4 ms·

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

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.

DanBC 12y ago
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?
valarauca1 12y ago
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.
- willvarfar 12y ago
  CrunchBang was Debian-based, right?
  - theandrewbailey 12y ago
    #! was Ubuntu based for a long time before it transitioned to Debian in 2011.
- aruggirello 12y ago
  First, you don't have to live with Unity if you don't like it - you can choose to start from any of the variants: Kubuntu, Xubuntu, Lubuntu... but you could just use the stripped down ubuntu-server distro, maybe change the default kernel and add a DE/whatever on top of that. Another option would be oem-config, which lets you customise repositories & packages, and end up with an installed system which can then be remastered (by means of rsyncing or by copying whole partitions) before the final user customisation. Ubuntu builder was a nice project too, it's a pity it was abandoned. Someone should definitely resurrect it! Edit: I re-read your comment and understand you're not talking about packages, but rather about actual package contents, paths, init system and the likes. Yes, Ubuntu (and to a lesser degree Debian) has its own ways; it makes no sense to try to undo their customisations - unless you have the power to write your own.
stingraycharles 12y ago
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.
me_bx 12y ago
> 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.

DanBC 12y ago

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?

valarauca1 12y ago

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.

willvarfar 12y ago
CrunchBang was Debian-based, right?
- theandrewbailey 12y ago
  #! was Ubuntu based for a long time before it transitioned to Debian in 2011.
aruggirello 12y ago
First, you don't have to live with Unity if you don't like it - you can choose to start from any of the variants: Kubuntu, Xubuntu, Lubuntu... but you could just use the stripped down ubuntu-server distro, maybe change the default kernel and add a DE/whatever on top of that. Another option would be oem-config, which lets you customise repositories & packages, and end up with an installed system which can then be remastered (by means of rsyncing or by copying whole partitions) before the final user customisation. Ubuntu builder was a nice project too, it's a pity it was abandoned. Someone should definitely resurrect it! Edit: I re-read your comment and understand you're not talking about packages, but rather about actual package contents, paths, init system and the likes. Yes, Ubuntu (and to a lesser degree Debian) has its own ways; it makes no sense to try to undo their customisations - unless you have the power to write your own.

stingraycharles 12y ago

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.

me_bx 12y ago

> 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.