Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Peppermint OS One Review

CmdrTaco posted more than 4 years ago | from the does-it-come-in-an-altoid-tin dept.

Operating Systems 110

JimLynch writes "I've covered a lot of remastered versions of Ubuntu since DLR launched. But, every once in a while, I bump into one that is particularly interesting to review. Peppermint OS One is definitely in that category. Peppermint OS One is a web-centric Ubuntu remaster that passes up common desktop applications like OpenOffice.org in favor of web-based alternatives such as Google Docs. And it doesn't stop with office applications either; Peppermint OS One integrates video sites like YouTube and Hulu right into the desktop experience."

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Less. (5, Insightful)

Saeed al-Sahaf (665390) | more than 4 years ago | (#32187116)

Less is, well, less...

Re:Less. (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32187278)

I was excited after reading a review the other day. I downloaded it, and went to load it in a VM, expecting speed from my quad core. It wasn't much faster than the full blown Ubuntu. I loaded it on an old laptop. Was faster than Windows XP, but not as much as I had hoped. It's a good idea, perhaps the next version will do better.

Re:Less. (3, Interesting)

micheas (231635) | more than 4 years ago | (#32187482)

The biggest speed improvement would be if the replace firefox with chrome.

For the non-linux desktop users. Chrome is slightly faster on Linux than Windows, Firefox for linux is so slow that Firefox.exe under wine is much faster than the native version of firefox. (about 90% on my machine.)

Re:Less. (2, Insightful)

h4rr4r (612664) | more than 4 years ago | (#32187510)

But since chrome lacks good plugins it is totally worthless. I would rather have it be slow and vimperator than fast and have to use the mouse.

Re:Less. (2, Insightful)

PopeRatzo (965947) | more than 4 years ago | (#32187580)

But...Youtube and Hulu on the desktop!

Not really the answer to my OS prayers...

If any OS developers out there are listening, I pray for an OS that is fast, lets me run my programs, lets me perform common actions on my files and disks, let's me print, talks to my hardware, and never, ever gets in my way, especially at the behest of the entertainment industry.

I'd be willing to pre-order if you need any working capital.

Re:Less. (2, Informative)

Daengbo (523424) | more than 4 years ago | (#32187962)

Start with TinyCore Linux [tinycorelinux.com] , add only the parts you want (by default, it comes only with a WM, a dock, and a control panel), and have exactly the OS you desire. It's trivially easy to modify, boots in about 3 seconds on my Intel Classmate off an SD card, runs entirely in memory, and starts at 10MB.

Re:Less. (0, Redundant)

Runaway1956 (1322357) | more than 4 years ago | (#32188984)

I hadn't seen that - I have to play with it. Looks interesting!

Re:Less. (1)

PopeRatzo (965947) | more than 4 years ago | (#32191554)

It does look interesting, but if it doesn't run my software, which includes Cakewalk Sonar, Adobe Premiere and Modern Warfare 2, it won't work for me. Linux is an important part of my setup, but what I'm looking for is another professional, commercial operating system that will compete directly with Windows and OSX. By that, I mean it should run Windows and OSX applications. I know I'm asking for a lot.

I can do that with a few in Wine, but not the really important ones.

Re:Less. (1)

the_womble (580291) | more than 4 years ago | (#32190304)

So its Mint LXDE with Prism and a different menu?

The guy does deserve some credit for his work on Mint LXDE and Flux though, Mint is a nice Ubuntu variant, and light versions are always good to have.

Re:Less. (2, Insightful)

Gerzel (240421) | more than 4 years ago | (#32187656)

How long has it been since you looked at the plugins available for chrome?

Re:Less. (4, Informative)

h4rr4r (612664) | more than 4 years ago | (#32187810)

Just looked again. Still no vimperator it seems. They have some vimium crap which seems to just add some keybindings. Still useless.

Re:Less. (2, Interesting)

Goaway (82658) | more than 4 years ago | (#32187904)

I remember this coversation.

But last time Firefox was Seamonkey and Chrome was Phoenix.

Re:Less. (2, Informative)

Daengbo (523424) | more than 4 years ago | (#32187982)

Do you realize that Chrome has integrated developer tools and even has a timeline for page loading to identify slow areas?

Re:Less. (0, Offtopic)

d3ac0n (715594) | more than 4 years ago | (#32191602)

Do you realize that Chrome has integrated developer tools and even has a timeline for page loading to identify slow areas?

Why was this modded "Offtopic"? While the parent might not be giving the OP exactly what they want, they are clearly attempting to answer the question.

"Offtopic" is not a valid alternative for "incorrect".

Re:Less. (3, Interesting)

thePowerOfGrayskull (905905) | more than 4 years ago | (#32188508)

Until there's an adblocker that prevents content from downloaded, then the one plugin that matters most is not available under Chrome ;) (Yes there is an adblock plugin. No, the last I checked it did not stop content from loading, it only prevented it from displaying -- due to limitations in the Chrome plugin architecture. This is a problem both because I don't want to download content I don't need; and because it doesn't let me prevent requests from going out - thus continuing to give data to third part aggregators.)

Re:Less. (1)

the_womble (580291) | more than 4 years ago | (#32190338)

Its impossible to find Chrome extensions.

I did try and could not find equally good replacements for most of the extensions I use (Tree Style Tab, Its All Text, Add to Search Bar, NoScript, Web Developer).

There are some other I use but they are UI modifications so I have no idea if they are needed on Chrome.

In addition, the Linux version is a beta. Do I want a beta of one of my most heavily used apps?

Re:Less. (2, Interesting)

tropicflite (319208) | more than 4 years ago | (#32189228)

Indeed. Vimperator is a must have.

Re:Less. (2, Informative)

Darkness404 (1287218) | more than 4 years ago | (#32187592)

The problem with Chrome is the lack of customization, not just plugins but customization. Chrome lacks decent controls for history, I don't -care- if I leave cookies, I just hate seeing viewed sites because mostly they are viewed and worthless. I never really have used any history 'features' and it annoys me to have all mistyped domain names and the like still in there. Also, the Linux version of chrome at least makes it impossible to click the middle mouse button and scroll, something that I use on a regular basis in Firefox. Also, it is impossible to use custom CSS and such to view sites with.

Any one of these things alone wouldn't be too bad, but with all of them, its just too annoying to use on a daily basis.

Re:Less. (1)

cripeon (1337963) | more than 4 years ago | (#32187998)

Also, the Linux version of chrome at least makes it impossible to click the middle mouse button and scroll, something that I use on a regular basis in Firefox.

I'm using Chromium to type this up in Arch on my Thinkpad, and it works fine here. Quoting a relevant bit from my xorg.conf:

Section "InputDevice"
        Identifier "Mouse0"
        Driver "evdev"
        Option "Device" "/dev/input/by-path/platform-i8042-serio-1-event-mouse"
        Option "GrabDevice" "False"
        Option "EmulateWheel" "true"
        Option "EmulateWheelButton" "2"

        Option "XAxisMapping" "6 7"
        Option "YAxisMapping" "4 5"
EndSection

And it works from the X level, so it works in every application that supports scrolling (or at least, it should!). YMMV.

Re:Less. (1)

poopdeville (841677) | more than 4 years ago | (#32188126)

Unless you have some weird hardware, you don't need an xorg.conf on Arch (or any distro that uses HAL + a bleeding edge xorg)

Re:Less. (1)

hairyfeet (841228) | more than 4 years ago | (#32188540)

That is because IIRC Firefox under Windows takes advantage of SSE extensions, and the one under Linux don't, something about GCC not supporting it or some such. So in this case blame the compiler NOT Firefox. Btw if you want to see if you can squeeze even more speed from FF try Swiftfox [wikipedia.org] which is for Linux and windows and uses AMD and Intel specific code.

Re:Less. (1)

ncc74656 (45571) | more than 4 years ago | (#32189182)

That is because IIRC Firefox under Windows takes advantage of SSE extensions, and the one under Linux don't, something about GCC not supporting it or some such.

gcc supports SSE (and other SIMD extensions) just fine. I'm not sure if it's capable of generating SIMD code by itself or if it only supports inline assembly code that uses SIMD instructions...though I think it can be told to use SSE instructions instead of x87 instructions on AMD64 hardware to speed up floating-point math.

It's also possible that the Firefox source has some #ifdefs to include SIMD code in Windows builds but not in Linux builds. Why they'd do this, I wouldn't know.

FWIW, I have several machines that dual-boot Windows (XP/Vista) and Linux, and Firefox doesn't seem any less snappy on Linux than it does on Windows. If it makes any difference, I'm building from source on Gentoo instead of using the Mozilla binaries.

Re:Less. (1, Interesting)

st0nes (1120305) | more than 4 years ago | (#32189360)

Firefox for linux is so slow that Firefox.exe under wine is much faster than the native version of firefox. (about 90% on my machine.)

This hasn't been my experience--I find FF faster by far on Linux than XP. I haven't tried Chrome yet.

Re:Less. (1)

micheas (231635) | more than 4 years ago | (#32189454)

Firefox for linux is so slow that Firefox.exe under wine is much faster than the native version of firefox. (about 90% on my machine.)

This hasn't been my experience--I find FF faster by far on Linux than XP. I haven't tried Chrome yet.

Have you tried firefox.exe with wine and compared the javascript benchmarks? Or just the general perception of how fast/slow things are?

Re:Less. (1)

mutube (981006) | more than 4 years ago | (#32187750)

I was excited after reading a review the other day. I downloaded it, and went to load it in a VM, expecting speed from my quad core. It wasn't much faster than the full blown Ubuntu. I loaded it on an old laptop. Was faster than Windows XP, but not as much as I had hoped. It's a good idea, perhaps the next version will do better.

The same problem afflicts Xubuntu which, although using the lightweight xfce, is not noticeably faster than the stock Ubuntu. Ubuntu comes with a lot of fluff attached.

If you want something fast/lightweight for your old laptop can I suggest #! [crunchbanglinux.org] , especially the current development releases [crunchbanglinux.org] based on Debian squeeze. You can choose between xfce/openbox and both performed so well on my old laptop I've replaced my desktop with it too.

Re:Less. (1)

abigor (540274) | more than 4 years ago | (#32188538)

From the #! website:

"As always with CrunchBang, this release is not recommended for anyone who requires a stable system. Anyone who uses CrunchBang should be comfortable with occasional or even frequent breakage. Remember, CrunchBang Linux could make your computer go CRUNCH! BANG! :)"

Wow, sounds awesome!

Re:Less. (1)

Runaway1956 (1322357) | more than 4 years ago | (#32189034)

Stability is highly overrated.

Wait - did I just say that?

Seriously - the most UNstable Linux I've ever loaded was as stable as Windows. Linux developers are loathe to "market" their products as stable, outside of the mainstream support channels. Largely due to the fact that they have zero control over what is installed, how it's installed, how it's configured, or anything else. If it didn't come from the mainstream support channels, complete with a support contract, no one considers it "stable".

Re:Less. (1)

mutube (981006) | more than 4 years ago | (#32190014)

Nah. Standard disclaimer ;)

In all seriousness, in my experience it's more stable than the latest Ubuntu release.

Re:Less. (1)

tropicflite (319208) | more than 4 years ago | (#32189238)

I'm using crunchbang with awesome wm on my 5 yr old computer and it's pretty snappy.

Re:Less. (1)

rebussohal (1785362) | more than 4 years ago | (#32189878)

just wanted to add my love for crunchbang as well. Running it on an EEE 901 and it is brilliant.

Re:Less. (1)

grcumb (781340) | more than 4 years ago | (#32188260)

Less is, well, less...

... More [ed.ac.uk] or less [ed.ac.uk] .

Re:Less. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32190228)

A distro bending over to Google can not be good.

gOS (2, Interesting)

Dark_Matter88 (1150591) | more than 4 years ago | (#32187120)

I used to use gOS a distro with similar aims, and judging from those screenshots, better aesthetics

I don't get it (5, Insightful)

ZERO1ZERO (948669) | more than 4 years ago | (#32187164)

I read the article.

What is this, other than a distro with a pre populated bookmark list, cunningly hidden under 'Apps' instead of 'Bookmarks'?

What about accounts for each of these [cloud|web2.0|webapp] services? How is that managed? What if someone else uses your computer? Account creation? Data control? is there a backup service?

The most memorable part of the review for me was the wall paper. Not because I liked it, but the author of the article did, dedicating at least 2 paragraphs to it...

Re:I don't get it (2, Funny)

poopdeville (841677) | more than 4 years ago | (#32187572)

The most memorable part of the review for me was the wall paper.

Thanks for the heads up. I'll check it out.

Re:I don't get it (1)

stms (1132653) | more than 4 years ago | (#32187702)

Well I've always said the wallpapers are the most important part of any OS, that's why everyone uses Windows.

Re:I don't get it (1)

iamapizza (1312801) | more than 4 years ago | (#32189922)

I RTFA too. I was expecting something completely different when they said "Peppermint OS One integrates video sites like YouTube and Hulu right into the desktop experience."

I then realized that you'd have to be pretty thick to consider a few bookmarks an "integration" of those sites into the "desktop", but clearly the author and submitter did fall for it.

The only good bit about the entire article was the pun at the end - "Peppermint OS is a breath of fresh air." Har har har!

Pepermint OS One == POO (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32187172)

Seriously? Pepermint OS One? POO? I mean, come on...

Re:Pepermint OS One == POO (1)

syousef (465911) | more than 4 years ago | (#32187208)

Seriously? Pepermint OS One? POO? I mean, come on...

Passing on real apps in favour of a link to Google Docs? I'd call that POO too.

Re:Pepermint OS One == POO (2, Funny)

Aggrajag (716041) | more than 4 years ago | (#32187388)

POS One?

Re:Pepermint OS One == POO (1)

mewsenews (251487) | more than 4 years ago | (#32188830)

Seriously? Pepermint OS One? POO? I mean, come on...

I guess you'll be waiting for number two, eh?

i'm so sorry

If you live on the web (3, Insightful)

Great Big Bird (1751616) | more than 4 years ago | (#32187178)

You will die on the web.

Re:If you live on the web (3, Funny)

lul_wat (1623489) | more than 4 years ago | (#32187324)

It's only a virtual death. Respawn in 3 .. 2 .. 1

DLR launched? (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32187188)

David Lee Roth?

Re:DLR launched? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32187274)

Dance Lap Revolution

My review... (5, Informative)

Jugalator (259273) | more than 4 years ago | (#32187286)

I don't play around with Linux much at all, but here's my review of this OS that I tried last evening:

1. Fast!
2. Mostly just web apps in the app menu. Office apps = Google apps, etc.
3. The web apps open up minimalist Firefox windows.

This is basically it, IMO. I've intentionally worded this "review" like I did - very short and concise, because that's what this distro is. It doesn't do much besides opening Firefox windows. Since it doesn't do much else, it runs and boots very fast. The key to its power is that it barely does anything. It can probably be compared to Chromium OS in that regard. One difference from Chromium OS is however that you *can* install other Linux apps too, but that's not the purpose of the distro. Yes, it does multiple accounts, and the main objective of those may be independent storage of the Firefox browser cookies. ;) Backup systems? No no. Google backs up your documents on Google Docs. It seems like the distro is based on Linux Mint.

Re:My review... (1)

Nerdfest (867930) | more than 4 years ago | (#32188628)

You can get the web apps in minimalistic windows using Mozilla Prism ... it works quite nicely (although there seem to be a few bugs still).

Re:My review... (2, Insightful)

dudpixel (1429789) | more than 4 years ago | (#32188860)

If my memory serves me correctly - DOS was pretty fast too.

Ok, seriously? (1)

Darkness404 (1287218) | more than 4 years ago | (#32187336)

I don't understand all the hype about these distros, who wants to get less out of their hardware? Yeah, I enjoy using -some- web apps but some things are just pointless to not include such as an office suite. I don't know about you but the entire point of having a laptop is to take it places and I don't want to pay $30 a month to get slow internet everywhere. Desktop apps make sense. Hard disk space is cheap too, unless you have an SSD (and most devices don't) does 500 more megs matter?

Re:Ok, seriously? (2, Funny)

Mindcontrolled (1388007) | more than 4 years ago | (#32187432)

I don't get it either. My smartphone has the computing power my desktop had 10 years ago, my current desktop holds my complete music and movie collection on harddisk with ample space to spare. Computational power and storage density is cheap like never before - and still some people want to push a mainframe/terminal - thin client - cloud - webapp - what ever you called it today - concept on us? Why? Gimme thick, fat local apps that log every fart I let go while working on a document in triplicate on my harddisk. My rig can handle it, beat your netbook at chess and convince it to vote for Ron Paul in the background without breaking a sweat. What's the point about all this? Distributed computing makes sense when I want to tackle REALLY hard numerical stuff, but for everyday apps?

Re:Ok, seriously? (1)

puto (533470) | more than 4 years ago | (#32187570)

I had three desktops in 2000. 1. A Pentium Pro 200 with 256 megs of Ram and a voodoo SLI set up. 2 SCSI 4 gig drives. 2. A Pentium 2 233 with 128 megs of ram with a 4 gig IDE, and a 12 meg nvdia card 3. An Athlon 800 with 128 megs of ram, and an Intel Video Card. I think all three still had more power than a cell phones today.

Re:Ok, seriously? (2, Informative)

Darkness404 (1287218) | more than 4 years ago | (#32187616)

Um, what are you talking about. Look at the Nexus One http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nexus_One [wikipedia.org] 1 Ghz ARM CPU, 512 MB of RAM, and storage up to 32 GB with SD cards.

Re:Ok, seriously? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32187802)

I have a nexus one and i can vouch for it's radness. It's also extremely easy to over-clock it to 1.1 ghz without effecting battery life. It doesn't make much of a performance difference, but it's fun to tell techie blackberry/iphone users that not ONLY do i have ACTUAL multitasking, but i'm over-clocked and i have better battery life.

Re:Ok, seriously? (2, Insightful)

h4rr4r (612664) | more than 4 years ago | (#32187890)

You can even overclock a moto droid that high, not knocking the incredible but just another fun thing to tell the blackberry/iphone fans.

Re:Ok, seriously? (1)

breeze95 (880714) | more than 4 years ago | (#32188282)

Um, what are you talking about. Look at the Nexus One http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nexus_One [wikipedia.org] 1 Ghz ARM CPU, 512 MB of RAM, and storage up to 32 GB with SD cards.

There is more to overall processor performance and system speed than raw CPU clock cycles. For example, an Intel 2.6 GHz Core-2-Duo outperforms an Intel 3.0 GHz Dual Core processor. Why is that? Simple, even though the 3.0 GHz Dual Core processor runs at a higher clock cycle the 2.6 Core-2-Duo performs more calculations/instructions per cycle. This results in the Core-2-Duo outperforming a faster Dual Core in every benchmark.

There are no benchmarks between an ARM processor and the older Pentium II or Pentium III that I know of. Even though the ARM processor in the Nexus One might be faster than some Pentium II or Pentium III processor what about calculation/instructions per cycle? What about BUS speed and transfer bandwidth? Is the ARM a true 32 bit processor? How about L1 cache? All theses things are a determining factor in overall system speed. Anyone only using clock speed to gauge the CPU performance means that person doesn’t quite get it.

Re:Ok, seriously? (1)

h4rr4r (612664) | more than 4 years ago | (#32188392)

Real benchmarks show that these ARMs do hold their own against such old CPUs in all areas but floating point. ARM floating point sucks.

Re:Ok, seriously? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32188324)

> still some people want to push a mainframe/terminal - thin client - cloud - webapp - what ever you called it today - concept on us? Why?

Because they want to control your computing experience.
If you look at, e.g. UI changes pulled by apple ms canonical.... there are two possible explanation.
1 they don't value familiarity, which is a usability metric that undergraduates know about.
2 they view your pc as territory to conquer, so the most they make their experience unique - not better, unique- the more it will get in the way should you want to switch to other platforms.
choose.

Re:Ok, seriously? (1)

hairyfeet (841228) | more than 4 years ago | (#32189368)

At least with regards to MSFT on the desktop (haven't played with WinMo in ages) the UI changes were a damned good and smart idea. Take my 67 year old dad for example. He always seemed lost in XP, never could find where anything was, it was just a mess. Every since I switched him over to W7 in Oct it has been like night and day. He doesn't have any problems finding anything, he plugs in a new device Windows finds drivers for him often before he can even put in the CD, as he puts it everything now "makes sense to me" and thus lets him get things done without frustration. And while I figured I would hate it (hated XP and that fisher price crap and Vista was awful) W7 has been the first nice change I have seen from MSFT in a long while, especially the new taskbar which IMHO is head and shoulders above previous versions.

So while I'm sure some of the changes to UI some companies have been doing is to "take away choice" (although to be fair I think Jobs cares about aesthetics more than anything) but at least with the MSFT desktop it seems they tried to make things easier for the average Joe over the huge clutter that was Start>Programs, and I for one am happy they changed. Still don't like the MS Office ribbon though.

Re:Ok, seriously? (1)

abigor (540274) | more than 4 years ago | (#32188618)

The point is that not all use cases match yours. This is particularly true in companies of all sizes, where certain webapps (email, HR like Taleo, CRM like Salesforce.com, accounting, document management, etc. etc.) are a godsend because it breaks them free from the silly costs of SAP, Microsoft, and the rest, not to mention the costs of administration and so forth.

In short, no one is forcing companies to use this stuff - there is real demand for it. Webapps are an attempt to break the upgrade cycle and all that goes with it (mostly downtime).

You, on the other hand, are some out of shape dude sitting in a basement somewhere who has the time and inclination to tinker around and doesn't mind the upgrade cycle one bit because your needs are light and it doesn't affect your revenue. But don't cry, because desktop apps aren't going anywhere.

Anyway, like I said, separate use cases.

When upgrades turn out to be downgrades (1)

tepples (727027) | more than 4 years ago | (#32192360)

Webapps are an attempt to break the upgrade cycle and all that goes with it (mostly downtime).

Since when does a web application upgrade not introduce its own downtime? Often, upgrades turn out to be downgrades when they break or outright remove features that a company depends on, or when they make page load time unacceptable.

Re:Ok, seriously? (1)

Seth Kriticos (1227934) | more than 4 years ago | (#32190610)

The biggest advantage Internet based storage API service providers (some call this cloud), for me is: easy remote data backup and access.

See, some years ago I had to care about backing up my eMail and copying a bunch of files around when reinstalling my system (I do this at times, just because it's fun, not that I had to). Now that I installed U-LTS, I just had to set up my IMAP account, and that's it.

The so called 'cloud' is basically just an extension of this to all your other media, like your documents, you source code, what have you not.

It's convenient, and for really classified data you just use your own server to prevent data mining scrutiny.

I think the biggest challenge is to understand what to broadcast and what not (i.e. what to put on a secure location and what not).

In that, my local hard-drive now is a big, semi-permanent cache for data. And yes, I still prefer to use local applications where it makes sense (i.e. authoring stuff that needs number crunching power).

Re:Ok, seriously? (1)

SharpFang (651121) | more than 4 years ago | (#32190732)

Imagine really thin clients. I mean, real thin, like ~1mm thin and credit-card sized. Open up for a qwerty keyboard + touchscreen, a full suite of apps in your wallet over 3G.

Desktops are cool but when you're on the move smaller is better. Laptops are bulky and unwieldy, but nowadays I consider leaving my netbook at home and traveling with my Android phone only - and it's still pretty big for a phone.

3G is how much it costs over four years (1)

tepples (727027) | more than 4 years ago | (#32192408)

Imagine really thin clients. I mean, real thin, like ~1mm thin and credit-card sized. Open up for a qwerty keyboard + touchscreen, a full suite of apps in your wallet over 3G.

For people who rarely make cell phone calls, imagine how much it will cost to upgrade from a $7/mo Virgin Mobile plan to the sort of data plan that such a thin client would require. I'm keeping my netbook until mobile data prices in the United States drop dramatically.

When 500 MB is 1/10 of your cap (1)

tepples (727027) | more than 4 years ago | (#32187828)

Desktop apps make sense. Hard disk space is cheap too, unless you have an SSD (and most devices don't) does 500 more megs matter?

It does if you're limited to 5 GB of transfer per month. Satellite, 3G, Australian, and South African Internet connections tend to have limits like that.

Re:When 500 MB is 1/10 of your cap (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32189722)

Don't forget that there are also other countries where half the "apps" don't / won't work.

Eg China - Youtube/ Most of the Google stuff eg Docs etc (although not 100% of the time, most of the time its just flaky) / Facebook etc.

I'll bet no-one tests these on low bandwidth / connections outside of the USA where connectivity isn't perfect, and that just makes the OS timeout waiting for responses that don't come back.

Lawrence / http://www.computersolutions.cn/

Oh boy, yet another new distro! (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32187420)

Seriously, do we need any more? At this rate, there will be a unique distro for every man, woman and child in the world.

In fact, I think I'm going to write a new app. It will take Ubuntu, select and assemble random packages from it, randomly design a desktop background, toss it all together and give it a random name. Then I can make a bunch of new distros too!

Re:Oh boy, yet another new distro! (1)

Pharmboy (216950) | more than 4 years ago | (#32187730)

In fact, I think I'm going to write a new app. It will take Ubuntu, select and assemble random packages from it, randomly design a desktop background, toss it all together and give it a random name. Then I can make a bunch of new distros too!

Cool! Got a link for a torrent?

On a more serious note, Ubuntu leaves me frustrated and simply is too much software. I like the look ok, but want simple access to root (and a root that actually works as "root"), less fluff and more speed. Of course, much of the speed problem (ie: how fast apps START) is more of a kernel issue. We don't necessarily need more distros, but it would be nice to have a supported distro that met in the middle of what we have now: Not too much, not too little, easy to install apps using yum, etc.

I want an operating system that is designed to run my applications fast. What I don't want is an operating system that is "cool", has "cool features", spends resources to look "cool", or has any "cool" to it in any way. This is one reason I hate Windows 7: even more fluff than XP and runs everything slower. I want Windows 95 simple but with a better kernel and security, and no "extra" features. Linux (and temporarily WINE) *should* be able to do this, but no distro seems to have gotten that right yet. Too much fluff.

Re:Oh boy, yet another new distro! (1)

h4rr4r (612664) | more than 4 years ago | (#32187844)

easy to install apps using yum

Yum sucks compared to apt.

You may want to just try setting up debian and installing what you want on that.

Re:Oh boy, yet another new distro! (1)

Pharmboy (216950) | more than 4 years ago | (#32187964)

Yum (modern) isn't that bad, I haven't gotten into dependency hell in forever, although it is hard to beat the sheer volume of available software for Debian. I have put off doing a fully custom Deb for years now, party from being lazy, and partly from having my teeth cut on RedHat since version 4.0 way back before 95 came out. Using CentOS on the servers now even. Debian isn't trivial to completely setup the way you want, even for someone like me who works on Linux servers daily (via ssh) and has played on the desktop a fair amount. I am very comfy with Linux in a shell, no so much with swapping out Gnome, KDE, Ice, etc. I don't think Gnome or KDE could ever be trimmed enough for my needs. If you trim all the fat off a hawg, you are still left with a slightly leaner hawg.

Re:Oh boy, yet another new distro! (1)

h4rr4r (612664) | more than 4 years ago | (#32188398)

So use LXDE or another light replacement for Gnome or KDE.

I too suffer with centos on servers and building your own debian with want you want is not too bad.

Re:Oh boy, yet another new distro! (1)

Billly Gates (198444) | more than 4 years ago | (#32189298)

Sounds like you would be an excellent candidate for Opensolaris and FreeBSD.

Being so used to sysV both would drive you nuts though. FreeBSD sh scripts are much more simplier than RC equilivants in RH. Go to /etc/src/examples and edit the #for feature X uncomment htis line. I feel I have to wrote whole shell script programs otherwise in RH. Just my tastes.

No fat and unix to the core.

Re:Oh boy, yet another new distro! (1)

abigor (540274) | more than 4 years ago | (#32188696)

Yum sucks compared to apt.

Really, how so? Apt was dumped for a reason and replaced with aptitude, after all.

Re:Oh boy, yet another new distro! (0, Redundant)

Daengbo (523424) | more than 4 years ago | (#32188018)

Run everything in memory, and you'll have incredibly fast app startup. Some distros allow you to do that. TinyCore Linux does it by default.

Re:Oh boy, yet another new distro! (1)

mirix (1649853) | more than 4 years ago | (#32188182)

Just because "kitchen sink" is the default install on most distros, doesn't mean you have to install everything.

This is one reason I hate Windows 7: even more fluff than XP and runs everything slower. I want Windows 95 simple but with a better kernel and security, and no "extra" features.

NT4? :-P

Re:Oh boy, yet another new distro! (1)

Pharmboy (216950) | more than 4 years ago | (#32188632)

NT4?
Let me clarify: *with* basic plug and play capability.

Re:Oh boy, yet another new distro! (1)

andrewbaldwin (442273) | more than 4 years ago | (#32190268)

I like the look ok, but want simple access to root (and a root that actually works as "root"),

You can achieve this by using sudo bash.

If you want the good old su functionality which we all know and love from Unix and other Linux distros then that is simple too:

  • sudo bash
  • passwd give new root password in response
  • ^D

Thereafter the su command (with no parameters) will change you to root

This, together with putting a launcher for the terminal on the taskbar is practically the first thing I do after a new Ubuntu based installation -- even before the reference backup.

I have sympathy with your views on fluff (aka bloat) -- in defence of the distro makers though, your subset of "essential items" probably differs from mine and other people's as well. They're caught between complains of "fluff & bloat" on one hand and "Linux is lacking in xyz" moans on the other.

Speaking purely personally, I prefer the lean and add items yourself approach [which is why I love Gentoo] -- I can even forgive Ubuntu 10.4 leaving out Gimp as it was trivially easy to install it later.

If I had the time, I'd set up a "what's the best distro for you?" website and then promote the variety and ability to give "bespoke, custom built" offerings based on "standardised components" as a real selling point - give users what they want/need (real or perceived) and offset the FUD from suppliers and corporate IT through using known, well supported packages.

Oh wow, a personalised distro for everyone! (1)

tenex (766192) | more than 4 years ago | (#32188218)

Lost MOD points for this: Seriously, do we need any more? At this rate, there will be a unique distro for every man, woman and child in the world.

I say: why not... In fact, I think I'm going to write a new app. It will take Ubuntu, select and assemble random packages from it, randomly design a desktop background, toss it all together and give it a random name. Then I can make a bunch of new distros too!
I like the notion of your potential app building dynamic Linux distributions but am not too keen the assembly of the random packages bit. I reckon an application able to interview, monitor, or survey current user activity and craft a bespoke Linux distribution, customised to the persons tastes would be fantastic and I wouldn't limit it to simply the "Ubuntu remixes"; there are other base sets for this. I personally prefer a RedHat/Suse base and a Gnome UI simply out of our need for support familiarity.

need to get more KDE forks! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32187466)

It seems like most of these Ubuntu remixes are still using Gnome. Nothing against the folks who dig that kinda thing, but to me Gnome feels much like Windows - they keep dumbing it down until there's just nothing left. For all the problems KDE 4.0 had, it's understandable that distros abandoned it for a while. But 4.3 is back up to snuff and feels like a much more powerful desktop environment than Gnome is, so I wish some distros would be shipping it as the default.

Anyway no matter which you like, we need competition and choice, and among "big" desktop environments (not counting lightweight managers) we've basically just got two, and what I see as the better one is now a red headed stepchild on most distros.

It looks blurry... (1)

mutube (981006) | more than 4 years ago | (#32187468)

...must be the 'cloud'

first po5t (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32187512)

The big question (4, Funny)

Tarlus (1000874) | more than 4 years ago | (#32187546)

Peppermint OS One integrates video sites like YouTube and Hulu right into the desktop experience.

...but does it play these smoothly in full screen?

Dell Mini 10 has no problem with YouTube (2, Informative)

tepples (727027) | more than 4 years ago | (#32187856)

Flash Player under stock Ubuntu 9.10 zooms 480p YouTube video into the 600p full screen just fine on my Dell Mini 10. It had problems on my Eee PC 900, but perhaps a 2-thread Atom at twice the clock speed really is faster than a single-thread Celeron.

Re:Dell Mini 10 has no problem with YouTube (3, Informative)

SpzToid (869795) | more than 4 years ago | (#32187946)

Word of warning friend. Check to see if your unit has Poulsbo graphics. If it does, like my accountant's Dell Mini 10 From Hell, I could only manage to compile the graphics driver from this script, below. And this must be re-done every time my accountant overwrites the compiled drivers with Ubuntu updates.

http://poulsbo-karmic.angelfire.com/ [angelfire.com]

Now here's the real news. That script works fine for fixing Pulsbo graphics on the Dell Mini-10 from Hell. BUT BE WARNED, upgrading to karmic will just ruin the Poulsbo graphics completely, with no hope for repair, aside from formatting and going back to 9.10.

But yeah, other than that, my accountant's Dell Mini 10 From Hell runs YouTube videos very well.

So does my Asus Eee HD1000-something. It is pure delight with Ubuntu remix, and a fully encrypted disk (install Ubuntu fully encrypted using the alternate installer, then via Synaptec, add the 'task' Ubuntu Netbook).

Re:Dell Mini 10 has no problem with YouTube (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32188904)

I have a Mini 10, and run Karmic with no problems, all I have to do is type 'dpkg-reconfigure psb-kernel-soruce' every time I apt-get upgrade due to a new kernel being released every week or some shit.

Re:Dell Mini 10 has no problem with YouTube (1)

socrplayr813 (1372733) | more than 4 years ago | (#32191776)

BUT BE WARNED, upgrading to karmic will just ruin the Poulsbo graphics completely, with no hope for repair, aside from formatting and going back to 9.10.

I don't want to be that guy, but it might be relevant for people....

9.10 = Karmic

Are you upgrading to Karmic, going back to Jaunty (9.04)?

or

upgrading to Lucid (10.04), going back to Karmic? (I assume this one...)

Re:Dell Mini 10 has no problem with YouTube (1)

SpzToid (869795) | more than 4 years ago | (#32191878)

upgrading to Lucid (10.04), going back to Karmic? (I assume this one...)

Ah. Thanks for requesting clarity. I told my accountant I never wanted to see that Dell again, and if he upgraded to 10.4 Lucid (thx!) not to bring it back to me. Although as someone else posted, maybe there is an answer after all.

btw, that Dell from Hell has 1Gb RAM soldered on the mobo; no upgrade is possible although it runs ok w/ Ubuntu. And opening and closing the gawdaful case to learn that much, ouch. I upgraded my Asus Eee with 2Gb quick, easy, & cheap.

Re:Dell Mini 10 has no problem with YouTube (1)

electragician (227518) | more than 4 years ago | (#32190880)

A Dell Mini 10 doesn't handle Youtube just fine. It doesn't handle it fine in Windows 7, and it doesn't handle it fine in Jolicloud Linux. Jolicloud is one of the very, very few OS's that plays nice with the godforsaken Poulsbo chipset, with built in support, but it's still a framedropping mess with flash.

HDMI out, putting Hulu to a TV? Get ready for about every other frame to be skipped/dropped.

Re:The big question (0, Redundant)

adbge (1693228) | more than 4 years ago | (#32188024)

Obligatory xkcd: http://xkcd.com/619/ [xkcd.com]

There's nothing wrong with this distro (1)

interval1066 (668936) | more than 4 years ago | (#32187554)

This distro does exactly what its designed to do. Some users may appreciate it. Since more gear-heads than naught use Linux then I guess it makes sense that most of you (sic) poo poo it. But come on, its a cloud-apps based distro. No one is forcing you to use it. I won't use it. But there is a user base for this stuff.

System requirements? (1)

Alwin Henseler (640539) | more than 4 years ago | (#32187642)

Read (among others) as "i386 or derivative processor (AMD64 and x86_64 are fine as well)" (emphasis mine).

Really? I know that for x86 systems usually the only relevant distinction is 32-bit vs. 64-bit CPU, but the above says 'compiled for i386'. Somehow I doubt that:

I've seen much older kernels than the 2.6.32 mentioned, generate some compiler warnings when configured for i386 (and compiled with older verions of GCC). Also IIRC, recent Glibc versions require at least a 486 because it uses intructions that enable atomic operations (either fail or succeed, nothing in between) for some of the included features. Read: on a 386 these instructions wouldn't be available, and use a (less-reliable?) software workaround. And I doubt the included software would be obsolete versions of things like kernel/Glibc/GCC.

Maybe it's just my uninformed me here, or this "i386" is bullshit and should probably read "486", "Pentium", or even "generic 686 class CPU". Can anyone clarify?

Re:System requirements? (1)

mirix (1649853) | more than 4 years ago | (#32188250)

I had 2.6.30? on a geode gx1 recently, which is mostly i486 as far as I can recall. I think it has some pentiumisms but doesn't duplicate the full instruction set or so.

(it did run a -i486 kernel). I don't seem to recall any problems other than it being slow, but, slow is rather expected for ancient tech.

PC/OS does this for me (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32187880)

I use an Ubuntu remaster called PC/OS, http://www.pc-os.org. Their release known as WebStation does this better than peppermint OS. I also like the way that the PC/OS team integrates the services throughout the system menus rather than just having bookmarks in a browser. PeppermintOS offers nothing that others have offered before. I'll stick with PC/OS.

Netbook launcher? (1)

bcg (322392) | more than 4 years ago | (#32187968)

Adding the netbook launcher by default might make it a good, out-of-the-box netbook distro. It seems odd to me to have a minimalist approach with a maximum desktop. But then again, I don't put a lot on the desktop...

How to skin a squirrel? (5, Funny)

Smuttley (126014) | more than 4 years ago | (#32188038)

Re:How to skin a squirrel? (1)

JimLynch (684194) | more than 4 years ago | (#32190974)

Yeah, that "How To Skin A Squirrel" video is about the best way I've ever seen it done. Here's a link to the video on YouTube: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=66AVwthXgMA [youtube.com] Fried squirrel is actually quite good. Give it a try sometime, you might enjoy it.

Re:How to skin a squirrel? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32191720)

exactly the point a guy made in the comment section -

Terrible name (1)

uvajed_ekil (914487) | more than 4 years ago | (#32188818)

Let me prefix my comment with this: I fully support linux development and am glad to see any attempts to produce "alternative" operating systems, and I wish the developers luck

Now, why would they choose the name Peppermint OS One, which is sure to cause confusion? The reason I ask is because there are many, many other English words available, while Peppermint is an awful lot like Mint. This is a problem for Peppermint OS One (unless they would like it shortened to POO, which appears to be appropriate), since Linux Mint, or simply Mint, has been around for several years now, with the forthcoming version 9 likely to be released next week. Mint strives to be a more polished, more complete derivative of Ubuntu, and it really delivers. Mint has been my main OS for everything for over two years now, and is the first OS I can say I've ever really liked (dating back as far as MSDOS 3 or so).

Is this an attempt by POO to ride the coattails of Mint, or just a very poor but innocent choice? Mint has gained wide-spread notoriety among linux enthusiasts, and currently receives the second or third most hits on Distrowatch.com, ahead of such venerable distros as Debian, Mandriva, Slackware and OpenSUSE, and running neck and neck with Fedora, to trail only Ubuntu. Surely the POO developers had to be aware of its existence. And after reading the review of POO, and failing to find it even listed on Distrowatch, I have not found any compelling reason to try it. Looks similar to gOS, but not as nice looking or as well integrated. I'll stick to Mint, hold the pepper.

Re:Terrible name (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32190594)

Having found it on Distrowatch, its aim is "to be lightning fast and easy on system resources. By employing Mozilla's Prism technology Peppermint integrates seamlessly with Cloud and web-based applications. The distribution's other features include automatic updates, easy step-by-step installation, sleek and user-friendly interface, and increased mobility by integrating directly with Cloud-based applications."

Very different from Mint. I see "Peppermint", the name, as an ironic homage to both Ubuntu and especially LinuxMint.
Vive la differance!

Re:Terrible name (1)

reimero (194707) | more than 4 years ago | (#32191644)

Actually, one of the lead Peppermint developers is also the lead developer for the LXDE and Fluxbox editions of Mint, and is (to the best of my knowledge) a member of the Mint team.

In other words, it's neither a rip-off nor an homage: it's practically a fork, and future development will likely occur alongside Mint.

gOS? (1)

Spit (23158) | more than 4 years ago | (#32189362)

Didn't gOS operate like this too? It was the OS shipped on the Walmart PCs.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?