I agree but I do have some comments based on
them.
"If you want stability then stick with Ubuntu LTS releases. The six month

release cycle of Ubuntu (and therefore Mint) does not provide the stability

that most people who crave stability need."

To be quite honest, the computers I have run Linux on have been of average spec.
They are not expensive, do not always have the maximum RAM, nor would I consider
them to be capable of gaming.

I have not run into any Operating System stability problems with any versions of
Mint after V5 or with the current release of Crunchbang (9.04). And both are
derivatives of Ubuntu.

However, if an individual app is buggy, then we, as users can do our homework to
try to see why, and what the fix is. Or we can just as easily (in most cases)
find a more stable substitute.

"The only difference between Mint and Ubuntu is that Mint is later, has a

different theme and it has some extras that most people can install in a

couple of minutes."

For me, using Mint meant not having to fudge around with gstreamer, etc just to
be able to create mp3s from my personal CD collection or play an mp3 file.
(Which takes more than "a few minutes" if you don't get it right the first time,
not to mention ''frustrating''.)

IMO, support for multiple audio/video file types should just be made to work out
of the box, but I'd rather not stress that point as I don't want to foray into
philosophical arguments.

"It is no more stable and may be less so. The reason that

it may be less stable is that many Mint users begin to delude themselves

that it is Ubuntu and are building on a different framework where dependency

problems can occur"

Okay, I'm not sure I follow you here Roy.
Ubuntu uses Synaptic and command-line apt-get or aptitude.
Mint also uses Synaptic and command-line apt-get or aptitude.

How can dependency problems occur when each of those package install methods are
"supposed" to do the dependency checking and installing on the user's behalf?