CrunchBang Is The Latest Linux Distribution Calling It Quits

[dungeon]

There's almost always room for improvement or bugs to be fixed in projects and you usually need update such projects like Openbox to maintain compatibility with newer libraries and other build dependencies, or even take advantage of new features of the libraries. There doesn't always have to be major functional changes

Does it not work somewhere?

Also, was the twitter screenshot really necessary, especially the fact that it was of the whole window?

That is original screenshot size (not mine), if one user uses wayland on phone and need to side scrolling because of the size i am really sorry about that.

[DeepDayze]

For another great lite distro there's AntiX and for those who like Debian Sid there's Semplice. They are solid distros in their own right and can ideally replace #!

[dungeon]

For another great lite distro there's AntiX and for those who like Debian Sid there's Semplice. They are solid distros in their own right and can ideally replace #!

Only that #! is/was all about crunchified Debian stable.

For unstable users there are plenty of playground distros, but it can be also only one which "Holding the world record with over 100 different editions and 70 window managers!"

http://linuxbbq.org/

At least i like how they show what is nonsense of installers

[Delgarde]

how CentOS is not RHEL alternative anymore? CentOS is still 1:1 RHEL and still free, just as it was. the only thing that changed is lower delays to updates

CentOS was never really an "alternative" anyway... it's major selling point was that it was 99.9% identical to RHEL, but completely free of cost. If it had diverged too much, they would have lost users...

[gilboa]

So progress is Corporations like Red Hat imposing systemd to crush other alternative distros to Fedora and Red Hat? Buying Centos to changing his proupose to not be red hat alternative? Sure, the progress is more like Getting walmarks on your town crushing local and small businnes atended by his owners yep. Embrace the progress. Embrace systemd. Embrace Red Hat.

Read my lips, SLOWLY, CentOS uses RHEL SRPMS (sources) and recompiles them while trying to maintain binary compatibility. This means, my dear troll, that if RedHat uses GNOME 3, systemd or any other technology your-trollhod dislikes, CentOS will use the *same* SRPM (source), recompile it and use it *as is*. [1]

Congrats for getting my vote in your nomination as next year's village idiot.

- Gilboa
[1] https://www.centos.org/about/

"Since March 2004, CentOS Linux has been a community-supported distribution derived from sources freely provided to the public by Red Hat. As such, CentOS Linux aims to be functionally compatible with RHEL."

[justmy2cents]

CentOS was never really an "alternative" anyway... it's major selling point was that it was 99.9% identical to RHEL, but completely free of cost. If it had diverged too much, they would have lost users...

that alone makes it alternative to RHEL. otherwise users wouldn't have option to get the same by opting for free or paid support. and ever since RH got involved with CentOS, only difference i see is updates reaching mainstream sooner

[justmy2cents]

Congrats for getting my vote in your nomination as next year's village idiot.

- Gilboa
[1] https://www.centos.org/about/

+1 on nomination

[justmy2cents]

The problem with SystemD is not the techonology itself but rather that it is Linux specific and lots of other software hook into it. Software no longer works on BSD, OSX and Linux like it used to. That was one of Linux' strengths, and what set it apart from the bastard child of operating systems; Windows.

SystemD is turning Linux into a Windows of sorts. Isolated, lonely and with lots of special stuff that doesn't work on other closely related operating systems. I don't hate SystemD for what it is, but I am a bit worried about the impact and consequences it will have on the POSIX eco-system.

it is systemd, not SystemD

how would OS whose major strength is the fact that you don't really need it even define it self? the portability as you say was one of the major downsides for Linux, since most people targeted lowest common denominator between all systems. that also prevented active usage of some Linux specific technologies that reside in kernel forever now. things like cgroups, kernel namespaces... existed for long time, but they were never used simply because they were not portable. i for one am glad that Linux finally started defining and differentiating it self from others simply because now it can progress at its own pace instead of being dragged back by the slowest

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/POSIX read what POSIX is. then try connecting it with systemd again... newsflash! it ends in failure since the 2 are not related at all. and another newsflash... Linux never was fully POSIX compliant, mostly yes, fully never. same as Linux never was Unix, it was Unix LIKE OS

[Sonadow]

The problem with SystemD is not the techonology itself but rather that it is Linux specific and lots of other software hook into it. Software no longer works on BSD, OSX and Linux like it used to. That was one of Linux' strengths, and what set it apart from the bastard child of operating systems; Windows.

SystemD is turning Linux into a Windows of sorts. Isolated, lonely and with lots of special stuff that doesn't work on other closely related operating systems. I don't hate SystemD for what it is, but I am a bit worried about the impact and consequences it will have on the POSIX eco-system.

OS X is Single-UNIX certified; do you see any OS X software working on Linux or other UNIXes like BSDs?

There's no such thing is portability anymore; deal with it. Developers love to make OS-specific API calls because it reduces their workload of having to implement something that the OS already provides, and typically allows for full leverage of what the stack is capable of.

[DeepDayze]

Only that #! is/was all about crunchified Debian stable.

For unstable users there are plenty of playground distros, but it can be also only one which "Holding the world record with over 100 different editions and 70 window managers!"

http://linuxbbq.org/

At least i like how they show what is nonsense of installers

AntiX is based on Stable as well, and there's also people who installed AntiX then upgraded to Testing or Sid and the shared info how to have a Testing/Sid based AntiX setup. The main WM's AntiX has are Fluxbox, IceWM and jwm, which are pretty darn light so that AntiX can run pretty well on the older machines as well as the newest.