[SOLVED] what does Ubuntu have that Mint doesn't have? (not vice versa)

I don't use Ubuntu or Mint, and know only so much about them, but I could see from Distrowatch stats that Mint has been even more popular than Ubuntu for years. Since Ubuntu is supported by a wealthy businessman (or was, last I read anything), is it only because of money (from support subscriptions?) that Ubuntu remains active? Does Ubuntu have something that its more popular derivative doesn't have or even can't have?

If it's a question asked in ignorance, I know it. All I understand about Mint is that it's Ubuntu with more multimedia software...and without the tech support and the wealthy backing that I understand Ubuntu has.

I have used both Linux Mint and Ubuntu. Both are fine systems. Both have their own good characteristics.

I would like to mention one characteristic that comes to mind that may be applicable to your question.

Two months ago I updated the PPP on the Linux Mint 19 and it totally crashed the system. I was unable, through repeated attempts, to get the Lint Mint 19 up and running. The Linux Mint 19 is still on a partition. At this time, I do not have the expertise to fix the Linux Mint 19 due to the crash of the updated PPP's.

I installed Ubuntu 18.04.2 LTS Bionic Beaver. So far, in my estimation, the Ubuntu 18.04.2 is more simple to use than the Linux Mint.

To a lot of folks who want to leave Windows, and are just learning the Linux / Ubuntu, OS, than I recommend Ubuntu 18.04.2 LTS.

I'm not sure that Mint really is "more popular" than Ubuntu. You can't go by DistroWatch page hit rankings.

Originally Posted by m.a.l.'s pa I'm not sure that Mint really is "more popular" than Ubuntu. You can't go by DistroWatch page hit rankings.

I know it, but I just don't have anything else.

Originally Posted by greencedar I have used both Linux Mint and Ubuntu. Both are fine systems. Both have their own good characteristics. I would like to mention one characteristic that comes to mind that may be applicable to your question. Two months ago I updated the PPP on the Linux Mint 19 and it totally crashed the system. I was unable, through repeated attempts, to get the Lint Mint 19 up and running. The Linux Mint 19 is still on a partition. At this time, I do not have the expertise to fix the Linux Mint 19 due to the crash of the updated PPP's. I installed Ubuntu 18.04.2 LTS Bionic Beaver. So far, in my estimation, the Ubuntu 18.04.2 is more simple to use than the Linux Mint. To a lot of folks who want to leave Windows, and are just learning the Linux / Ubuntu, OS, than I recommend Ubuntu 18.04.2 LTS.

Interesting...this suggests that Mint diverged significantly from Ubuntu at some point, and I can't say "Mint is just Ubuntu with more multimedia support."

The Page Hit Ranking on distrowatch only tells how many people have clicked on the link at the Distrowatch site for a specific distribution, nothing more. That's explained somewhere on their site.

Mint uses Ubuntu repositories and is dependent upon what Ubuntu/Canonical does which means Mint gets the benefit of much of what is done by Ubuntu as far as development and hosting the repository servers.

I personally generally have both Mint and Ubuntu installed but neither has ever been a primary Linux OS for me but I've usually preferred Mint over Ubuntu. One thing that is pretty obvious is that support for and documentation for Ubuntu is much better.

Originally Posted by yancek One thing that is pretty obvious is that support for and documentation for Ubuntu is much better.

Hmm...answer number two to "what does Ubuntu have that Mint doesn't."

Originally Posted by yancek The Page Hit Ranking on distrowatch only tells how many people have clicked on the link at the Distrowatch site for a specific distribution, nothing more. That's explained somewhere on their site. Mint uses Ubuntu repositories and is dependent upon what Ubuntu/Canonical does which means Mint gets the benefit of much of what is done by Ubuntu as far as development and hosting the repository servers. I personally generally have both Mint and Ubuntu installed but neither has ever been a primary Linux OS for me but I've usually preferred Mint over Ubuntu. One thing that is pretty obvious is that support for and documentation for Ubuntu is much better.

I agree.

I have been able find more documentation for my Ubuntu 18.04 than I did for for my Linux 19.1 OS.

Originally Posted by yancek The Page Hit Ranking on distrowatch only tells how many people have clicked on the link at the Distrowatch site for a specific distribution, nothing more. That's explained somewhere on their site. Mint uses Ubuntu repositories and is dependent upon what Ubuntu/Canonical does which means Mint gets the benefit of much of what is done by Ubuntu as far as development and hosting the repository servers. I personally generally have both Mint and Ubuntu installed but neither has ever been a primary Linux OS for me but I've usually preferred Mint over Ubuntu. One thing that is pretty obvious is that support for and documentation for Ubuntu is much better.

I'm not sure why you would want to keep two distros that are so similar. You must have your reasons, but what are they? Is it just part of your Linux habits or routine to have multiple distros installed, even similar ones? I see from your profile display that you keep at least two more--PCLinux[OS?] and Slackware.

I'm not sure why you would want to keep two distros that are so similar. You must have your reasons, but what are they?

I have Ubuntu because I have friends who use it and I sometimes try to help if they encounter problems. I just installed Mint about a week ago to see what it was like as I haven't installed any version in several years. Curiosity I guess, don't use either on a regular basis.

This might be off-topic, but Ubuntu has a strong server offering and competes in the Enterprise market. It also has several community-supported variants like Kubuntu and Lubuntu.

By the way, it's not quite correct to say that Ubuntu is supported by a wealthy businessman. It's supported by a company named Canonical, which is indeed owned by Mark Shuttleworth, but he seems to be trying to make an IPO.

Or perhaps they are owned by Microsoft? I am confused.

Originally Posted by berndbausch This might be off-topic, but Ubuntu has a strong server offering and competes in the Enterprise market. It also has several community-supported variants like Kubuntu and Lubuntu. Or perhaps they are owned by Microsoft? I am confused.

Whoa! I never heard anything about Microsoft buying Canonical. I wonder if it's a joke.

EDIT: I see plenty of sources saying that was a rumor. If so, that would explain why I've never heard anyone on LQ complaining about it. The debunking sources, such as https://www.zdnet.com/article/micros...to-windows-10/ , say it's a partnership (in fact several years old) to make a "Windows Linux," not a takeover of the company.

Originally Posted by newbiesforever Whoa! I never heard anything about Microsoft buying Canonical. I wonder if it's a joke.

Oops. Yes. It is a joke. Sorry it was not clear. I need to be more careful when posting things I find funny.

Look at the date of the announcement.

The rest of my post is serious.

EDIT: I see plenty of sources saying that was a rumor. If so, that would explain why I've never heard anyone on LQ complaining about it. The debunking sources, such as https://www.zdnet.com/article/micros...to-windows-10/ , say it's a partnership (in fact several years old) to make a "Windows Linux," not a takeover of the company.