I have used Linux-Mint-Cinnamon for a long time. I resonantly switched to Mint-Xfce and love it!!!!

I see Xbuntu, which is Ubuntu-Xfce.

I tried the Live DVD and thought it was Nice and smooth.

In business, I've always thought it was good to eliminate the middle man.

What is the difference in using

Debian-Ubuntu-Mint-Xfce and
Debian-Ubuntu-Xfce?

Thank you,

Chris.

The 3 oldest Linux distributions that are still supported are Slackware, Debian and Red Hat.
Most other distro's are derived from one of the 3.

The easiest way to determine the basis of a distro is the type of package management it uses.
Debian uses APT and .deb pkg's. Red Hat uses DNF and .rpm pkg's. Slackware has it's own package management system.

Debian is rock solid, stable and does not use Unity.

Ubuntu was built from Debian but comes with a different desktop environment. (unity)
Linux Mint is based on Ubuntu and XFCE is a desktop environment. Of all of the DE's XFCE is very light and fast.

https://unity.ubuntu.com/

-::-There is more than one kind of DE and it's based on the users preferences.-::-
http://lxde.org/
https://www.gnome.org/
https://www.kde.org/workspaces/plasmadesktop/
http://mate-desktop.com/

1 members found this post helpful.

Ubuntu is put together every six months mostly by taking software from the Debian Unstable repository. Every two years they bring out a long-term-support version. That's just as bleeding-edge, but supported for 5 years instead of 9 months.

When the LTS Ubuntu has had its obvious bugs fixed, it's used as the basis for a new Mint. The six-monthly Mints (e.g. 17.3) are made from the two-yearly issues by careful updates, giving less radical change than you get with Ubuntu.

The Xfce version of Mint is official, just like the Mate one. Xubuntu, however, is a community project. Canonical keep a friendly eye on it and host it on their servers, but it's put together by its users.

The "middle man" here is providing added value. The software in Debian Unstable is sometimes what the name implies, but the Canonical staff give it an extra check before adding it to Ubuntu. Then the inevitable bug fixes after it's released get incorporated into Mint. And both Ununtu and Mint have extra useful items added: there's less need to use obscure "dpkg --configure" commands, for example. You could install Debian Unstable and then add Xfce and configure your computer to use it, but the result would need more expertise to keep it reliable or to customise it.

I'll make my contribution short: Mint is Ubuntu done right.

Thank you for the replies. Thank you for the value on the middle man. I like apt. I used redhat 9 when it first came out, hope updating is easier now then it was then.

Why do you like slackware?

Thanks to each of your replies, I learned from each one.

Thank you,

Chris.

You're Welcome:-

I like Slackware because it has it's own package management system and it's rock solid.
It doesn't have systemd, it runs great and it's a great teacher.

U should install Debian then install xfce , there is a vast difference between Buntus,mint and DEBIAN !

:hattip :

Yea, but the package management can't be as good as apt-get. I'm interested in it because it's one the the oldest ones or original ones left?

I tried Debian but I misread on mint sites that the commands where the same. I couldn't get it to work so I gave up. I'm looking for a distro that's the best at not getting dependency's screwed up or corrupted.

I know this is a bad thing to say on a linux forum, but I wish half or 3/4 of the people wold work to make a distro better, not make their own that comes out twice a day. Way to many. New ones are out 2-3 times a day on distrowatch. People argue, but I think it hurts linux way more then even advocates say so.

Chris.

yep ! the B E S T package manager + synaptic = 110 ! !

I like Sid ("much more... muchier...") and Slackware side by side.

I just did a little research on Slackware package management. Looks complicated. Seems like I'd have to spend a lot of time learning when I could just use Mint and other distros.

It does say on the site; designed with the twin goals of ease of use and stability as top priorities. I guess if your a Linux Geek it's ease of use.

Guess I can't say anything until I have experience.


Off to try Slackware 14.2!!!!

u r a clever person ! pain in the @ _ _ to install whatever ...

If you want to just use it and have it work, then quite honestly you should NOT administer "your" "own" computer!

My mom has me(: though if I wouldn't fix things for her, can blame microcoughed-losedough$ and\or 3rd partie$,,,)
then there's LUGs http://www.linuxquestions.org/questions/groups/ &c...

Don't know what I was thinking or if was paying attention when I "worded" this post but was meaning,,, know you're the admin or have one!!!

I disagree, I think your response is extreme. I should administer my own computer. I've done it for 21 years. Slackware, salix, slackel doesn't work with my dual monitors, so I can't use it.

I'll stick with administering my own Mint computer until a distro comes out that will work with dual monitors. Debian, Slaix, Slackel are the worst for my video, I get dual blank.

Chris.