Version 2 of CRUX, the lightweight keeping-it-simple Linux distribution, has been released ISO image. It’s based on the 2.6 kernel, Glibc 2.33 with NPTL, GCC 3.3.3 and X.org’s X11 6.7.0. Changelog.
CRUX 2.0 Released
About The Author
Eugenia Loli
Ex-programmer, ex-editor in chief at OSNews.com, now a visual artist/filmmaker.
Follow me on Twitter @EugeniaLoli
I always wanted to try Crux, but I have always had trouble installing it successfully. I can get the system ONTO the disk, but not really functional.
This is *not* a distro for newbies.
I was just about to install 1.3. Now I can install this. I hope it’s as good as it looks. ^_^
This is probally my favorite distribution nice and simple and easy to configure, if you know how linux works, not much has chnaged in this version except for package updates, all i can say is keep up the good work crux
For a slackware user, is CRUX worth of trying?
It’s worth trying for any user that knows their way around a linux box. I tought my slef linux a few years back with beehive linux and crux linux. beehive is dead! long live crux!
-adam.
Defintely, I’d say, as a former Slack-user (3.2-7.1). CRUX is smaller (just a 200MB iso), feels faster, and is IMHO even cleaner than slack. It has also a clearly *BSD inspired ports-system, although much simpler and bit more hands-on. But as noted earlier, you’ve got to know what you’re doing, as the hand-holding is quite minimal.
Funny thing about 2.0 is that it’s for the first time making a of a nod towards “easyness” as it includes nano for those who aren’t adapt with VIM…
It always had pico.
only if you use/install pine, that is.
AFAIR, Crux had nano in release 1.2.
At least, I used nano to edit files during the
installation, not vi 🙂
Must have missed it, then. You now, you never really look at things you don’t use..
For a slackware user, is CRUX worth of trying?
Sure it is. I think you’ll feel quite at home, but AFAIK there will be less available packages than for Slack.
When I read the Crux manual about a year ago, I said to myself ‘this has to be my favourite distro’. I installed it and liked it, but then I realized I had to compile alot of software myself, because Crux was really just a base system.
Then I tried Archlinux. It’s based on ideas from Crux, but unlike Crux has a fantastic package manager and lots of packages. After using Arch for nearly a year, I don’t think I’ll switch distro again in the forseeable future.
I downloaded the iso and will try it out tonight. I usually use Redhat for my linux needs just to minimize some of the hassles. But RedHat suffers from some serious bloat. I use NetBSD for webservers and such mainly becasue its slim and trim. And i like the idea of using hte BSD inspired rc.conf etc. Perhaps i have found a Linux distro worth its salt. TIme will tell.
tried crux for a while; it’s a nice distro, lean and mean. however i got tired of compiling, and now run archlinux, a distribution (with its roots in crux) that truly kicks ass.
i encourage ppl to try out crux, you will get to know your system very well. i especially liked /etc and init stuff in crux better than slackware, because it was a bit easier to understand. basic skills in linux are needed, though, in order to get crux configured within an acceptable time frame.
“RedHat suffers from some serious bloat”
tell me don’t tell me. at least when i last was using redhat it was horribly crufty. crux probably boots in one tenth of the time redhat/fedora takes for example…