What a bummer. CrunchBang succeeded more for me in the first install attempt on older, weirder hardware than any other distro I tried (including things like Puppy Linux, Damn Small Linux or even Debian with defaults). I have it set up as a dual-boot 'failsafe' OS on a couple old WinXP machines, one of which I use daily.
For getting up & running quickly with minimal hassle, while still being rich in features and easy for noobs on basic tasks, I have found nothing that compares-- not sure what I'm going to replace it with yet, would love it if anyone has suggestions.
People keep on suggesting Mint and Xubuntu, but I don't feel like LXDE or XFCE are really effective replacements for openbox.
A quick distrowatch search led me to wattOS[0] - anyone have experience with it? The blog has no updates since May of last year - maybe they're waiting for Jessie to go stable before rolling out their next version?
Lubuntu has been a good replacement for #! for me. It works out of the box on most reasonable hardware, has minimal requirements, good default applications, and a familiar layout. I think it's "easy for noobs on basic tasks", but I'm not that new anymore, so I'm not sure. I use it on old machines as an up-to-date environment that's light enough for them to run. If it weren't for Lubuntu, I wouldn't have a usable computer in my house.
I had my parent's desktop running Linux Mint for a while, but now I have them on the latest Xubuntu LTS. No one's had Big problems, even with a HP printer/scanner.
If you like the Crunchbang aesthetic but don't mind trying something non-Debian there's Archbang. Also GhostBSD, which is FreeBSD with an option to install OpenBox.
I had a feeling this was coming, based on the fact Corenominal is mostly running Jessie with Gnome in some of his recent posts, and the lack of development around the Jessie based version.
I think Corenominal is a stand-up guy in general, and great for the GNU/Linux community. I think he is also leaving the project at the right time, before he has to face the demons of init that are in Jessie, and now that vanilla debian with xfce or lxde is much closer to the user-friendly and complete desktop that #! was so great for.
All that positive stuff said, this kinda sucks. I was really looking forward to the next version. I agree with many others that it isn't pointless yet, there still isn't anything quite as polished while still being super lightweight.
I have great respect for anyone who undergoes a big project. So I am sad that this project is coming to an end, and I hope his future endeavors go well.
But.
From my perspective as someone who keeps going back to Linux and trying to use it every 18 months or so, the #1 problem today is that there are WAY too many distros -- and as a result, all of them are broken. What really needs to happen is for the Linux community to put a great deal of elbow grease into a small number of distros.
Because I only try Linux every year or two (and give up on it every time), I see isolated snapshots of how usable the OS is, and from my perspective, it's gotten less stable and less usable over the past 5 years. (Six months ago I had to try 4 different distros before one would even install correctly on one of my two test laptops, for example).
In terms of mainstream distros that are actively trying to appeal to end-users (not counting fringe research projects), how many is enough to provide good variety? I am thinking 3-5 maybe?
Does anyone think that is an efficient way to produce quality results?
Edit: It's also worth keeping in mind that the Wikipedia list is sort of the minimal list of versions. For example, if you go to the Linux Mint homepage, you get 4 different versions to choose from: http://www.linuxmint.com/
This is sad. I am using CB on my Notebooks and i love it. It's preconfigured setup was the perfect sweet spot between a Debian-minimal install and the somewhat "bloated" big distros out there.
I used CrunchBang for quite a while, and it's sad to see it go, but I completely understand why the maintainer doesn't want to do it anymore, even though I disagree with his statement that CrunchBang no longer has value.
Oh man. CrunchBang is my go-to distro when I need something lightweight that just works out of the box. The default install is a great, well-featured system.
Posting from a Crunchbang desktop - not the best thing to be the first thing to read as I get up in the morning.
I expect I'll be able to do some apt-repo magic and switch over to Debian when the next stable release comes out, but I hope there's not too much breakage when I do.
Your system will probably accumulate small breakage here and there over time, dependency hell, etc. I'd recommend to schedule a few hours for a proper install of Debian, to me it sounds like a much more pleasant approach. Source: hanging out in the Debian IRC channel and seeing desperate people who tried to switch repos.
As others have commented, breakage is to be expected.
I'm sure someone will share an unofficial crunchbang setup script (based on a minimal debian install) once Jessie becomes stable. Happened in the past already, works very well.
Crunchbang rocks, using it since 2009 on all my machines. Don't feel like moving to something else.
Crunchbang is my most favorite distribution. For the last 2 years I found it perfect for my needs, especially on slightly older machines. Originally I came from SuSe, moved on to Red Hat and Fedora, then played with Gentoo for a while. Ubuntu is great, but with each version the out-of-the-box experience became less and less desirable. Crunchbang (which I discovered on HN, btw) was minimalist (but not painfully so) and shared Ubuntu's robustness.
AFAIK he made no money whatsoever out of it. If it's not necessary for him any more, and doesn't make him any value, it's hardly difficult to understand he doesn't want to continue working on it.
To me #! was quite good for my needs, I'm quite sad to see it go. As someone who's not quite adept at using Linux, it was configured enough that I wasn't lost following instructions.
I never used CrunchBang, but heard quite a bit about it, and like an big open source user/supporter, I'm sorry to see CrunchBang go.
But honest question: with the rise of Ubuntu, Debian and a few other "alpha" Linux versions, does it make sense to put in effort and keep an alternative Linux version running? I've always toyed with making my own Ubuntu variant with custom window manager, but never got around to it.
Building on top of Debian or Ubuntu is challenging. Debian is very strict about non-free packages, and normally tries to avoid them, and will even gut non-free binaries from their code. This is an issue when making a distro. If you stick purely with Debian you'll get the Linux-Libre kernel, not the proper kernel. Which really hurts a lot of hardware support, or performance in some scenarios.
Ubuntu has a lot of custom packages baked in. These can be stripped but they'll make building on top of the platform difficult. Also the init system differences are challenging + all the weird X stuff they do with Unity.
Generally if you want to roll your own distro start with a solid foundation of Gentoo, Slackware, or Arch. Something that isn't picky about its packages, and has less of a moral or business agenda.
> But honest question: with the rise of Ubuntu, Debian and a few other "alpha" Linux versions, does it make sense to put in effort and keep an alternative Linux version running?
Oh yes, it definitely makes sense. Because: bloat.
It started as an easy to use but minimal Linux for the eeePC 701 (4 GB soldered SSD; 512(?)mB RAM).
When I used it it didn't quite fit that - it had the help files for Open Office because they were a dependency for something else (not Open Office) which was a bit weird.
If someone tried the same thing now I guess they'd use Arch.
> I've always toyed with making my own Ubuntu variant with custom window manager, but never got around to it.
Why? Why not just use Arch? Or, if you want the hard work, Linux from Scratch?
There are quite a few Linux distributions that are taking completely different aproaches to certain subsets of the system. I, for one, really like NixOS for example.
It does make sense to keep these projects around, since they are sometimes so radically different that a completely separate branch is required to make innovation happen. When a proof of concept gains traction, other distributions can learn from it and perhaps integrate parts into their own ecosystems.
A real waste. So I'll go ahead with my eulogy. #! to me was more than an operating system or Debian with slick OpenBox configs. #! was the community, the aesthetics. It represented a bold idea and executed it flawlessly. I really hope the community can take on the mantle, and trudge on. I disagree that #! has no more value. On the contrary, I think its value was already starting to increase in the recent years.
I really liked CrunchBang, especially the setup scripts, which I think shouldn't be too hard to port over to a debian minimal install anyway.
For those of you looking for similar alternatives, ArchBang is pretty awesome, but I have been increasingly interested in Alpine Linux for it's native grsec implementation. I'm experimenting with using it in virtual network labs and it has worked pretty awesome so far.
I run Debian, but the Crunchbang Forums have been a great place for me to learn. I'll find tips, pearls of knowledge passed down from the masters, and even whole config files for programs that barely get represented in the normal linux distros.
Crunchbang served as repository of knowledge for a minimal desktop Linux and hopefully the community keeps the forums active.
[+] [-] slfnflctd|11 years ago|reply
For getting up & running quickly with minimal hassle, while still being rich in features and easy for noobs on basic tasks, I have found nothing that compares-- not sure what I'm going to replace it with yet, would love it if anyone has suggestions.
[+] [-] smellf|11 years ago|reply
A quick distrowatch search led me to wattOS[0] - anyone have experience with it? The blog has no updates since May of last year - maybe they're waiting for Jessie to go stable before rolling out their next version?
I think I'm going to give it a try tonight.
[0] http://distrowatch.com/table.php?distribution=wattos
[+] [-] JasonFruit|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] theandrewbailey|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jefurii|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] cubano|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] laydros|11 years ago|reply
I think Corenominal is a stand-up guy in general, and great for the GNU/Linux community. I think he is also leaving the project at the right time, before he has to face the demons of init that are in Jessie, and now that vanilla debian with xfce or lxde is much closer to the user-friendly and complete desktop that #! was so great for.
All that positive stuff said, this kinda sucks. I was really looking forward to the next version. I agree with many others that it isn't pointless yet, there still isn't anything quite as polished while still being super lightweight.
[+] [-] jblow|11 years ago|reply
But.
From my perspective as someone who keeps going back to Linux and trying to use it every 18 months or so, the #1 problem today is that there are WAY too many distros -- and as a result, all of them are broken. What really needs to happen is for the Linux community to put a great deal of elbow grease into a small number of distros.
Because I only try Linux every year or two (and give up on it every time), I see isolated snapshots of how usable the OS is, and from my perspective, it's gotten less stable and less usable over the past 5 years. (Six months ago I had to try 4 different distros before one would even install correctly on one of my two test laptops, for example).
In terms of mainstream distros that are actively trying to appeal to end-users (not counting fringe research projects), how many is enough to provide good variety? I am thinking 3-5 maybe?
Instead, this is the situation: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Linux_distributions
Does anyone think that is an efficient way to produce quality results?
Edit: It's also worth keeping in mind that the Wikipedia list is sort of the minimal list of versions. For example, if you go to the Linux Mint homepage, you get 4 different versions to choose from: http://www.linuxmint.com/
[+] [-] sauere|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] phaer|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] cms07|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] darkFunction|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] perturbation|11 years ago|reply
I expect I'll be able to do some apt-repo magic and switch over to Debian when the next stable release comes out, but I hope there's not too much breakage when I do.
[+] [-] nkuttler|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] me_bx|11 years ago|reply
I'm sure someone will share an unofficial crunchbang setup script (based on a minimal debian install) once Jessie becomes stable. Happened in the past already, works very well.
Crunchbang rocks, using it since 2009 on all my machines. Don't feel like moving to something else.
[+] [-] therealidiot|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] novalis78|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] novaleaf|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] macco|11 years ago|reply
Thinking about it, it is a good thing the #! creator focuses on someting different/new. We have to many distros anyway.
[+] [-] anonbanker|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] nailer|11 years ago|reply
I wonder where the term 'crunch' for pound/hash came from?
Edit: looks like it's been around a while: http://ss64.com/bash/syntax-pronounce.html
[+] [-] LukeB_UK|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ipavl|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] muyuu|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] johnatwork|11 years ago|reply
I will surely miss it.
[+] [-] ethagnawl|11 years ago|reply
Many thanks to @corenominal and the other contributors for their efforts over the last few years.
[+] [-] samspenc|11 years ago|reply
But honest question: with the rise of Ubuntu, Debian and a few other "alpha" Linux versions, does it make sense to put in effort and keep an alternative Linux version running? I've always toyed with making my own Ubuntu variant with custom window manager, but never got around to it.
[+] [-] valarauca1|11 years ago|reply
Ubuntu has a lot of custom packages baked in. These can be stripped but they'll make building on top of the platform difficult. Also the init system differences are challenging + all the weird X stuff they do with Unity.
Generally if you want to roll your own distro start with a solid foundation of Gentoo, Slackware, or Arch. Something that isn't picky about its packages, and has less of a moral or business agenda.
[+] [-] me_bx|11 years ago|reply
Oh yes, it definitely makes sense. Because: bloat.
[+] [-] DanBC|11 years ago|reply
When I used it it didn't quite fit that - it had the help files for Open Office because they were a dependency for something else (not Open Office) which was a bit weird.
If someone tried the same thing now I guess they'd use Arch.
> I've always toyed with making my own Ubuntu variant with custom window manager, but never got around to it.
Why? Why not just use Arch? Or, if you want the hard work, Linux from Scratch?
[+] [-] stingraycharles|11 years ago|reply
It does make sense to keep these projects around, since they are sometimes so radically different that a completely separate branch is required to make innovation happen. When a proof of concept gains traction, other distributions can learn from it and perhaps integrate parts into their own ecosystems.
[+] [-] ykzrtj|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] arca_vorago|11 years ago|reply
For those of you looking for similar alternatives, ArchBang is pretty awesome, but I have been increasingly interested in Alpine Linux for it's native grsec implementation. I'm experimenting with using it in virtual network labs and it has worked pretty awesome so far.
[+] [-] oldpond|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] undersuit|11 years ago|reply
Crunchbang served as repository of knowledge for a minimal desktop Linux and hopefully the community keeps the forums active.
[+] [-] spiralpolitik|11 years ago|reply