“A lot of modern Linux distributions created with desktop users in mind go out of their way to be user friendly. Ubuntu, Mint, openSUSE, Fedora – and many more. It is a sign of how desktop Linux has matured that even non-techy types can get a fully featured and easy-to-use open source operating system up and running in not much time at all. The creators of CrunchBang Linux, however, haven’t quite gone in the same direction.”
seeing as its based on archlinux , unfortunately not mentioned in the article, and my current distro of choice kudos to the guys/gals of crunch bang .getting a arch setup isnt exactly for the novice but if you really want a no nonsense minimalist system with all options tweakable .thats the way to go Crunch bang gives you the option of getting there with a little more hand holding than arch which throws ya out on a CLI after install is done.
actually both the article and the website(http://crunchbanglinux.org/) say that it’s based on debian
That’s ArchBang you’re thinking of…
Yes, “meta-distros” like Arch (or Gentoo, or Debian for that matter) tend to hold your hand a bit less and force you to do some reading if you want to get somewhere. At the same time, the desire to learn and understand more about the internals of the system is often what drives people (and by people I mean at least me, of course) to leave the comfort of Ubuntu and try something else.
thanks for the correction , since landing on arch havent gone disto hopping much.always did like debian for the variety of architectures it can run on
First PCLinuxOS, now CrunchBang… I’m beginning to see a trend on OSNews on links to distro reviews… and I think it’s a good thing. It’s definitely refreshing to see something for once that’s not about Apple’s over-hyped and over-rated iCrap devices, Steve Jobs’ health, and Microsoft’s Windows Phone 7 (dumbest name ever for a piece of software, rather than the phone itself, BTW…). If I wanted to be sold on Windows Phone, there’s a place for that–it’s called winsupersite.com.
I’ve been using Debian on the desktop for maybe 8 years now, and my transition to Crunchbang on my new PC was pretty logical: all I wanted was a light desktop, with no fuss. After booting, my average memory usage is around 75MB, which is awesome.
On the other hand, my workstation is a much more keyboard-shortcuts-oriented thing, so I prefer to use a plain Debian distro with awesomeWM instead of the openbox + terminator combo I had previously.
Also, for anyone interested, the Liquorix Zen kernels run perfectly on the “Statler” release, since it’s based on Squeeze.
Continue your great job , #!
Really? I’m sick of the likes of Ubuntu or Fedora (plus more I presume) not booting after kernel updates.
Check the Ubuntu forums for those having graphics issues.
Yeah it’s come a way, but to make these sort of claims is making it out to be better than it is.
Has this happened to you? I’ve been using Ubuntu since Warty and this has never happened to me. The graphics I can agree with but using an Nvidia card with the propitiatory drivers installed using the Additional drivers tool – no problem for many releases. Its not just Ubuntu and Fedora that can have problems with graphics drivers, I’ve seen plenty Windows boxes using low resolutions.
Oh and the PClinuxOS review was inaccurate about Ubuntu writing over your bootloader – putting grub on the mbr is the default but you can specify where it is installed during installation easily.
Edited 2011-02-19 04:57 UTC
Here we go again …
http://tmrepository.com/trademarks/worksforme/
It might be working fine on a specific set of hardware when the kernel has updated, but different people have different setups.
Great it has worked for you but It doesn’t help people where it doesn’t work.
Ok – I’m not saying its impossible, but I’ve been running Ubuntu since the first release and have never had a box not boot after a kernel update. This is not a single box, my personal boxes have generally been AMD with Nvidia graphics, but I’ve also been running about 35 other boxes running a variety of other hardware including Intel and AMD processors with a variety of motherboards, chipsets and graphics cards and on board graphics since Hardy.
This has never happened to me – I’m questioning whether this is a common experience – I doubt it.
Yes, it happened to me on Fedora 14. Thankfully I could choose the previous kernel and it got it to boot. Then I had to contend with things missing from my top panel, but hey that’s a completely different quality issue.
It’s also happened on my laptop using Ubuntu 9.10.
Edited 2011-02-20 10:42 UTC
@flanque & @lucas_maximus
I don’t understand your points. Are you suggesting that other *nix distros/projects are better at kernel updates than Ubuntu or Fedora, or are you saying that generally kernel updates in *nix distros/projects are faulty when compared to proprietary OSs?
If it is the former, then I would definitely agree that other distros/projects are more stable than Ubuntu and Fedora. Try Debian Stable, Slackware, CentOS, FreeBSD, etc.
On the other hand, if you are generalizing that proprietary OSs are better at kernel updates than *nix OSs, I would ask one question: When have you ever updated the kernel in a proprietary OS?
Oh. That’s right… it’s a proprietary OS, and one can’t update the kernel. One can only install system updates that the manufacturer hands out on their whim. Often, manufacturers charge for the updates.
Only in open source systems can one change just the kernel, and it doesn’t cost a dime.
*nix has “system updates,” too. In some distros/projects, these updates are usually more stable than those of proprietary OSs, especially with the distros/projects which are designed for system critcal utilization.
I agree entirely – building a server there are probably better choices than Ubuntu or even a workstation where stability is an absolute priority. However the impression that Kernel updates will commonly leave the system unbootable I take exception to, this is more than an exaggeration it is an untruth.
I have exceptionally known updates to break something – once in an early release of Ubuntu breaking X, however the system was bootable and relatively easily fixable from the commandline is this acceptable no but lets not pretend it is more than it is. Certainly when compared with some propitiatory OSes Ubuntu’s stability looks very acceptable – Mmm the number of times I’ve read of updates or service packs breaking things or AV updates trashing certain Proprietary OSes.
Say what you will about the desktop but Ubuntu Server kicks ass. It’s almost like Slackware and OpenBSD in it’s simplicity and spareness. None of that everything-and-the-kitchen-sink-by-default that you get with the likes of CentOS.