• Everythingispenguins@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    1 month ago

    I have always used the Xfce DE so mine is pretty vanilla. I have no idea what cinnamon is like.

    I don’t know if maybe it is a difference in definitions. I would say those are simpler and very stable. But they are harder to use as a daily driver’s personal computer. I have never used slackware or Fedora, but Debian is so held back to keep it stable Often you have to go find software that is newer to get it to be able to deal with everybody else. It seems much more of a server than a daily. But IDK it has been a while since I looked at it.

    Mint has good moderation updates, tends to play better with proprietary codec, Nvidia, etc. without having to mess around with it too much. At the same time at least for me it’s very stable.

    • Emerald@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 month ago

      When I think of a vanilla distros I think of the ones that ship packages straight from upstream with no or minimal changes. Mint is a good distro, but I wouldn’t call it vanilla. Also Mint would have to be mint flavored not vanilla :P

      • Everythingispenguins@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 month ago

        I get what you’re saying. I guess I’m using vanilla in a slightly different context. I was more talking about the end user experience and how much you needed to know first how much it did itself. To me it is the changes to packets that makes mint vanilla it is somebody else doing the work for you.

        As for the flavoring I think you got me there