fox wrote:I don't understand why so many people on this forum seem to be against Ubuntu as a base. CrunchBang 9.04 used Ubuntu as a base and is a very stable, very fast and lean distro. I don't think it brought in a whole lot of extra dependencies because it worked from a base install of Ubuntu. Don't get me wrong, I like Debian as well, but I think Ubuntu is trying to be more innovative with things like fast start (and netbook remixes, although they aren't relevant here). I hope some of that innovation (especially fast start) will find its way into the new Debian-based CrunchBang.
The reason I gave up on Ubuntu last year is that it's too much of a "compromise" distro. I understand this is a big part of Ubuntu's success, but it just doesn't work for me. Basically, their 6-month cycle is a compromise between stability and freshness. Personally, I would rather use a distro that is either incredibly stable or incredibly fresh. Ubuntu always seems to get really "stale" a few months into its release, but without the benefits of a distro with bug-free reliability as its goal. Plus I have real problems with their "release every 6 months, even if it's broken, and by the way, a fresh install is better than an upgrade" philosophy.
On my work computers, I use CentOS and Debian Stable, with a dual boot into Arch for the rare occasions I need the latest version of OpenOffice or whatever. If you've only ever used Ubuntu, a truly polished and stable distro with many years of support can be a real revelation.
On my home computer, I'm still using #! 9.04, because I just love it so much.
But I am looking forward to replacing it with Statler when the time comes.