Hi Gals and Guys
with the reading / research that I have done so far, I'm getting
deeper into the rabbit hole that is turning into a bottomless pit !!!
All those Distro's to contend with and being a newbie is almost
more than my pea-pickin' brain can handle. Myth sounds nice and clean
i.e. no desktop screen cluter. but I dislike bugs which begs the
question,,which has fewer! and what sacrifices do I want to make.
Then the business of KDE, FORKS,MYTHTV, Gnome Shell,,,,,seems to me
that each and everyone of you guys / gals missed your calling and
should have become BRAIN SURGENS instead !! dang, what have I gotten
myself into ???
My typing is SO POOR that I have to type this on Notepad, copy paste
here and pray like hell that the LinuxQuestions.Org window session
does not expire as it has for me yesterday and earlier today.
Ulimately it is my decision as to which I choose to play with, so I
greatly thank you for all your help...
I am attaching fotos of my HP system.
I just want an open source alternative to the 'mans' offerings.
Just a semi-normal fellow, looking for freedom of choice.
Seems to me, that I may have bit off moar than I can handle.
[but I'm having fun doing it]
The following comments I copied from
and I am sure there are millions more just like these:
I like mythbuntu because the desktop does not have any icons on it,
just a Blank desktop where you choose what to drag there... and the
fact that everything is in the "applications" menu structure... just
click it and drill down into the menus... simple,simple,simple. none
of the "what does this icon button do"?... that KDE and unity has.
simple is better, because in linux the TERMINAL and COMMAND LINE are
your BFF (lol) or you have tolerate it with a passion... yes, mythtv
is installed by default but if you want to get rid of mythtv it is
easy... mythcontrol center/ system roles/ select no backend/ no
First and foremost, while Mint is technically a fork of Ubuntu, for
all intents and purposes they're basically the same thing done
differently. Why this author would feel the need to dual boot them
both seems ludicrous to me. Both Ubuntu and Mint share the same
repositories and the current edition for each has exactly the same
basic underpinnings (and the same bugs.) Obviously, superficially
they're quite different. Mint offers more user choice in its desktop
offerings including its custom Gnome 3.x fork, Cinnamon and Mate,
both of which use a familiar desktop/taskbar paradigm. Ubuntu only
offers its own Unity which has limited reconfigurability, bizarre
global menus, non-intuitive HUD and window buttons that are
backwards. But more than user choice, Mint also supplies many third
party codecs and web plugins out of the box. With Ubuntu, these have
to be installed manually. Whereas a new Mint user can get to work
almost immediately in an environment that's familiar, a new Ubuntu
user will find that he or she isn't in Kansas anymore and will
probably fumble about trying to get to grips with something so new
and unfamiliar as Unity. To me, the choice between Mint and Ubuntu
for novices, which is Ubuntu's intended audience, is a no-
"All too often, I hear the word 'easy' being tossed around as if
it's a bad word when describing Linux distributions. It's unfortunate
that in some circles, an easy-to-use Linux distribution is looked
down upon. Thankfully with both Linux Mint and Ubuntu, this isn't the
case. The communities for both distributions are both very focused on
a new user experience. I happen to see this as a positive thing.
"Despite the mutual goal of offering an easy to use Linux
desktop, I've noticed that Ubuntu and Linux Mint have different
approaches as to how they appeal to their users.
"In recent years, I've actually found the two distributions shift
further apart than ever before. This change isn't a negative thing,
rather a positive highlight that allows both distributions to
differentiate themselves better. The shift began with different
approaches to tools and software. Later, the differences between the
distros evolved to include the desktops as well.
"Today, Ubuntu firmly embraces Unity while Linux Mint holds
tightly to their own re-imagining of the Gnome Shell. In both
examples, the goal is to provide the most seamless experience to new
users as possible. Interestingly enough, the approach taken with each
distribution couldn't be more different when it comes to the desktop
Both Mint and Ubuntu by default will install on a single partition of
the entire available disk space. However both use the same manual
partition tool that makes defining your own disk partition layout
I generally partition my disk into 4 partitions. Partition #1 is the
/boot area of about 200mb to hold the kernel boot image and grub
config files. Partition #2 is the / (root) area where all system
files go. How big to make this depends on the size of the disk, but
you can usually fit everything you need in 20GB, I usually size this
around 30-50gb. #3 is a swap partition, usually sized to be 1-2 times
the amount of dram memory. #4 is my /home partition and it's what
left on the disk after the first 3 partitions are sized.
(X) Peter T
p.s. judas priest,,some of you get a tad touchy
very soon, we are ALL going to need all the friends we can muster
TPTB [the powers that be] want more, the financial system is bust