Talk:CrunchBang Linux

Editions update
I have updated the "Editions" section, because now that 9.04 has been removed from the project's website, the Lite edition is no longer available. --Jswf (talk) 16:30, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Good Idea. I have taken the liberty to reword it to point out that the removal from the website was due to Ubuntu 9.04 reaching it's end of life. 95.222.41.220 (talk) 00:03, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

I added several new sentences. Now that CrunchBang Statler is based exclusively on Debian, it's no longer necessary to distinguish it from Ubuntu. The "Comparison with Ubuntu" section should be modified. Arpadapo (talk) 03:41, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

In preparation for the release of Waldorf when Debian Wheezy is finally let loose, I'm currently doing a wholesale edit/upgrade/modification of the page. Anyone wishing to help can join in. Larrycafiero (talk) 00:45, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

#!
The lead states: ''"#" is pronounced "crunch", and "!" is pronounced "bang" in unix speak''. Since when? For such a prominent assertion in the lead that ought to be backed up. Shebang suggests it is not. RichardOSmith (talk) 21:12, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Agreed. In the US at least, "#" is "hash". Not sure whether other English-speaking countries use "crunch", but it seems the assertion should simply be removed unless evidence is provided. Yworo (talk) 21:13, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I have now removed it. RichardOSmith (talk) 17:18, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I've heard of "bang" for "!", but never "crunch". "Bang" is apparently synonymous with "factorial" in mathematics. I can't cite any sources for this though. Wilsonsamm (talk) 16:35, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Found that this page suggests hash can be pronounced bang And ddg uses bang for ! bang syntax — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.156.221.14 (talk) 11:17, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

new version and new version with backports available
http://crunchbanglinux.org/forums/topic/17742/updated-statler-images-1020120207/

This should be also mentioned. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.245.66.39 (talk) 12:22, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Outdated comparison with Ubuntu
For quite a lot of time Ubuntu doesn't come with GNOME panel, they use Unity. Same goes for GNOME panel. Overall, since CrunchBang is not based on Ubuntu, the point of this comparison is not evident. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 01:44, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Outdated Ubuntu infobox
Ought to be removed form page now, since #! is straight-ahead Debian and no longer based on Ubuntu? --70.90.165.33 (talk) 17:21, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Removed
a bit detailing how #! lacked an application manager, control panel, or a "start" menu, because it obviously has at least two of those, and "start menu" is kinda irrelevant to a linux distro. 67.240.246.189 (talk) 02:38, 30 May 2013 (UTC)


 * I agree. It was unsourced and tagged, so as per WP:V anyone can remove it at any time as a result. - Ahunt (talk) 10:23, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Search on Wikipedia for 'crunch bang' does not show CrunchBang Linux
I heard about CrunchBang Linux today and searched for it on Wikipedia by searching 'crunch bang' in the search box. Nothing came up GPL related.

( search results: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?search=crunch+bang&title=Special%3ASearch )

Suggest having at least one 'crunch bang' string on the page. (ie. separated by a space) to allow a search hit. Perhaps a naming section: "CrunchBang is named after the Ascii characters for crunch bang (#!), the first characters in a shell script"

106.69.13.94 (talk) 09:44, 15 October 2013 (UTC)


 * ✅, Crunch Bang and Crunch bang now redirect to this article. As far as the explanation for the name goes, as per WP:V we need a ref to cite to add that. Do you have one? Ahunt (talk) 11:21, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

A future for CrunchBang?
Toward its end, this thread points the reader toward this thread on Bunsen Labs Linux, which in turn points the reader toward this at Github, which is very new indeed. I don't think that anything about this, or about any other effort to continue #!, should be added to the WP article for two weeks or longer; and I write this here in the talk page mostly as a memo to my later self (or to anybody else). -- Hoary (talk) 07:39, 20 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Two items on this:
 * crunchbangplusplus.org
 * CrunchBang Linux is back from the dead
 * -Ahunt (talk) 15:27, 20 February 2015 (UTC)


 * And "Resurrección: Crunchbang++, Bunsen Labs y Bodhi Linux 3.0.0", "CrunchBang++ (#!++) nicht der Nachfolger von CrunchBang (#!), sondern Bunsen Labs", and (the best of any I've seen so far) "CrunchBang: The Rest of the Story". But let's wait a few more days. -- Hoary (talk) 23:35, 20 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Phoronix covered CrunchBang++ too. Smile4ever (talk) 09:27, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you Smile4ever for the well-intended link -- but this is pretty feeble stuff. Quote: "CrunchBang Linux was closing up shop since this OpenBox-powered distribution based on Debian no longer offered much value thanks to improvements to upstream Debian and other distributions coming along over the years." That's pretty much what Corenominal said, but I put it down to modesty: I haven't noticed others agreeing. And what follows it is an uncritical regurgitation of what the "CrunchBang++" people say (person says?) about their own (so far) vaporware. This non-article cites another Phoronix article, which simply recycles what Corenominal wrote. Let's wait a little longer. -- Hoary (talk) 09:42, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

A future for CrunchBang ++?
Somebody (contributions) removed
 *  No "News" or update has appeared since then (as of late September 2015), so it is unclear if the project is still active. 

with no explanation. I believe that what this says is still correct, so I've reinstated it. If there's a good reason to re-remove it, please divulge this here. -- Hoary (talk) 23:00, 31 October 2015 (UTC)


 * It was removed again with no explanation, so I have reverted it and asked the IP editor to discuss here instead. It is worth noting that https://crunchbangplusplus.org seem to be "down" right now. It might be worth checking back in a while and see if the website is gone, as I think that would support the notion that the project is done, too. - Ahunt (talk) 23:49, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
 * The website is in fact up. :) Smile4ever (talk) 15:26, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on CrunchBang Linux. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130522193322/http://desktoplinuxreviews.com/crunchbang-reviews/crunchbang-11-waldorf/ to http://desktoplinuxreviews.com/crunchbang-reviews/crunchbang-11-waldorf/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 00:57, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

Primary source template.
After strolling around the web looking for sources I discovered that the sources concerning the specifics of the distro are hard to find at other places than CrunchBangs old site or on the forums. While I understand the reason for using the Primary source template I'd argue that:


 * 1) CrunchBang was a small distro, a lot of stuff wasn't documented, it had ardent followers but it was a niche Linux Distribution.
 * 2) Even when there are non-primary sources my impression is that they more or less sourced release statements and other stuff from the official site.
 * 3) Seeing as that could be the case people probably won't do a write-up regarding the reasons for discontinuing the "Lite" version of the distro for example.

The explicit reason for abandoning the "Lite" version was hard to find. While it's true that that particular version of Ubuntu reached EOL I couldn't find any statements from the developer/developers regarding that particular tidbit. I've got no reason for disbelieving that the switch of the base system and that EOL was the cause, but I can't verify it. Theoretically there could've been a Debian based "Lite" version, so I assume that it must've been a conscious choice. Can't find it in print.

So, a wild suggestion: remove the template. The revision of the CrunchBang at the time also seem to have been in a worse state than it is today. Kxxvii (talk) 19:00, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I agree, I have removed the tag. The article has some good third party refs and the primafry sources are just for mostly factual information, which is allowed. It has critical reviews and is not spammy, which is mostly what the tag was for anyway. - Ahunt (talk) 19:07, 24 June 2018 (UTC)