Linux Mint vs Ubuntu: Detailed Comparison

View Comments (33)

• Are they not both built on "Debian"?

  • No. Ubuntu is built on Debian. Linux Mint is built on Ubuntu. The "LMDE" version of Linux Mint is built on Debian though.

    • Not sure why you did not mention LMDE (other than here in the comments). For LMDE2, that was something like 20% of the usage of Linux Mint and is possibly higher now with LMDE3. They also have a different release cycle, and since that was a focus, it would be useful information.

      • This article definitely needs an update and a restructure. We'll do it, just not sure when. Thanks for the tip

• I feel like the "Release Cycle" section for Linux Mint is a little misleading. Mint releases aren't scheduled, but they still come about every 6 months like Ubuntu. There's a major release version 18.0 to correspond with every Ubuntu LTS release, and then they get 3 updates about every 6 months to improve the stability of the LTS, sometimes even jumping Kernel versions as was the case with 18.2. Then we have the option of jumping to the next major version like 19.0 all over again.

  • Though they do always release after Ubuntu and they do correspond, they are still not scheduled. Your explanation is still more clear though. Thank you!

• Ubuntu LTS (Long Term Support) release provides support for 5 years for the Desktop, not 3 years. Same is true for the Server also.
  Thank you.

  • You are right. Thank you, we updated the post!

• One correction cinnamon and mate both built on gnome 3 but mate have a gnome 2 like interface

  • Mate is a continuation of Gnome 2 and is not built on Gnome 3. Cinnamon is a fork of early Gnome 3 and lacks features like Wayland compatibility.

• TL:DR
  GTK theme, icons, wallpapers, and dev team.
  Proprietary extras are now a one click install option during the install process, exactly like with Ubuntu.

• "Every fourth Linux Mint release is an LTS release, offering 5 years of support."

  This is no longer the case. They now have one major release corresponding to Ubuntu's LTS release, and then issue updates to that release every 6 months. So instead of LM 13 based on Ubuntu 12.04 LTS, and then LM 14 based on Ubuntu 12.10, then LM 15 based on Ubuntu 13.04, etc., we now have LM 17, then 17.1, then 17.2, and finally 17.3, all based on the same Ubuntu 14.04 LTS release, and all supported until the same date as LM 17. Then it goes to 18.x with the Ubuntu 16.04 LTS base, then 19.x will be based on Ubuntu 18.04, and so on. All releases are LTS releases.

  • Thanks! Updated

• I heartily disagree with your contention that Linux is more difficult to install than Windows. Windows has no Live version and takes hours to install, not to forget the hours you'll waste getting Office installed after installing the OS, OS X installs only on proprietary hardware whereas Linux does have Live versions to try out before committing, installs on almost any PC hardware and only takes minutes to get up and running including office software and with simple GUI instructions.
  I personally use OS X and Linux Mint Cinnamon as the clunky Windows experience leaves me cold and shivering with frustration. Both my preferred OSs are snappy to install, update hassle free and quickly, and are relatively bug free. Another couple of plus points: once you have bought a Mac updates are mostly at no cost, Linux is completely free including ALL software like an office suite.
  I do realize that Windows has carved out the major portion of the market for itself and now relies on this base to the detriment of progress, sucking billions out of economies and creating unnecessary hardware (and software) costs.

  • Windows takes hours to install? your know something called Windows 10?

    • windows 10? The worst experience i've ever had when using windows. Every few days update OS lol.

    • Windows 10 is the why i completely move to the linux, Not even dual booting.. Happy as no up to a year, Started with Arch then Manjaro then Ubuntu learn lot from arch and then fallin love with Linux.

    • As an user of windows (windows 3.11, windows 95, 98, xp, windows 7...) during many years : Yes i know windows 10, coming from windows 7, this is THE reason i moved to Linux Mint, easier to adapt myself coming from windows 7, than going on windows 10, slow with many problems, too many changes and nothing really better than windows 7 for me, only things that are worst. And Linux Mint had many advantages, no need of antivirus, easier to find where to do this or that, less ram used etc..

      • I've used microsoft since dos to 3.1 and now 8.1.
        Ever since xp I've never ran anti-virus software (only keep initial installation mirror disk back up just in case)...and have never had problems with virus or malware to speak of. With the exception of prior xp...don't have a clue as too why someone would say and have the experience of 'hours' to install...half an hour at most with xp...much less with versions after. Not a fanboy of windows...which is why I am reading linux articles...I do know for my 3d rendering software, linux is much better at memory management than windows, but hours to install? Nope, not true.

  • Windows takes not longer to install like linux and this not only with win10. please try a windows first before you scream your lies out in the world (from win and linux user)

• i prefer linux mint to ubuntu because of the repos package availabilty

• I've read a few individuals comments on here and I would like to say that, as primarily a Windows user with some experience with Apple OS, you are showing bias towards Linux and Apple while downing Windows simply based on an install period you might have had. Windows doesn't take hours to install if you have current hardware. If you plan to use a HDD and CPU from like 5 years ago and you're installing Windows XP or 7, then you could experience such a slow install. If you use an SSD as your boot drive and a decent CPU with Windows 7 or newer, you should have drastically faster speeds and shouldn't be waiting long. I can assure you Windows 8.1 and 10 install in under half the time of Win7 if you have decent and not outdated equipment. However, I do know some will think an i5-3xxx series CPU should perform the same as an i7-4xxx series CPU or later, but it won't. Installation speed is based on the complexity/size of the OS, capabilities of the CPU, and capabilities of the HDD or SSD you're writing the OS onto. Please realize your capability to do an install appropriately based on your equipment and don't automatically condemn an OS just because you're using outdated tech or aren't properly familiar with the OS itself. In the end, it's an unfair assessment of the OS and you show your ignorance on the topic.

• I just did a "tour" between distros using Ubuntu-MATE, Mint Cinnamon, Mint MATE, and Elementary OS. (Elementary was just for the lolz, I wanted to compare Ubuntu-MATE to Mint.) Ubuntu-MATE and Mint have so much parity it's kind of silly to compare them in a competitive light...Mint OS is geared toward users who want their desktop to look and feel like WIndows, me I love the classic Gnome interface of Ubuntu-MATE. (I found Mint and Elementary OS to be just the littlest bits less stable than Ubuntu-MATE as well, but not major stuff.)