• Registered: 2008-11-24
  • Posts: 1,858

Re: The change to Debian explained

bozhkov wrote:

So the "stable" Staler will be based on Squeeze, not on testing? I ask, because as you may know software in debian stable tend to age with time. Is Crunchbang going to make bigger use of it's own repository to repackage versions from testing or the long-term strategy is to "jump" to testing before Debian 7 is released?

Only Philip can answer that question smile however the Statler Alpha repos point to "squeeze" not "testing" as I mentioned above (cat /etc/apt/sources.list if you don't believe me). Furthermore, CrunchBang has never been a "rolling release" distro in the past, and there has been no indication the project is moving in that direction in the future.

The current CrunchBang stable release uses applications from April 2009 (Jaunty), so moving to Squeeze is a big jump forward, not backward like you may have been led to believe. wink

Testing is an unstable "permanent alpha" repository. I would not recommend it for daily use for the typical user, and I think Stable is the right choice if #! is aiming for any sort of basic stability here.

  • From: Scotland
  • Registered: 2009-12-29
  • Posts: 330

Re: The change to Debian explained

snowpine wrote:
bozhkov wrote:

So the "stable" Staler will be based on Squeeze, not on testing? I ask, because as you may know software in debian stable tend to age with time. Is Crunchbang going to make bigger use of it's own repository to repackage versions from testing or the long-term strategy is to "jump" to testing before Debian 7 is released?

Only Philip can answer that question smile however the Statler Alpha repos point to "squeeze" not "testing" as I mentioned above (cat /etc/apt/sources.list if you don't believe me). Furthermore, CrunchBang has never been a "rolling release" distro in the past, and there has been no indication the project is moving in that direction in the future.

The current CrunchBang stable release uses applications from April 2009 (Jaunty), so moving to Squeeze is a big jump forward, not backward like you may have been led to believe. wink

Testing is an unstable "permanent alpha" repository. I would not recommend it for daily use for the typical user, and I think Stable is the right choice if #! is aiming for any sort of basic stability here.

You completely misunderstood me. First of all, I'm quite familiar with debian and it's release policy. I was talking about the long-term plan for Crunchbang, as you know software tend to age. Look at the current stable software - it's from the end of 2008, so some may consider it quite ancient, and that is still the current stable version. So my enquiry was whether corenominal is going to add updated software to his custom repository or is going to switch to the next testing at some point.

  • Registered: 2008-11-24
  • Posts: 1,858

Re: The change to Debian explained

bozhkov wrote:

You completely misunderstood me. First of all, I'm quite familiar with debian and it's release policy. I was talking about the long-term plan for Crunchbang, as you know software tend to age. Look at the current stable software - it's from the end of 2008, so some may consider it quite ancient, and that is still the current stable version. So my enquiry was whether corenominal is going to add updated software to his custom repository or is going to switch to the next testing at some point.

I understand your question; it is Frequently Asked on these forums. wink

CrunchBang Statler is based on Debian Squeeze. This means it will be a stable release with only bug fixes and security patches, as with all previous #! releases.

Users who would prefer Testing, Unstable, or Experimental can easily point their sources to the desired repo as described in this thread: http://crunchbanglinux.org/forums/topic … onversion/  (I am typing this from Sid.)

I think what you are really asking is "What happens when we get bored with #!10?" and the answer of course is "We pester Philip for #!11." smile

  • From: California, USA
  • Registered: 2008-11-29
  • Posts: 8,647

Re: The change to Debian explained

After Squeeze goes stable, chances are there will be a squeeze-backports as well:

http://backports.debian.org/

Note: ** Please read before posting **

BTW if you wish to contact me, send me an e-mail instead of a PM.
  • pvsage
  • Internal Affairs
  • Offline
  • From: Section Six
  • Registered: 2009-10-18
  • Posts: 4,911

Re: The change to Debian explained

The CrunchBang Statler repository itself has few distro-specific applications, and I think Philip plans to keep those updated on a regular basis.  Most of the apps themselves are pulled in from the Debian Squeeze repository, with the CrunchBang Statler repository primarily supplying config files, scripts, art, etc.

while ( ! ( succeed = try() ) );
  • From: Covington, LA
  • Registered: 2010-09-11
  • Posts: 79

Re: The change to Debian explained

I think a lot of the criticisms aimed at Xubuntu are unfair, the Xubuntu developers are doing a fantastic job, but at the same time I do think there are some distributions which implement Xfce better.

I agree with Philip's sentiment regarding the implementation of Xfce and after having read his statement, I was hoping to see a more robust implementation of Xfce in the release of Crunchbang Debian.  However it instead mimics the OpenBox version (and with the exception of some changes to the panel, the addition of Conky and, the removal of the Start menu, it has ended up to be very much Xubuntu like).

All in all, both are very good releases (for Alpha 2 beta's they are quite stable) and are an important milestone for Crunchbang.

Last edited by nolatux (2010-09-11 22:20:29)

Currently running "Statler" - Openbox edition.
  • Registered: 2008-11-25
  • Posts: 4,363

Re: The change to Debian explained

nolatux wrote:

However it instead mimics the OpenBox version (and with the exception of some changes to the panel, the addition of Conky and, the removal of the Start menu, it has ended up to be very much Xubuntu like).

Both versions are setup to be visually similar on purpose, just like say the Mint editions are quite similar. Usually that's what defines a distro.

Xubuntu like? Really? Apart from the obvious of both being Xfce based distros, in what other ways are they similar?

I'm tempted to say many things here but my calm objective comment is you need to look at the differences a bit more closely. Primary differences to Xubuntu would be it is much less resource intensive and has a different package set. It's more comparable to the openbox release in terms of speed as opposed to Xubuntu being a complete slug like the Ubuntu gnome release.

  • From: Covington, LA
  • Registered: 2010-09-11
  • Posts: 79

Re: The change to Debian explained

omns wrote:
nolatux wrote:

However it instead mimics the OpenBox version (and with the exception of some changes to the panel, the addition of Conky and, the removal of the Start menu, it has ended up to be very much Xubuntu like).

Both versions are setup to be visually similar on purpose, just like say the Mint editions are quite similar. Usually that's what defines a distro.

Xubuntu like? Really? Apart from the obvious of both being Xfce based distros, in what other ways are they similar?

I'm tempted to say many things here but my calm objective comment is you need to look at the differences a bit more closely. Primary differences to Xubuntu would be it is much less resource intensive and has a different package set. It's more comparable to the openbox release in terms of speed as opposed to Xubuntu being a complete slug like the Ubuntu gnome release.

Per Philip's quote: "but at the same time I do think there are some distributions which implement Xfce better."

My post was in response to his quote and no disrespect was intended, I'm a simple end user and all I know is what boots on my machine and how looks and how it performs
.
A great example of a distro that showcases what Xfce is capable of imho, is the new Dreamlinux 4 Beta.

Between Linx Mint 9 Xfce, Crunchbang Debian Xfce, Xubuntu and Dreamlinux 4... Dreamlinux 4, far and away flexes the muscles of the Xcfe DE (and like the new Crunchbang, it is also pure Debian).

I'm well aware of the speed factor but the general public (which is who we all strive to convert) needs a little bling in order to send those dollars in to keep projects funded. If Crunchbang strives for speed, then it meets that stated purpose. In regard to Philip's comment that some distros implement Xfce better, I see that happening in Dreamlinux.

The point that I'm trying to make is that since Philip has the vision to see what the capabilities of Xfce are in other distro's, it would be great to see how those capabilities could be exploited in Crunchbang under his leadership. The flight from Ubuntu's base is starting to happen with Linux Mint and I'm looking to settle in with a pure Debian distro which employs the Xcfe DE and I'm not one to play around with themes and compiz settings out of fear of breaking my system.  If I leave a Ubuntu derivative, I'd like to find something a bit more snappier (by default) than a basic start menu and a list of programs to choose from.

I remain, all in all Crunchbang is still a great distro and both releases mark a significant milestone for the dev team.

Respectfully,

NT

Last edited by nolatux (2010-09-14 18:36:47)

Currently running "Statler" - Openbox edition.
  • Registered: 2009-10-09
  • Posts: 419

Re: The change to Debian explained

Hi nolatux and welcome to the forum! smile

My own experience with xfce between Xubuntu and CrunchBang echos what omns said. There is a difference between the implementations, which may be more apparent on the hardware used with it and what you're looking to get out of it (in my case mostly something for background batch file processing on a secondary machine that I can use the web on at the same time). I found on the same older hardware (I try to reuse as much as possible) Xubuntu felt like an overloaded staton wagon (for lack of a better description) and it was feeling like a chore trying to make it perform better. I ended up stripping it down as much as I knew how to but I tried CrunchBang on a whim (I needed a rescue CD right then) and it was exactly what I'd been looking for out of the box. It looked great too! I actually use my Linux box the most now with CrunchBang than my other PC which is newer, because I just like this one better.

But for a while, and I know this was due to my experience with Xubuntu, I was a not quite vocal, but misguided critic of xfce. The Statler implementation proved me wrong and I'm actually pretty happy about that.

The next part I'm not sure how to put- but my suggestion would be to try CrunchBang for a few days to get a feel for the differences and if you end up wanting to shape it into a completely different distro- well then it's probably just not your thing and that's all right! smile

Now if corenominal was ever interested in putting together a blingy distro, I *would* check it out to see what it was like - but I think a lot of the elegance here is in the simplicity. I think it's much easier to throw in everything but the kitchen sink than to either take them out or even decide exactly how to keep things simple and at the same time fully featured. And that's where I feel the strength of CrunchBang really is- that balance.

Whichever distro you end up using- best of luck!

  • From: Covington, LA
  • Registered: 2010-09-11
  • Posts: 79

Re: The change to Debian explained

chillicampari wrote:

Hi nolatux and welcome to the forum! smile

My own experience with xfce between Xubuntu and CrunchBang echos what omns said. There is a difference between the implementations, which may be more apparent on the hardware used with it and what you're looking to get out of it (in my case mostly something for background batch file processing on a secondary machine that I can use the web on at the same time). I found on the same older hardware (I try to reuse as much as possible) Xubuntu felt like an overloaded staton wagon (for lack of a better description) and it was feeling like a chore trying to make it perform better. I ended up stripping it down as much as I knew how to but I tried CrunchBang on a whim (I needed a rescue CD right then) and it was exactly what I'd been looking for out of the box. It looked great too! I actually use my Linux box the most now with CrunchBang than my other PC which is newer, because I just like this one better.

But for a while, and I know this was due to my experience with Xubuntu, I was a not quite vocal, but misguided critic of xfce. The Statler implementation proved me wrong and I'm actually pretty happy about that.

The next part I'm not sure how to put- but my suggestion would be to try CrunchBang for a few days to get a feel for the differences and if you end up wanting to shape it into a completely different distro- well then it's probably just not your thing and that's all right! smile

Now if corenominal was ever interested in putting together a blingy distro, I *would* check it out to see what it was like - but I think a lot of the elegance here is in the simplicity. I think it's much easier to throw in everything but the kitchen sink than to either take them out or even decide exactly how to keep things simple and at the same time fully featured. And that's where I feel the strength of CrunchBang really is- that balance.

Whichever distro you end up using- best of luck!

Thanks chillicampari,

Thanks for the post.  I'm sure the Crunchbang Debian version will have a permanent home on one of my laptops as I 'm eager to start learning Openbox. I seed a few different live music sharing hubs and I'm looking for a lightweight pure Debian system to be able to seed, browse the web or maybe do some Skype or some Word processing with 1 gb ram.

I'm looking forward to being a contributing member and best regards to you and to everyone here big_smile

Last edited by nolatux (2010-09-13 19:51:25)

Currently running "Statler" - Openbox edition.
  • rich
  • #! Junkie
  • Offline
  • From: teh interwebs
  • Registered: 2009-01-26
  • Posts: 408

Re: The change to Debian explained

anonymous wrote:

After Squeeze goes stable, chances are there will be a squeeze-backports as well:

http://backports.debian.org/

Yeah, I saw that. Great news! smile

| ultimate crunchbang howto everything | debianandi | g+ |
  • From: Covington, LA
  • Registered: 2010-09-11
  • Posts: 79

Re: The change to Debian explained

Right now I'm resizing and repartitioning the HD in my old hp ze5300 laptop to make a quad boot system and I'm browsing the Internet, at the same time all off of a USB key install of Openbox Statler, and doing so at 128 mb of ram on a 512mb system.

For a light weight  Linux Box this distro packs a wallop of a punch. It delivers on speed and stability, also comes with extra wallpaper and other goodies and it's very easy to navigate through the menu system. The forums are full of professionally written guides and both the Openbox and Xfce versions are good to go right out of the box.  I'm impressed... good show mates!

Cheers! big_smile

Update: I can play Zygna Poker on Facebook + resize and repartition my HD at 209mb! This is a must have distro for anyone who goes on Facebook games with a low end computer, like mine. And poker on this is fast too, not choppy and slow.

Last edited by nolatux (2010-09-15 06:27:42)

Currently running "Statler" - Openbox edition.
  • From: Covington, LA
  • Registered: 2010-09-11
  • Posts: 79

Re: The change to Debian explained

omns wrote:
nolatux wrote:

However it instead mimics the OpenBox version (and with the exception of some changes to the panel, the addition of Conky and, the removal of the Start menu, it has ended up to be very much Xubuntu like).

Both versions are setup to be visually similar on purpose, just like say the Mint editions are quite similar. Usually that's what defines a distro.

Xubuntu like? Really? Apart from the obvious of both being Xfce based distros, in what other ways are they similar?

I'm tempted to say many things here but my calm objective comment is you need to look at the differences a bit more closely. Primary differences to Xubuntu would be it is much less resource intensive and has a different package set. It's more comparable to the openbox release in terms of speed as opposed to Xubuntu being a complete slug like the Ubuntu gnome release.

Omns,

From using the Statler Xfce ed. over the past couple of days, I have a better understanding of Philip's implementation strategy, the differences in speed Statler has over Xubuntu and how misinformed my original post was.

Thanks for creating those great post-Statler install scripts and posting your Conky configs. smile

-NT

Last edited by nolatux (2010-09-16 07:31:27)

Currently running "Statler" - Openbox edition.