can not install Kali (which would be the optimal solution) because your computer has low specifications.
I agree with Fanboy when he recommends stable Debian.
If you are looking for something more oriented to anonymity and privacy there is also Tails (https://tails.net/) that you can use with a USB stick on stable Debian
You can install stable Debian, and when you want something more security-oriented and privacy-oriented, insert the Tails stick, but keep in mind that Tails is amnestic, meaning that disassembling the stick will remove everything unless you use persistent volume.
Debian and Tails may still be an interesting solution.
 
I say Debian because it's a solid system (stable branch) and a primary distro (it's not based on another distro). You just don't get breakages with software or dependencies. You almost never have driver issues either. It's very privacy-respecting (FF ships with DuckDuckGo as the default search engine, for example).
Debian will give you a good insight into maintaining a system without worrying about anything crashing. It's one of those distros that's very difficult to break even if your tinker a little, and it's easy to fix if you do manage to break things. It has good security updates, good package management, it's not super bleeding-edge with software (on stable), but backports will give you close to the latest.

It's geared towards everything from servers to workstations to SMCs. And because so many distros are based on Debian, you'll feel comfortable with them. If you know Debian, you'll be able to navigate everything, from Ubuntu & Mint to antiX and even Kali (If you need any tools that are on Kali, you can still run them on Debian). If you're running Debian, third-party software like Edge or Mega Sync, for example, will always primarily support Debian. So it's very production friendly, from coding to video-editing and graphic design.
The only thing it's not geared towards is gaming. That's not to say you can't use it for that, it's just a bit of a hassle compared to Arch and Arch-based distros, because the AUR is still more complete than all the AppImage sources and Flathub stuff put together... for now. So there'd be a bit of building from source involved and possibly using tweaked kernels. So unless you're a die-hard gamer, this won't be an issues. That all said, Linux users are getting targetted anyway. More and more games are banning all Linux users, the latest being Apex Legends (you can look it up, they say it's because of cheating, but their survey/stats/sampling is a joke).

And when you're ready, if you want, you can switch to the unstable branch (AKA Sid) and get all the latest stuff while benefitting from the knowledge you've built up using stable. So fixing stuff and upgrading becomes easy. Personally, I only use stable on my production machine, but I did used to run unstable on one of my other machines and it still didn't break often. Less than on Ubuntu.

So in short it combines being stable and user-friendly with complete control and learning how underlying stuff works. It's one of the few distros that's a good balance between "for everyday users" and "advanced users".

... and that's the short of it.
same thing can be said of Fedora
 
What I didn’t quite understand is exactly what you mean by advanced operating system.
From what I understand you can not install Kali (which would be the optimal solution) because your computer has low specifications.
I agree with Fanboy when he recommends stable Debian.
If you are looking for something more oriented to anonymity and privacy there is also Tails (https://tails.net/) that you can use with a USB stick on stable Debian
You can install stable Debian, and when you want something more security-oriented and privacy-oriented, insert the Tails stick, but keep in mind that Tails is amnestic, meaning that disassembling the stick will remove everything unless you use persistent volume.
Debian and Tails may still be an interesting solution.
Please, never recommend kali to anybody as a primary distro. Most of the people are beginner and Kali is not for beginners. I am advanced and still have problems with kali. It is not meant to be used as a primary distro. It is for PenTesting. Read the docs.
 
same thing can be said of Fedora
Well, Fedora supports a release for like a year. Debian supports a release for about two years as current stable. Then about 2 more years as oldstable, then another 2 years as oldoldstable. There's an average of 5 years LTS per release and there's enterprise extended EOL support.
Provides 3 branches: Stable, Testing, and Unstable (and 'Experimental', but that doesn't count)
"Stable" repos work off "snapshots" of a repo of working packages, but still provide backports. "Testing" provides the more typical rolling release model, but it's not bleeding-edge and actually non-critical updates are normally a little slower because this ultimately planned to be the next Stable. Now "Unstable" is misunderstood, in that it's not unstable, it's just that package management is unpredictable (though not all that much from running on it for a while on a non-production machine).
Fedora is also first in adopting new tech whereas Debian is the last.
Debian's minimum requirements are literally half Fedora's.

All in all it's comparing apples to oranges. Because Debian allows you to move slowly and doesn't force too much on you. From a purely objective standpoint, Fedora's release/support cycle makes for a more well-balanced desktop, except for the quick adoption of new stuff. I recently described it as an "Invator's OS" because a lot of new stuff comes from the entire RHEL/Fedora ecosystem. However, as a user, I don't want to be learning new technologies every couple of years. I mean it's been about 3 Debian distros since PipeWire was even considered and we're still on Pulse and I'm glad because I've only just gotten used to pulse (yes, I was managing my sound with alsamixer until a few years back). Debian were amongst the last to adopt systemd, too (and it caused such a saga, too). It took ages for ifconfig to be completely deprecated.
Now frame that as you want. Looking at Debian, some may say it took them that freaking long just to adopt a new system while others will say thank f*** I don't have to change the way I do things and update all my scripts for a long, long time. Looking at Fedora, some may say they release a new distro nearly 2 times in just one year it's as bad as MS updates while others may say that's a perfect release model because if I need to do a reinstall I or buy a new PC, I'll always have at least close to a year's support. So it boils down to the kind of user you are. It's very difficult for a newcomer to learn a system if things keep changing.

... So, two very different distros, the only thing they have in common is they're both pretty solid.

Just my 5c why I recommended Debian...
It's better for a newcomer to be faced with managing his/her system, but with a reasonable amount of time to learn certain commands, ways of doing things, locations of things, etc. so they can then focus on learning Linux underneath, rather than never getting there, then having to start over because they can't keep up with changes to the system. So that all being said, it's and easier journey wiith Debian, and if a newcomer then decides to go with a new distro, the change is easier because they've had time to learn how and why things work and they can apply most of that to any distro. I mean the filesystem may be a little different, package managers will be different, though package management will in most cases stay similar (I mean mainstream, not distros that can have multiple versions of the same package, and source-based / unmanaged stuff).
 
Well, Fedora supports a release for like a year. Debian supports a release for about two years as current stable. Then about 2 more years as oldstable, then another 2 years as oldoldstable. There's an average of 5 years LTS per release and there's enterprise extended EOL support.
Provides 3 branches: Stable, Testing, and Unstable (and 'Experimental', but that doesn't count)
"Stable" repos work off "snapshots" of a repo of working packages, but still provide backports. "Testing" provides the more typical rolling release model, but it's not bleeding-edge and actually non-critical updates are normally a little slower because this ultimately planned to be the next Stable. Now "Unstable" is misunderstood, in that it's not unstable, it's just that package management is unpredictable (though not all that much from running on it for a while on a non-production machine).
Fedora is also first in adopting new tech whereas Debian is the last.
Debian's minimum requirements are literally half Fedora's.

All in all it's comparing apples to oranges. Because Debian allows you to move slowly and doesn't force too much on you. From a purely objective standpoint, Fedora's release/support cycle makes for a more well-balanced desktop, except for the quick adoption of new stuff. I recently described it as an "Invator's OS" because a lot of new stuff comes from the entire RHEL/Fedora ecosystem. However, as a user, I don't want to be learning new technologies every couple of years. I mean it's been about 3 Debian distros since PipeWire was even considered and we're still on Pulse and I'm glad because I've only just gotten used to pulse (yes, I was managing my sound with alsamixer until a few years back). Debian were amongst the last to adopt systemd, too (and it caused such a saga, too). It took ages for ifconfig to be completely deprecated.
Now frame that as you want. Looking at Debian, some may say it took them that freaking long just to adopt a new system while others will say thank f*** I don't have to change the way I do things and update all my scripts for a long, long time. Looking at Fedora, some may say they release a new distro nearly 2 times in just one year it's as bad as MS updates while others may say that's a perfect release model because if I need to do a reinstall I or buy a new PC, I'll always have at least close to a year's support. So it boils down to the kind of user you are. It's very difficult for a newcomer to learn a system if things keep changing.

... So, two very different distros, the only thing they have in common is they're both pretty solid.

Just my 5c why I recommended Debian...
It's better for a newcomer to be faced with managing his/her system, but with a reasonable amount of time to learn certain commands, ways of doing things, locations of things, etc. so they can then focus on learning Linux underneath, rather than never getting there, then having to start over because they can't keep up with changes to the system. So that all being said, it's and easier journey wiith Debian, and if a newcomer then decides to go with a new distro, the change is easier because they've had time to learn how and why things work and they can apply most of that to any distro. I mean the filesystem may be a little different, package managers will be different, though package management will in most cases stay similar (I mean mainstream, not distros that can have multiple versions of the same package, and source-based / unmanaged stuff).
you prefer debian and that is fine if you like slow moving patches and distros. The patches and updates do not change the learning curve at all so your claim does not hold here. never have I seen an update change how I write scripts, while I am sure it happens it is rare. Nothing you know really changes except maybe something obsoleted.
 

Members online


Top