Real World Issues Switching to Mint?

[Brickwizard]

have spent about 90 mins trying to verify the checksum/signature;

Normally takes less than 5 this is the instructions I normally recommend [are they the ones you used]?

How to Verify SHA256 Checksum of File in Linux

In this article, we will learn about checksums and how they can be used to authenticate a downloaded file from the Internet in Linux.

www.ubuntumint.com

 

[Vaj2]

Hi CA. It'd be interesting to hear why you're not a fan of the Mint/Cinnamon distro.

Speaking as a person just getting into Linux the difficulty seems to be that it's necessary to start somewhere - to select a distro before as above getting stuck into researching what the use of it might entail. 'Might' is the operative word because this sort of research is by definition pretty superficial - it normally requires a fair amount of hands on experience to truly reveal the nature of these kinds of beasts.

The beginner is consequently heavily dependent on advice in making this selection....

There's perhaps something of a compromise involved in the choice of distro too.

As a fairly basic user (see above) I don't necessarily need exotic functionality/programmability - at least not if it comes at the cost of complexity. The difficulty with the last is that while I can figure out most things I six months or a year later normally can't for the life of me remember what I did.

The professional or enthusiast that is immersed in the topic every day probably won't have this problem, but all else being equal an intuitive interface is for this reason potentially of value for me....

 

[CaffeineAddict]

Hi CA. It'd be interesting to hear why you're not a fan of the Mint/Cinnamon distro.

I don't necessarily need exotic functionality/programmability - at least not if it comes at the cost of complexity.

In that case just stick with Mint or Ubuntu, it will serve you well to have fun with Linux and Linux software without having to put any extra effort into learning how to use it.

I'm complete opposite of you because I don't like shiny environments that are made for user's convenience (had enough of this while using MS Windows), I prefer very basic system and then adding components to it as needed.
It does take extra learning curve but it's not an issue for me, I enjoy reading and studying articles and docs for hours, the harder it is the more fun there is.

 

[Vaj2]

I'm not a fan of shiny environments either CA and also prefer a more basic system that can be extended as needed. I for example found Windows and Office for all of their unreliability back in the 1990s a far more satisfactory proposition than the bloated, manipulative and over-featured hulks that they are today.

It's a matter of balance though - the computer in my world is a tool rather than a particular interest. I've been known to get sucked into the topic and have enjoyed it - but I also know from experience that if it gets too complicated for my level of ongoing engagement that problems will follow. .

The mainstream operating systems are anyway by now in a very different space to what we both are talking about - a world of diktat where profit and the enabling of the will of the masters is everything and where the interest of the user is paid only lip service.

It's the result of many years of corporatised 'improvement' - of development staff (hell bent on justifying their existence and bonuses) coming up with an endless stream of gimmicks instead of genuine improvements. Also of business conduct moving steadily further into sharp practice to gain power and extract profit.

It's difficult to conclude other than that as is the case with much relating to our Western 'culture' that this collapse in values must leave the companies concerned ripe for failure - that they are 'eating their own seed corn'.

That all it will take is a few competing products to emerge that do a decent, customer oriented and more cost effective job - and perhaps more importantly for a cultural trigger emerge that legitimises moving on in the mind of the punter......

 

[Condobloke]

@DECH, the simplest way to verify, is to download the .iso file via a torrent. Qbittorrent is just one of many and is quite reliable

All Linux OS's have a torrent file available. eg Linux Mint 22 (Cinnamon)......shown on the screenshot below.

A single click on the highlighted '64 bit' will download the file which starts the torrent. It will download to wherever you store downloads.
From there, simply drag and drop that file onto the window of qbittorrent (or similar) and it will automatically begin to download the .iso.
The torrent client (qbittorrent etc ) will automatically check the downloaded files for you. No further intervention is required on your part.

HTH

 

[DECH]

Normally takes less than 5 this is the instructions I normally recommend [are they the ones you used]?

How to Verify SHA256 Checksum of File in Linux

In this article, we will learn about checksums and how they can be used to authenticate a downloaded file from the Internet in Linux.

www.ubuntumint.com

No, and the one I used seems to have been edited slightly since to downplay the importance of doing Checksums; but maybe it's a different "official" site. I won't do a forensic search at this time; the point was mainly to note that within a few sentences into the documentation there was the (unlikely to be correct) but clear indication that Checksum's could only be done on Mint or Windows - and "Windows" is ambiguous; did they mean Windows OS's or devices configured for them?

 

[ron.alan]

Cinnamon is the flagship.....Mate in the middle...a different look, very much a windows 7 look....and XFCE is a lighter distro

Actually, I'd reverse Xfce and Mate. Since Xfce's latest release I'd say Mate is lighter.