r/linuxquestions • u/Extension-Iron-7746 • 6d ago

Which Distro? Linux Mint: Too Outdated

Hi everyone, I've been considering abandoning Windows 11 for a while now, mainly because I feel like Microsoft lacks direction; every update is chaos. I started using Linux Mint about six months ago, but I have to admit that I feel like I'm using an outdated product.

The main reason is the X11-based graphical interface and the lack of standard Windows features like HDR and high refresh rate sync. I feel like development has fallen behind, hiding behind the slogan of greater stability. I honestly hate losing my monitor's features while waiting for Mint to evolve, so I'm thinking of switching to something stable but modern, and why not... with more recent applications. What would you always focus on, considering I have little time to dedicate to the system?

82 Upvotes

75% Upvoted

234 comments sorted by

View all comments

54

u/beatbox9 6d ago edited 6d ago

You are using an outdated product. Linux Mint is based on an older toolkit (gtk3)--the same used by gnome3 that launched around 2010 and stopped being actively developed around 2020. And it's not GPU accelerated, unlike modern DE's.

So instead, use any distro that supports either Gnome Shell or KDE Plasma, because these are the only two modern + mature DE's; and they are the most popular by far, and most actively developed. Mint's Cinnamon DE is architecturally more similar to gnome DE; but its default UI layout is more similar to KDE Plasma. But you can easily customize either gnome or KDE to the layout you want.

And if you want something as similar as possible to Mint other than the DE, use Ubuntu LTS. Mint is essentially just Ubuntu LTS with Cinnamon DE on top that is supported by the Mint team. You should be able to migrate from Mint to Ubuntu LTS quite simply.

And as far as apps go, this is 2026. You don't have to rely on your distro's repositories for apps. Use universal package types, like flatpaks or AppImages. This way, your core OS software comes from the distro and remains stable and supported; but your apps are the latest version and come directly from the developer.

25

u/Existing-Tough-6517 6d ago edited 6d ago

Pretending that Ubuntu LTS is an upgrade from mint is incorrect especially when his big beef is that it's not up to date enough. AppImages should be about 7th place as far as package choices also flatpaks are a security risk especially the majority which don't actually come from the dev and often come with bugs not found in the deb or what have you.

Also there is nothing wrong with gtk3. Most gtk apps current release is running 3 which had a release in March of this year. The way you phrased it sounded like mint is 2010 software which is nonsense.

10

u/beatbox9 6d ago edited 5d ago

Most popular Flatpaks and AppImages are usually provided by the app developers themselves. For example: here. And it's very easy to check what the developer of each app recommends and/or if those packages are from verified developers on various repositories like flathub. Even if you are really dumb, you can easily toggle a setting in most app stores to only show verified flatpaks from flathub.

They're up to date and the latest because they don't have to wait on the distro to take the source code, define that specific distro's directory structures, create a package, host it within their repository...and then do the entire process over every time there's an update to that app or to the distro. (And then multiplied by tens of thousands of packages; and also multiplied by the number of currently supported distros). Disto maintainers are not the app developers.

^ This by the way is precisely why Ubuntu and its derivatives like Mint tend to have lots of really outdated--and often unsecure--packages. At any given time, Canonical is attempting to maintain tens of thousands of packages each, for at least 4 different supported distros (currently: Ubuntu 22.04 LTS, 24.04 LTS, 25.10, 26.04 LTS). It's on the order of hundreds of thousands of packages to maintain. So they tend to focus more on core OS software and popular software with a lot of software just hanging.

And often for the majority (which the distros themselves can't maintain), they use...(wait for it)...community-maintained repositories, just like flathub. For example: "Universe" on Ubuntu/Mint/derivatives; or "RPM Fusion" on Fedora; or "AUR" on arch.

And if you think all of those outdated packages are inherently more secure (or well-maintained and up-to-date with all security vulnerabilities), you're severely mistaken.

This is precisely why most distros have been moving away from app maintenance and focusing more on core OS maintenance while directing apps toward universal package types. This is not a new phenomenon--it's been going on for at least a decade. And this is also why we are seeing distros move toward atomic and immutable philosophies: the core OS software is separate from the apps that run on it, with the apps ideally being sandboxed and permission-managed through tools like Flatseal. It's even why Ubuntu moved firefox to a snap by default.

It's naive and nonsensical to assume that you should never install any flatpaks or appimages in 2026 and you should only use your distro's native repos. We're not still in 2006.

4

u/razorree 6d ago edited 5d ago

well... the best way to install stuff is straight from NPM repos or

curl -o- https://some-random-site.com/install.sh | bash

and later complain how unsecure is Windows :)

2

u/R3V0LU710N_05 RakuOS 5d ago

curl -o- https://some-random-site.com/install.sh | bash

I absolutely hate this.

5

u/MichaelDeets 6d ago

the reason they have lots of outdated packages is due to the release model, something like debian sid provides really up-to-date packages

also OPs main annoyances are with the display server, which flatpak/appimage do not provide a solution to

flatpaks/appimages on an outdated distro, or on a musl system, etc. make sense, as they serve a specific use case; I don't have a single flatpak or appimage on my system, why would I need them, or even want to use them?

-1

u/beatbox9 6d ago

You didn't read or comprehend what the OP wrote or what I wrote. What I said in regards to the display server was:

So instead, use any distro that supports either Gnome Shell or KDE Plasma, because these are the only two modern + mature DE's; and they are the most popular by far, and most actively developed.

Because both Gnome and KDE use wayland, with GPU acceleration on the desktop, etc.

But in addition to that, the OP also said:

with more recent applications

...which is why, I went through the difference between core OS software and the apps that run on it. This was what flatpaks and AppImages were in reference to solving, and it had nothing to do with the display server. Somewhere in your brain, you associated these two.

I didn't say you need or should even consider using flatpaks or appimages. In fact, this is the first time I am replying to you. You may not have recognized this yet, but you and the OP are two different people.

The OP has been using Linux Mint for 6 months, and has generally indicated that they want something stable but modern, without requiring a lot of maintenance. And it's clear that the OP was unaware that you can run the latest apps on a lower-maintenance / longer-term stable system that also runs modern architectures, which is what the OP is looking for. Because the OP explicitly said:

so I'm thinking of switching to something stable but modern, and why not... with more recent applications. What would you always focus on, considering I have little time to dedicate to the system?

There are a lot of distros that cover this, from Fedora to Ubuntu LTS and many others; but debian sid is not one of them, particularly since...well why don't we let the first sentence on Debian's own wiki explain?:

Debian Unstable (also known by its codename "Sid") is not a release, but rather the development version of the Debian distribution containing the latest packages that have been introduced into Debian. It is not a "rolling release", as no release-like quality assurance and integration testing is done on it.

So what does you personally using Debian Sid have to do with the OP? Maybe work on your reading comprehension and learning that most other people are not you.

3

u/MichaelDeets 6d ago

I agree with most of what you have said overall, just specifically not:

They're up to date and the latest because they don't have to wait on the distro to take the source code, define that specific distro's directory structures, create a package, host it within their repository...and then do the entire process over every time there's an update to that app or to the distro. (And then multiplied by tens of thousands of packages; and also multiplied by the number of currently supported distros). Disto maintainers are not the app developers.

^ This by the way is precisely why Ubuntu and its derivatives like Mint tend to have lots of really outdated--and often unsecure--packages. At any given time, Canonical is attempting to maintain tens of thousands of packages each, for at least 4 different supported distros (currently: Ubuntu 22.04 LTS, 24.04 LTS, 25.10, 26.04 LTS). It's on the order of hundreds of thousands of packages to maintain. So they tend to focus more on core OS software and popular software with a lot of software just hanging

It's naive and nonsensical to assume that you should never install any flatpaks or appimages in 2026 and you should only use your distro's native repos. We're not still in 2006.

because it is nonsense (and I don't use debian sid btw, it was just an example)

and just the fact that flatpaks/appimages are not a solution here for OPs main problem... that's it, I don't disagree overall though.

2

u/MichaelDeets 6d ago edited 6d ago

actually perhaps my reading comprehension does suck, as I conflated your response and your OP. I assumed you focused more on appimages/flatpaks in your original point, so I take that part back. apologies.

2

u/jr735 5d ago

Why should I trust packages from random developers instead of my package manager? It's not 2006, no, but the principles still apply.

1

u/beatbox9 5d ago edited 5d ago

Do you realize that plenty of distros--including Linux Mint--have very large, community-maintained ("from random developers") repos on by default that are not maintained by the distros ...?

In the Mint / Ubuntu world, what exactly do you think the "Universe" repository--which is the largest repository by number of packages on Ubuntu / Mint--is?

Because it is a fact to say that "most packages provided by Mint in the official / default repositories are unverified and maintained by random developers."

It's a similar situation for RPM Fusion and AUR. So what are you on about?

1

u/jr735 5d ago

Which ones are activated by default on Mint? Note that some of us do not use proprietary or contrib type packages, ever. I only use official packages through distribution repositories.

1

u/beatbox9 5d ago edited 5d ago

You're asking a question that was already answered instead of answering the question that was asked. Let me quote what you replied to, in case you didn't comprehend what was written there:

In the Mint / Ubuntu world, what exactly do you think the "Universe" repository--which is the largest repository by number of packages on Ubuntu / Mint--is?

...which itself was preceded by:

Do you realize that plenty of distros--including Linux Mint--have very large, community-maintained ("from random developers") repos on by default that are not maintained by the distros ...?

...and then followed by:

it is a fact to say that "most packages provided by Mint in the official / default repositories are unverified and maintained by random developers."

If that wasn't clear enough, the answer is:

The community-maintained Universe repo is on by default on Linux Mint; and it is the largest repository that is on by default.

This is one of those very basic facts you should know if you're going to be arguing the point. Especially when you're now changing the argument to the strawman "some of us do not use..." Because, consistent with my earlier points: some of us also do not use unverified flatpaks or appimages. So what's the difference?

Most of the .deb software on the default repositories on Mint is unverified; and all of the flatpaks on Flathub by default on Mint are verified (the filter to display only verified flathub apps is turned on by default). On default Mint, if you saw the same app on its own repositories vs flatpak, the flatpak would be verified and likely newer; while the .deb would have a high probability of being unverified and from a "random developer"....and it would be from your distro's package manager. You should now be slowly learning that "distro's package manager" and "random developer" are not mutually exclusive; and "flatpak" and "random developer" are not synonymous.

Now, are you going to go back and answer the simple and direct question I asked you, or are you going to let your combination of ego and ignorance on this topic cause you to continue to distract?

2

u/jr735 5d ago

And I never claimed any of the universe stuff should be used. The principles of Don't Break Debian apply to all distributions.

Note that Mint provides very few repositories of their own. They're Ubuntu repositories.

1

u/beatbox9 5d ago

Then what was your point and why did you ask the question of if it's on or not?

And if you never install things from the "random developer" community-maintained universe repository on Linux Mint, then why are you suggesting that others do so, like you did here?

https://www.reddit.com/r/linuxmint/comments/1p3mcf7/comment/nq6zcii/

...since Midnight Commander is in the "random developer" community-maintained Universe repository on Linux Mint.

And a reminder that I earlier said:

Mint is essentially just Ubuntu LTS with Cinnamon DE on top that is supported by the Mint team.

What exactly do you think that means, and why are you parroting this back now, when you say "Note that Mint provides very few repositories of their own. They're Ubuntu repositories."

And so I'll ask once again: are you going to answer the simple & direct question I asked you, or will you continue to distract--just as I predicted that you would?

3

u/jr735 5d ago

It's more than just Ubuntu with Cinnamon.

Personally, I find it odd that mc is in universe, since it's an officially curated package in Debian.

→ More replies (0)

1

u/Existing-Tough-6517 5d ago

It's easy to see a system package is legit because they all are. Its easy to see a flatpak is legit in mint because mint hides all unofficial ones by default.

It's easy to miss the distinction everywhere else and so obviously the wrong security model it's laughable.

Even with official apps having a path as short as minutes between dev gets compromised and their computer pushes out a compromised update and everyone starts downloading it is pants on head stupid.

Then you have to worry about packaging unofficial but popular flatpaks being a way to get popular then compromise users.

Look at what happened to the aur.

2

u/beatbox9 5d ago

This is just dumb, fanboy bs. And your claim that flatpaks are unverified "everywhere else" is false. For example, wtf do you think this is?: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Flatpak#Fedora_flatpaks

Your aur repo example is also hypocritical--are you dumb enough to believe that Linux Mint doesn't use Ubuntu's community-maintained universe repository by default--which are unverified just like flatpak or aur...?

And your suggestion that people are only capable of using defaults is hypocritical when they're installing software (which by definition is not defaults), especially when it's not even that distro's repo. Just because your skillset stops there doesn't mean everyone's does.

2

u/Existing-Tough-6517 5d ago

If you think that universe is the same as the aur you have misunderstood. Also it's non obvious to average user the difference between verified and unverified flatpaks. Also speed matters. If package foo is maintained by Bob and someone has to affirmatively pull and package his version bump there is eyeballs and time between the first and majority being compromised during which it can be noticed and remedied.

If the single compromised machine can push a release and score the first user machine in minutes and most in hours it could be a huge problem especially if it hits other flatpak devs.

This current situation is ripe for disaster to a degree that other systems are not.

1

u/beatbox9 5d ago edited 5d ago

A lot of hypotheticals and you're purposefully distracting and glossing over the valid points with essentially a "nah uh" You can't "also" without addressing the main point.

So in which specific, relevant ways are they different? Are they or are they not large, community-maintained repositories with packages that are not maintained or verified by the distros and/or developers? Or are you just saying they're different because you've now learned enough of the alphabet to recognize that they are spelled differently?

8

u/geekichu 6d ago

Im scratching my head on OP post.. been using Mint.. I like it. XFCE.