[xorcist]

Weird indeed!

> Level 4 and 5 updates are not recommended unless they bring solutions to issues you're facing

What's a level 4 update? And how do I know if it solves an issue I'm facing? I haven't got the faintest idea what they are talking about and I dare say I'm an experienced user otherwise. What could my in-laws possibly do with that information?

> Upgrade for a reason

> "If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it".

So don't upgrade it is. Will then bugs continue to be fixed to my system? Will there be timely security fixes? As an end user, I only want things not to break.

> Should you decide to upgrade to 17.2's recommended kernel you can do so

So not only are you encouraged not to upgrade, but to mix kernel versions as well. Not helpful. Their users must run an awful lot of combinations.

I think I'll pass, again. But thanks for digging this up! It does indeed look like the project is moving forward, and looks a lot improved. There is still room for an easy-to-use Debian for end users, which Ubuntu managed to be for a number of years.

[ymse]

These concerns are exactly why I don't install or recommend Mint to others. Terrifying that they haven't fixed it after all those years. It seems more of an attitude rather than technical issue.

> There is still room for an easy-to-use Debian for end users

Does it have to be Debian? I'm looking forward to the inevitable "non-free" Guix fork that my grandmother can use. That will surely be the year of the Linux desktop.

[xorcist]

> It seems more of an attitude rather than technical issue.

Indeed. All the above concerned what looks like official communication from the project only, not what they choose to spend their time on. But it's important to give a fair picture of yoru project to the outside world, if not for other reasons than simply to avoid hordes of thankless users demanding support.

It's a bit unfortunate when articles like the Ars one paints this as a desktop operating system for end users. It's clearly not what they're aiming for, and it only reinforces the commonly held view that Linux is somehow for nerds only.

Ubuntu seems to still be the desktop operating system to recommend for non-technical users, but between Unity and the shopping lenses we desperately need a plan B.

> Does it have to be Debian?

No, but Debian does bring so much of the solid foundation "for free" that I feel it is probably the easiest way to get there. Debian has had a mostly working upgrade path for some 20 years now, which is simply outstanding.

What's missing is mainly a well polished default GUI, including the ability to discover and install new software. Debian is simply too flexible for a non-technical user. It must probably also take care not to break the most non-free software.