The change to Debian explained (Page 2 of 3)

Um... yes, amongst others. Is that a trick question? My usual process is to install something (mostly in a vbox), setup the desktop how I like it (tint2, conky, no icons on desktop), test it for usability and then either ditch it or keep it for further monitoring. I'll admit that Arch and Fedora didn't hang around long. Arch brought back to many bad memories and Fedora was exactly what I thought it would be - RPM hell. Does this explain enough or would you like a list of every other OS I've tested and my views on it?

The main point I thought I was making here was that any distro can 'look' like CrunchBang.

Well first, Arch is a wonderful OS that I had many happy memories of using and it still tempts me from time to time. I don't think I really understood how Linux worked until using Arch on a permanent basis and it gave me the grounding to confidently use pretty much any Os I like because it taught me what is happening 'under the hood' as they say. Pacman is an excellent package management system and the depth of the AUR speaks for itself.

When I used it as my main os some years ago I was a dedicated gnome user. It was like a breath of fresh air compared to SuSE and Ubuntu and I got to choose which parts of gnome I wanted and didn't want on my system. I was a very happy camper. Then one day a system update brought on the most spectacular system crash. I lost important data and the whole experience turned me off.

Now each time when I look at it again I'm wary of trusting it and to be honest the whole set up process is to time consuming in terms of how I now prefer to setup a system. That said once up and running to your liking it is simple and easy to maintain.

So I guess it would be fairer of me to say that Arch is a great OS. I'd recommend it to anyone wanting a more hands on experience with Linux. My negatives with it are personal although I have other friends who've had similar breakage experiences. Perhaps it's more of a gnome thing than anything else.

These days I guess I'm getting older and lazier and I just want an OS that is simple to install and pretty much meets my needs out of the box. This is how I found my way here in the first place although I'll admit that a basic netinstall and a good build script still grabs my attention the most. 

Of the distributions I've looked at in recent times I think Salix OS impresses me the most. It is somewhat similar to CrunchBang in that it tries to stay as close to it's mothership (in this case slackware) as possible. It's package selection follows the one app for each task philosophy and they have a nice set of defaults . Of dear, what a ramble. Time to stop

Hey, any chance of you guys putting in a different installer for CrunchBang? I mean I like the Debian move and all but the Ubuntu installer is easier to use in my opinion and the reason I like #! in the first place is its ease of use.

See the last section of post1 in this thread http://crunchbanglinux.org/forums/topic … ss-report/

I agree, the Debian text installer is fairly simple, but robust. I didn't realize it was able to automatically configure LVM / RAID / LUKS until earlier this year (wonder when the Arch installer will get that...)

It seems like I wasn't able to find a thread were it was given actual response to whether Crunchbang is goind to be Squeeze (as it is going to be the stable release) based or debian testing?

Cheers