While LMDE uses apt and dpkg it also uses Mint's own updating gui software.It is not like Ubuntu's software centre or Debians Synaptic, it also limits, unless you change settings, what you can and can't install. LMDE is just as "hand holding" as regular Ubuntu based Mint editions are. Mint doesn't do updates like Ubuntu and Debian, instead it has monthly update packs (LMDE having monthly update packs goes against the actual idea of a rolling release).

Mint, of any persuasion, is for people who want bling and hand holding. Mint is a good distro for noobs who want to take their time learning linux but I'm not sure it's the best distro for someone who has a good technical understanding of PCs and even Linux.

A bit off-topic for the original poster, but
Just because someone understands computers doesn't mean they want to fiddle with them. I presume that you'll accept Linus as understanding Linux (at least, when you're not playing devil's advocate), yet he once said

1 members found this post helpful.

Wonder if he likes Synaptic or Aptitude? (hehehe)

Actually, while it may be an extension of the thread I don't see this continued discussion of the merits of various distros off-topic. Anyone choosing a distro, or even contemplating his existing one can gain from such discussion.

I'd like to comment on this:

I suspect this quote was Linus being political, taking the onus off of "easy" (maybe read "more windows-like) distributions. On one level he is absolutely right. There should be room for any and all flavors of Linux. That's part of what makes it so damned good.

That said, it is also true that "easy" is entirely relative, and to a conglomeration of experience. Everything is sort of hard until you know how. I'm sure there are people on this forum who, at least for a time, had a VCR with "12:00" blinking away like nobody's business. This often made kids who grew up with them giggle behind adults backs

Also, with the exception of LFS and Gentoo (afaik... never used LFS and haven't played with Gentoo in years) almost no distros encourage building from source. Even Gentoo has a package system and manager. Some distros just don't choose to play fast and loose with structure and compatibility and are more friendly for building from source.

Some of the "easy" distros have only recently become truly easy. Until just recently, many would break very easily just from a simple app install, let alone a system or large library upgrade. How easy is that when you have to choose between trying to discover what broke and how to fix it, and when you weren't the one who managed it, and a complete reinstall?

These days Ubuntu and it's derivatives have become much more solid in this regard but they also have to jump through some convoluted (and sometimes silly or crazy) hoops to do so. Specifically I mean that removing Package A may also remove, not just Package B which is closely associated, but also Package V, that is way far removed. Fortunately they now handle this by messages to "install Package V" when something else that needs it fails to run properly.

Personally I trust in "The 6 P's Rule" - Pre-Planning Prevents Piss Poor Performance. I would rather spend time and effort setting my system up at the start and then rarely if ever having to mess with it again (and never risking the base system) , over quick and apparently easy setup that bites me in the butt and causes dire hair loss down the road. That's why I prefer Slackware, even if I don't recommend it to all, across the board. That's "easy" to me. YMMV.

I feel, yes this is my opinion, someone who is technically minded (even Linus) is not going to be very happy for long with an distro that dictates and holds your hand more than your mother did. Mint is nice, it is a great distro for noobs but I personally don't think it is an appropriate distro for people who are not noobs.

I'll say it again it just is my opinion. When people ask for advice on what is the "best" distro I'll keep offering my opinion.

Mint and Ubuntu (for e.g.) seem to add limits to users like microcoughed or mapple perhaps assuming they don't want to use the computer for absolutely anything or will dish out cash to do so? Although, the average user does brake stuff an awful lot or use only a hand full of softwares...

My problem is, I always feel like a noob with Linux. I suppose that sounds absurd, being that I created an integrated compiler, debugger, IDE and interactive graphical GuiDesigner on Linux (whoops, actually UNIX then) in 1988, and have been working with Linux off and on since then.

I am totally technical to the core of my being. And I design and implement things most people consider "impossible". BUT... I do so despite the fact I have an absolutely terrible memory. I just don't remember arbitrary stuff (that could have been done 20 or 2000 different ways). And so when it comes to remembering how to configure thousands of aspects of something like Linux with a hundred programs that each have 100 commands... well... I can't remember.

The truth is, if I worked on many different Linux projects constantly, all the technical stuff would probably stick in my brain. But I don't. For 6 to 12 months I might be struggling with schematic design software, building PCBs, learning how to configure new generation FPGAs, write C8051F120 assembly language, develop lossless compression for images, mess with ethernet frames at the lowest level and so forth - to build a high-rez, high-speed robotics camera. By the time I'm done with that, I've forgotten almost everything (other than insanely fundamental stuff like "ls -la", "sudo", "cp", "mv" and so forth).

What I don't forget is... how to write programs in C and assembly-language. That's firmly burned in. Though I do have to look up gdb commands now and then, no matter how much programming I've been doing (they just don't stick, hence my appreciation for IDEs).

So yeah, I always feel like a Linux noob, even though I've designed and implemented new CPUs totally from scratch (logic gates and MSI), even though I've written my own OS a few times (simpler ones, for my embedded devices), even though I understand everything from top to bottom (well, except I don't know how to make my own ICs).

And that's the key for me. I understand everything, but I can't remember arbitrary commands for dozens of utility programs and configuration files.

Plus, when I get into the groove, developing something very complex and demanding, and I've got the whole context fresh in my mind, and am able to juggle dozens of concepts as necessary to implement something cool. The last thing I need is to let all those balls collapse to the floor because I have to learn some Linux utility to change ONE SETTING.

That's why I don't want to mess with Linux. I want to program on Linux.

I'd love to become a Linux guru. I really would. Seriously. And you can't imagine how much my current projects depend upon Linux. I'm trusting Linux and for what I'm doing, that trust is absolutely necessary. Which is why, when I get to the final implementation, creating a system that is fully autonomous and takes an unlimited variety of physical actions on very macroscopic scales... I or someone working with me will have to strip everything out that isn't required to function (in order to make absolutely [as possible] certain that nothing nefarious is inside, or can get inside).

So... someday. Someday I'll become a Linux guru, and/or have a Linux guru at my side. Any Linux guru out there is welcome to join our project now. :-) But until then, all you guys in this forum have to be my stand-in Linux gurus for the time being.

I know what you're thinking. If I'm that smart, and that experienced, I should have no problems fiddling with every little aspect of Linux. Well, let me assure you, you don't know how bad is my memory for arbitrary things like command sets and configuration file formats. In that particular aspect of smart, my IQ is about 30. Nah, 20.

creative != guru;
smart != guru;

And BTW, I think all the comments about distros will be helpful to someone someday, and most are helpful to me today.

@enorbet: Yes, I understand that I can disable nefarious aspects of ubuntu. However, I understand very clearly that letting predators become stronger is a very, very bad idea. Take a look at the current state of the "land of the free" someday for an example of what happens when people keep moving the line in the sand. Eventually the predators to take over completely. I refuse to support (or subject myself to) anyone who is willing to actually create and implement spyware and make it default. And this is on the distro of Linux that is specifically designed to appeal to "clueless windoze types", which means they won't realize or understand what is happening to them BY DEFAULT. If they had made this nefarious behavior an option, I might tolerate them.

I'm not thinking that at all. I'm not a programmer but I can do some coding, I'm not a web designer but I have built web pages, being smart has nothing to do with what I'm thinking rather it is about what level of hand holding do you require. Mint has a feature in updates that wont even allow updating a kernel (forget about security updates in the kernel) unless you specifically allow it. They class updates by levels, levels 1-3 are enabled and are considered safe, levels 4 and 5 are not enabled and Kernels are in level 5 (from memory). Many people who use Mint just go with the "minty flow" and don't change things or question things somehow I don't think you're that type of person.

With regards to command line stuff I just keep a text file with a list of them and an explanation of what they do. That's got nothing to do with smart or a high IQ but more to do with wanting control over my own system rather than allowing someone else to make arbitrary choices with regards to things like updates. Each to their own but at least know and understand what's behind the choices that are available to you.

Yes, I do have a few lists (including how to install ubuntu and get it set up as required to develop my 3D engine and other development applications), but usually I can't remember where I put my lists.

So... when you install mint, does it let you specify which levels you want to update? Or you have to be a guru and know where to find some configuration file, and how to tweak it appropriately?

I guess I'd like to find a distribution where they don't just pass stuff on, but actually try out everything before they release it. Well, not "everything", but you know what I mean. Right? I mean, I assume that once a package is considered "stable" for a few months, any egregious problems would have been discovered and fixed, and could fairly safely be considered "safe enough for a mainstream distro".

Or maybe I totally misunderstand how "haywire" the whole Linux game is.

All I know is, Linux is much better for me (an application developer) than windoze is. While Linux does have faults and weaknesses, Linux is not intentionally malicious, and windoze most certainly is in a great many ways. So I'm willing to accept inconvenience now and then due to the distributed way Linux is developed, because all things considered, Linux is a vastly better OS.

Lol I'm like that, now they are all in my dropbox.

In order of questions, 1. No, 2. Not quite a guru but it is different so you do need to look around. It may have a config file but there used to be a gui for it. I just change the sources.list and point LMDE straight at Debian and let LMDE complain via a message.

This distro is, in my not so humble opinion, Debian!

Hmmm... and this is why so many other distributions based theirs on Debian?

Oh, one other question I want to repeat, because nobody answered it. How much more or less help am I likely to get in this forum as a consequence of choosing one distro or another (mainstream or obscure)?

Yes it is. Debian has the largest repository and the DDs (Debian Developers) do a massive amount of work getting things stable enough to be released for general usage. Ubuntu started out being a polished Debian that "just works" and it did this really well up until 10.04, since then (in my opinion) Canonical stopped listening and Ubuntu has become the type of Debian based distro that Microsoft would release. Mint is a polished Ubuntu with a few extra tweaks that are designed to hold your hand or make you feel you don't need to do anything.

Distros like Ubuntu, Mint, Debian, Antix (any Deb based distro really) usually runs in a similar fashion so the help you get will for the most part be generic for Deb based distros.

Distros like Fedora (RPM based distros) are similar in that their structure is basically the same so again the help will be generic for RPM based distros.

Slackware(and Slackware based) has its own dedicated section here for all Slackware users. It is the official Slackware forum so if you choose Slackware you will get plenty of help from Slackware users (they may be a little crazy sometimes but they are in general extremely helpful).

Anything else will probably be generic Linux and everyone is here to help with that. If for some reason no help comes along it will be because people don't know not because they don't want to help.

The best systems for specifics and averagely techie people (IMHO) are netinst, Arch, Slackware, etc maybe even LFS so you build them up the way you want them...

Meh, I'm highly technical and for me it's all the same under the hood. Whatever gets me to the terminal the fastest to work on servers is the best distro for me. I would not consider Arch, Slackware, nor LFS on any on my professional workstations (though I have used LFS personally learning). I'm more interested in getting work done in that scenario. I imagine the OP is in a similar position.

So Im curious. Since you list Kubuntu, RHEL, Fedora, FreeBSD, and Windows as your systems, which is the one that "gets you to the terminal the fastest" and if you know why that is so, could you explain please.