If Gusty sucks , why use it?

[allix]

There are plenty of other distros that are easy to use.
It seems to me to be like a vendor-lock in , when it clearly is not.

[Patrick]

One distro that I've been hearing people rave about is Linux Mint which is Ubuntu based. It's on my list of distros to try out. I hear they're planning on making a version based on Fedora as well. They're looking to add that little extra layer of polish that people new to Linux demand. In regards to the question, I agree try out other distros till you find what you like.

[jamathis]

One distro that I've been hearing people rave about is Linux Mint which is Ubuntu based. It's on my list of distros to try out. I hear they're planning on making a version based on Fedora as well. They're looking to add that little extra layer of polish that people new to Linux demand. In regards to the question, I agree try out other distros till you find what you like.

Linux Mint is awesome. The customized Gnome desktop they use by default is great. I haven't gotten around to upgrading to Linux Mint 4.0 yet. It gets increasingly better with each release. They strip out a lot of the stuff that is in Ubuntu and by default include multimedia codecs and DVD playback. Everything just works very well and it's quite fast to boot. It's one distro I can't say enough good things about. It would be cool if you guys could get Clement Lefebvre (a.ka. Clem), the maintainer of Linux Mint on the show.

[hellonorman]

If Gusty sucks , why use it?
There are plenty of other distros that are easy to use.

The underlying reasons why someone would say gutsy sucks do not go away by moving from distro to distro.

[snarkout]

Truthfully, because many other options suck worse, and I don't think *buntu sucks, I think their release schedule sucks, and I think gutsy was one of their worst releases. In general, the *buntu devs have put a lot of effort into making sure lappys work pretty well with it. I'm mostly just pissed off that they made some of really stupid, baffling decisions with gutsy (IMO, obviously).

People talk shit about stability in Arch. Generally, when things break in Arch it's because you didn't read the output from pacman to see if something needed tweaking. Debian/ubuntu don't even give you that breadcrumb trail to follow. Generally, if I'm running a system that is supposed to be "user friendly" I don't expect a shitload of regression from version to version. It bothers me when it happens. I am seriously considering downgrading to feisty on my lappy, which was more or less a perfect release, IMO. If they could hold themselves to that standard, I'd be a happy, happy man.