Is CrunchBang Statler more or less stable than Xubuntu?

R3nCi · 2012-10-25 03:17:29

Good evening, fellow CrunchBang enthusiasts -

My primary system is an HP Pavilion dv6000 laptop, currently running Xubuntu 12.04. Xubuntu has been my main distribution since July of this year; I ended up using it after browsing DistroWatch hoping for a non-Debian Xfce-based distribution.

Xubuntu has been working all right for me, mostly - up until today. This morning, it suddenly stopped playing nicely with my wireless network. This has happened once before, and a reinstall fixed everything.

Normally, I might just back up my files (again) and reinstall (again) - but something has changed since the last wireless failure: I discovered this neat little distribution named "CrunchBang" while looking for a decent distribution for a home LAMP server. Now, I am considering backing up, wiping Xubuntu and replacing it with CrunchBang.

There are pros and cons to that approach. Please set me right if I have portrayed any of these in the wrong light.

PROS
1. CrunchBang is based on Debian, and Debian has nothing to do with Canonical. A certain recent blog post has made me distrust Canonical more than I used to, and besides: they have made some very poor decisions in the past.
2. CrunchBang seems to be just a little bit less 'noob-friendly' than Xubuntu. I really, really want to advance my knowledge of Linux beyond the two-year desktop user phase, and many people have told me that installing CrunchBang will help me to do that.
3. CrunchBang is very minimalistic, both in interface choice and hardware footprint. My laptop isn't exactly a lumbering dinosaur, but it isn't great either. The lighter, the better - or at least, a fairly lightweight system can't hurt, right?

CONS
1. I am hoping to find something reasonably stable. I don't know if CrunchBang Statler, even if it is based on Debian's Stable branch, is stable enough to provide a solid base for my (admittedly fairly basic-ish, mostly web development and the occasional word processing job) computing needs.
2. I might end up spending all of my life on the CrunchBang forums. You guys are so nice! smile

Please help me clear the murk on this issue. I would say, "to bang or not to bang", but that sounds a little bit... er... strange out of context.

Regards,

/L

Last edited by R3nCi (2012-10-25 03:19:24)

schwim · 2012-10-25 03:28:08

Hi there and congrats on trying out #!. I think your points were all pretty spot-on, but just wanted to mention something concerning your trepidation due to concerns over stability.

I would say that even Waldorf is stable enough for web work and sometimes word processing. Waldorf is about ready to be called stable and I've not had a single hiccup using it on three computers. It's rock-solid and I use it for audio editing, web dev, videos, etc. I think you'd be a-ok using it.

mynis01 · 2012-10-25 04:08:09

If by stable you mean that the packages aren't being updated very often (the same way that an individual who stays at one place of employment for a long time is "stable") then crunchbang is more stable than ubuntu. The word stable means different things to different people. If you mean anything other than the aforementioned definition, then this is just going to be an argument about semantics.

R3nCi · 2012-10-25 04:16:14

schwim wrote:

Hi there and congrats on trying out #!. I think your points were all pretty spot-on, but just wanted to mention something concerning your trepidation due to concerns over stability.
I would say that even Waldorf is stable enough for web work and sometimes word processing. Waldorf is about ready to be called stable and I've not had a single hiccup using it on three computers. It's rock-solid and I use it for audio editing, web dev, videos, etc. I think you'd be a-ok using it.

Ah, that is very interesting. I assumed "testing" meant "Well, let's look on the bright side - it gives you many opportunities to help make the system better by reporting bugs!" Thank you for the insight.

mynis01 wrote:

If by stable you mean that the packages aren't being updated very often (the same way that an individual who stays at one place of employment for a long time is "stable") then crunchbang is more stable than ubuntu. The word stable means different things to different people. If you mean anything other than the aforementioned definition, then this is just going to be an argument about semantics.

That is a good point. My definition of 'stable' is a system where I can trust it not to suddenly crash for no reason and cause me to lose whatever I had been working on up to that point.

VastOne · 2012-10-25 04:23:42

@ mynis01... Well said, and basically sums up everything.

@R3nCi ... stable now is 2 years old with only security changes that have altered it from when it was released. This means dated packages too. Waldorf is Wheezy/Testing which is due to go to Stable stages in early 2013, just a few months away.

There have been nothing but success reports here on these forums about Waldorf, it is a good choice... If there are issues, these forums have helped nearly all to a resolution.

Also keep in mind, that you have the control to stop any updates from ever happening... Once you get Waldorf or whatever stable and working, there is no need to break it... smile

Good luck.

R3nCi · 2012-10-25 05:03:54

VastOne wrote:

Also keep in mind, that you have the control to stop any updates from ever happening... Once you get Waldorf or whatever stable and working, there is no need to break it...

Now that is a refreshing perspective, especially when contrasted with most Windows users' attitude toward updating the system. wink

Last edited by R3nCi (2012-10-25 05:04:41)

mikhou · 2012-10-25 05:16:29

1. I am hoping to find something reasonably stable

You say "reasonable stable." That's up for a LOT of interpretation. I can only give you my experience with Waldorf which is that I use this on my work machine, and I have NEVER lost a moment of work since it has been installed.

Ferre · 2012-10-25 06:22:19

First of all welcome "to the dark side" smile What concerns the stable nature of #! = it's a rock ! I returned to it again after some distro-hopping but there's always that strange mystic attraction of CrunchBang that never lets you drift to far way.
By the way : Waldorf is stable enough to work with on a daily base.

Iranon · 2012-10-25 09:22:45

Most distros try to be as stable as reasonable under the given constraints.

Debian Stable truly deserves that name: The stable edition is the main focus of the distro, they have a large community, a refined quality control infrastructure, and they release when ready rather than tying themselves to a fixed release schedule.

Although they're not the main focus of the developers, many run Debian Testing or Unstable to get a rolling, reasonably fresh system.
This still works out ok most of the time but but has a few quirks because they're parts of Debian's testing process rather than built to provide the best possible experience for a given level of freshness:
Unstable can break once in a while, and the complex Debian infrastructure makes things harder to fix. Testing doesn't always get bugs fixed quickly and isn't consistent in freshness - before a Stable release (such as now) things stay frozen.

The latter can be a desirable feature though - set your sources explicitly to Wheezy (rather than Testing) and you have a Debian Testing system that will turn into Debian Stable once Wheezy is officially released. If you set your sruces to Testing, you'll run Wheezy now and Jessie once Wheezy is released.

*

Ubuntu takes snapshots of Debian Unstable and tries to keep that from breaking too badly. They usually prevent major breakage, but Ubuntu is in general quite buggy for a major Linux distribution (in part because they're heavy-handed with patching to improve user experience and -friendliness).
It can be a better experience if you prefer major updates scheduled every few months to "every 2-3 years, whenever it's ready" or "constantly, mind the mines" but overall the method is less robust. Ubuntu LTS doesn't compare well to Debian Stable in terms of quality in my opinion.

*

For most personal applications, most Linux distributions ought to be more than stable enough. I run one of the least stable ones on my main system (Arch) and the only breakages I had were my own fault and easy to fix. Pick what feels right, in terms of technical approach and community.

Last edited by Iranon (2012-10-25 09:25:28)

pvsage · 2012-10-25 10:05:37

Iranon wrote:

Although they're not the main focus of the developers, many run Debian Testing or Unstable to get a rolling, reasonably fresh system.
This still works out ok most of the time but but has a few quirks because they're parts of Debian's testing process rather than built to provide the best possible experience for a given level of freshness:
Unstable can break once in a while, and the complex Debian infrastructure makes things harder to fix. Testing doesn't always get bugs fixed quickly and isn't consistent in freshness - before a Stable release (such as now) things stay frozen.
The latter can be a desirable feature though - set your sources explicitly to Wheezy (rather than Testing) and you have a Debian Testing system that will turn into Debian Stable once Wheezy is officially released. If you set your sruces to Testing, you'll run Wheezy now and Jessie once Wheezy is released.

I seem to recall some major borkage with Xorg in Testing and Unstable shortly after Testing thawed after Squeeze was released. That was the first freeze/thaw cycle I've experienced with Debian...not sure if this kind of thing happens every time Testing thaws...

snowpine · 2012-10-25 14:37:13

Welcome to the forums!

#! Statler is roughly comparable to Xubuntu 10.04 and #! Waldorf is comparable to Xubuntu 12.04 as you can see by comparing these charts:

http://distrowatch.com/table.php?distribution=xubuntu
http://distrowatch.com/table.php?distri … crunchbang

If you are more or less comfortable using 12.04 then I recommend Waldorf because Statler would be a 2-year step back for you.

If you are looking for a truly stable OS then I recommend Debian Stable (including #! Statler), CentOS, or Slackware, but in my experience most users don't actually want a truly stable OS--they want a balance between reasonably stable and reasonably up-to-date applications.

joek · 2012-10-25 16:44:35

To repeat everyone else's very excellent commentary:
Xubuntu is based on Ubuntu, which, eventually, is based on Debian Testing. #! Stable is based purely on Debian stable. Now, the canonical folks presumably do downstream bugfixing to testing, but there is no way it can possibly be more 'stable' than stable. The way stable remains stable, however, is by not releasing software updates. So the price that you pay is in outdated software (think Firefox 3.6).
Waldorf is based on Debian Testing, so is as up-to-date as Ubuntu, and in my experience has been perfectly stable, as it is currently on the frozen part of its release cycle. If you use Waldorf, you can either stay on testing when wheezy goes stable, in which case there may be borkages during the thaw period, or stay with wheezy, and have your applications slowly go out of date until the next stable release.

As for your other points:
On minimalism: Xubuntu is significantly heavier than #!, as it is basically ubuntu with Xfce on top, rather than a distro built to be lightweight.
On user-friendliness: IME, #! makes it easier for you to look under the surface and 'learn linux' as it were, while buntu tries to obfuscate this (similar to the apple philosophy). However, #! can also be new-user friendly if that is what you want.
On the fora: join the darkside! We have cookies!

snowpine · 2012-10-25 16:52:32

Great post joek, you explained it better than I could! I like what you said about " #! makes it easier for you to look under the surface" and really agree that I find the whole concept of configuring your system by editing well-commented text files to be most wonderful. smile

In Xubuntu's defense, however, I haven't found it to suffer from the same stability problems as Ubuntu (assuming you stick with the LTS releases). It is partly true that it's "based on Debian Testing" but so is Debian Stable! We know that OP had some problems with wireless connectivity, but without knowing the details, it possible there was a simple fix and a complete reinstall was not necessary. Also possible that the bug was caused by a "nonfree" wireless driver that is not under Ubuntu's control. wink

Last edited by snowpine (2012-10-25 16:57:53)

R3nCi · 2012-10-25 23:09:26

mikhou wrote:

1. I am hoping to find something reasonably stable
You say "reasonable stable." That's up for a LOT of interpretation. I can only give you my experience with Waldorf which is that I use this on my work machine, and I have NEVER lost a moment of work since it has been installed.

That is precisely the sort of encouraging testimonial for which I was hoping. Thank you.

Ferre wrote:

First of all welcome "to the dark side" What concerns the stable nature of #! = it's a rock ! I returned to it again after some distro-hopping but there's always that strange mystic attraction of CrunchBang that never lets you drift to far way.
By the way : Waldorf is stable enough to work with on a daily base.

As above; thank you.

Iranon wrote:

Most distros try to be as stable as reasonable under the given constraints.

Debian Stable truly deserves that name: The stable edition is the main focus of the distro, they have a large community, a refined quality control infrastructure, and they release when ready rather than tying themselves to a fixed release schedule.
Although they're not the main focus of the developers, many run Debian Testing or Unstable to get a rolling, reasonably fresh system.
This still works out ok most of the time but but has a few quirks because they're parts of Debian's testing process rather than built to provide the best possible experience for a given level of freshness:
Unstable can break once in a while, and the complex Debian infrastructure makes things harder to fix. Testing doesn't always get bugs fixed quickly and isn't consistent in freshness - before a Stable release (such as now) things stay frozen.
The latter can be a desirable feature though - set your sources explicitly to Wheezy (rather than Testing) and you have a Debian Testing system that will turn into Debian Stable once Wheezy is officially released. If you set your sruces to Testing, you'll run Wheezy now and Jessie once Wheezy is released.
*
Ubuntu takes snapshots of Debian Unstable and tries to keep that from breaking too badly. They usually prevent major breakage, but Ubuntu is in general quite buggy for a major Linux distribution (in part because they're heavy-handed with patching to improve user experience and -friendliness).
It can be a better experience if you prefer major updates scheduled every few months to "every 2-3 years, whenever it's ready" or "constantly, mind the mines" but overall the method is less robust. Ubuntu LTS doesn't compare well to Debian Stable in terms of quality in my opinion.
*
For most personal applications, most Linux distributions ought to be more than stable enough. I run one of the least stable ones on my main system (Arch) and the only breakages I had were my own fault and easy to fix. Pick what feels right, in terms of technical approach and community.

Ubuntu is based on Debian Unstable? That is quite reassuring. Also, thank you for the tip about sources. I think I will follow that.

pvsage wrote:

Iranon wrote:
Although they're not the main focus of the developers, many run Debian Testing or Unstable to get a rolling, reasonably fresh system.
This still works out ok most of the time but but has a few quirks because they're parts of Debian's testing process rather than built to provide the best possible experience for a given level of freshness:
Unstable can break once in a while, and the complex Debian infrastructure makes things harder to fix. Testing doesn't always get bugs fixed quickly and isn't consistent in freshness - before a Stable release (such as now) things stay frozen.
The latter can be a desirable feature though - set your sources explicitly to Wheezy (rather than Testing) and you have a Debian Testing system that will turn into Debian Stable once Wheezy is officially released. If you set your sruces to Testing, you'll run Wheezy now and Jessie once Wheezy is released.
I seem to recall some major borkage with Xorg in Testing and Unstable shortly after Testing thawed after Squeeze was released. That was the first freeze/thaw cycle I've experienced with Debian...not sure if this kind of thing happens every time Testing thaws...

Arrgh, release schedule complication syndrome... roll

snowpine wrote:

Welcome to the forums!
#! Statler is roughly comparable to Xubuntu 10.04 and #! Waldorf is comparable to Xubuntu 12.04 as you can see by comparing these charts:
http://distrowatch.com/table.php?distribution=xubuntu
http://distrowatch.com/table.php?distri … crunchbang
If you are more or less comfortable using 12.04 then I recommend Waldorf because Statler would be a 2-year step back for you.
If you are looking for a truly stable OS then I recommend Debian Stable (including #! Statler), CentOS, or Slackware, but in my experience most users don't actually want a truly stable OS--they want a balance between reasonably stable and reasonably up-to-date applications.

In that case, it seems I am a member of the 'most users' group smile

joek wrote:

To repeat everyone else's very excellent commentary:
Xubuntu is based on Ubuntu, which, eventually, is based on Debian Testing. #! Stable is based purely on Debian stable. Now, the canonical folks presumably do downstream bugfixing to testing, but there is no way it can possibly be more 'stable' than stable. The way stable remains stable, however, is by not releasing software updates. So the price that you pay is in outdated software (think Firefox 3.6).
Waldorf is based on Debian Testing, so is as up-to-date as Ubuntu, and in my experience has been perfectly stable, as it is currently on the frozen part of its release cycle. If you use Waldorf, you can either stay on testing when wheezy goes stable, in which case there may be borkages during the thaw period, or stay with wheezy, and have your applications slowly go out of date until the next stable release.
As for your other points:
On minimalism: Xubuntu is significantly heavier than #!, as it is basically ubuntu with Xfce on top, rather than a distro built to be lightweight.
On user-friendliness: IME, #! makes it easier for you to look under the surface and 'learn linux' as it were, while buntu tries to obfuscate this (similar to the apple philosophy). However, #! can also be new-user friendly if that is what you want.
On the fora: join the darkside! We have cookies!

Errgh. Firefox 3.6? No, thank you.

I am aware that Xu is much heavier - it seems Ubuntu and its derivatives make almost no effort to reduce bloat (although I may be wrong on that....?)

I am definitely interested in 'looking under the surface' in my quest to learn the ways of Linux in more depth. Another compelling reason to move over. Thanks!

snowpine wrote:

Great post joek, you explained it better than I could! I like what you said about " #! makes it easier for you to look under the surface" and really agree that I find the whole concept of configuring your system by editing well-commented text files to be most wonderful.
In Xubuntu's defense, however, I haven't found it to suffer from the same stability problems as Ubuntu (assuming you stick with the LTS releases). It is partly true that it's "based on Debian Testing" but so is Debian Stable! We know that OP had some problems with wireless connectivity, but without knowing the details, it possible there was a simple fix and a complete reinstall was not necessary. Also possible that the bug was caused by a "nonfree" wireless driver that is not under Ubuntu's control.

Incidentally, the wireless problem appears to have rectified itself overnight, and everything is working well once more. That being said, there has been so much positive commentary in this thread that I am still planning to pack my bags and move to #!land as soon as I can. Not to mud-sling too much, but it is worth a mention that the quality of help and support I have received here from all of you FAR surpasses that found at the Ubuntu Forums (from which I have been banned... twice... cough, cough)

Thank you very much, everyone, for all the well-considered responses. I will keep this thread updated with news of my CrunchBang migration as necessary.

/L

joek · 2012-10-26 00:06:01

@Snowpine: granted, I know much less about Ubuntu (and even less about Xubuntu) than I do about #!. I wasn't meaning to imply that they are unstable, just that I couldn't believe that they could possibly be stabler than Squeeze/Statler. That said, at least for the second half of its lifetime, I have found wheezy/waldorf exceedingly stable. (I didn't move to waldorf until just before it froze, so it may be the case that sticking with it for 6 months or so while initial bugs are ironed out of testing is a good idea...)

apprentice · 2012-10-26 01:30:08

hey lawrence

R3nCi wrote:

My primary system is an HP Pavilion dv6000 laptop, currently running Xubuntu 12.04.

my primary laptop is an old hp pavillion dv9000, it has had #! of some sort from the beginning (ubuntu,statler,waldorf)
i tried xubu 12.04 on it and #! works better, faster, everything up ootb
and has never went down
wireless has always worked

Now, I am considering backing up, wiping Xubuntu and replacing it with CrunchBang.

do it
as light as xubu is #! just seems snappier (to me anyway)

CrunchBang seems to be just a little bit less 'noob-friendly' than Xubuntu

you dont get much more noob than me but this is THE friendly place for answers (try that over there)
butnuts pvsage?
look at my posts, not many questions, all my answers are here or pointed to by someone before i have to ask them

want to advance my knowledge of Linux beyond the two-year desktop user phase, and many people have told me that installing CrunchBang will help me to do that.

no #! wont help you do that but the people here will

I am hoping to find something reasonably stable

see above
im on waldorf and it is more than reasonably stable

You guys are so nice!

they are awesome

to bang
in any context;)

now my question
about this = I dislike Gmail

Email, I found, is best either self-hosted (whether that means setting up that old computer in your garage as a mail server or purchasing a shared hosting account and running pop3 accounts from there), or run through Fastmail.

to save me some reading
could you elaborate, why fastmail
i use lavabit cause it does what it needs to without all the shite
but i have had an @ownmail(fastmail) account for like 10 years that doesnt get much use
should it?

cheers

R3nCi · 2012-10-26 05:27:03

apprentice wrote:

now my question
about this = I dislike Gmail
Email, I found, is best either self-hosted (whether that means setting up that old computer in your garage as a mail server or purchasing a shared hosting account and running pop3 accounts from there), or run through Fastmail.
to save me some reading
could you elaborate, why fastmail
i use lavabit cause it does what it needs to without all the shite
but i have had an @ownmail(fastmail) account for like 10 years that doesnt get much use
should it?
cheers

Good evening, Apprentice -

It would be worthwhile to keep in mind that Lavabit's webmail interface is only a customized version of SquirrelMail. SquirrelMail is free and open-source, and as such is easily deployable on any self-hosted system.

I like Fastmail mainly because of the rock-solid infrastructure. They really know what they are doing when it comes to stability. Also, their personal "Enhanced" plan (details) is an absolutely brilliant value.

Any questions? smile

/L

pvsage · 2012-10-26 05:56:33

R3nCi wrote:

snowpine wrote:
If you are looking for a truly stable OS then I recommend Debian Stable (including #! Statler), CentOS, or Slackware, but in my experience most users don't actually want a truly stable OS--they want a balance between reasonably stable and reasonably up-to-date applications.
In that case, it seems I am a member of the 'most users' group

Perhaps Stable + Backports then?

Iranon · 2012-10-26 09:33:19

Something on the minimalism front:

XFCE setups vary wildly in weight. Vanilla is quite frugal, but Ubuntu and Mint bloat up their XFCE editions with "more full-featured/mainstream/user-friendly" applications. Running most of Gnome in the background on top of XFCE is of course quite heavy.

Not necessarily a bad choice if you want the fluff and have the resources to spare, but like the main interface to be no-nonsense and modular.

jst_joe · 2012-10-26 10:12:21

apprentice wrote:
look at my posts, not many questions, all my answers are here or pointed to by someone before i have to ask them

+1 on that

R3nCi · 2012-10-28 07:02:53

The only remaining obstacle between #! and my laptop is the fact that I need to back up my files.

I recently received a friend's old Time Machine backup drive. It has many files on it, but he has informed me that he no longer needs them.

I would like to reformat this drive in order to free up as much space as possible to back up my own files for the move. That being said, I am unsure of how to do so.

Is there a straightforward command-line (Terminal) tool available with which I can reformat this drive, assuming I know its location (e.g. /dev/sda1)?

Regards,

/L

CBizgreat! · 2012-10-28 07:42:59

Trolling crunchville on a Sat night. Highly CAFFEINATED ... ARGHHH !

To bang ... or not to bang ? Lol ... lol Would vote for to bang ... or of course you could always 1/2 bang ... Dual boot etc since you describe your pc as not a lumbering dinosaur. Has to mean you've got some diskspace to play with. This pc IS a lumbering dinosaur ... w my MASSIVE 110gb hdd !!! Supports 5 OS's ... no prob.

Find myself saying this more and more lately. One sure way to find out what YOU like is trying it I guess. So many options when it comes to gnu/Linux am doing good if I can figure out what I like. wink Jmo it doesn't/CANNOT get anymore stable ... than Debian stable. If you want to learn more about nix I think #! is an ideal distro for two reasons.

1. It is based on Debian stable ... makes it much harder to break. Jmo ... think "minimal" KISS is a good thing for learning. Encourages folks to search out and start editing config files and muck around in the nix file system. As you're mucking, lights should start popping on along the way.
2. As ya said ... dang hard to find a better nix community than the folks here at crunch-central. These forums are a digital encyclopedia of nix know-how.

The thing about #! being minimal, it doesn't have to be. Look around in the "how to's, tips, tricks" etc. You can add as much eyecandy as you desire. Just a matter of spending time playing with it and mixing with the folks and info here at the bang-academy. big_smile

Whatcha typed in the OP, has my urge to buntu bash up. The suddenly dropping hardware support between versions, have seen many buntu users complaining about too. Am going to resist the urge, people who want to use buntu or x distro are free to do so. People who don't want to ... same deal. So should probably mind my own bizness anyway. smile

Last edited by CBizgreat! (2012-10-28 09:30:44)

dbvolvox · 2012-10-28 23:04:51

R3nCi wrote:

The only remaining obstacle between #! and my laptop is the fact that I need to back up my files.
I recently received a friend's old Time Machine backup drive. It has many files on it, but he has informed me that he no longer needs them.
I would like to reformat this drive in order to free up as much space as possible to back up my own files for the move. That being said, I am unsure of how to do so.
Is there a straightforward command-line (Terminal) tool available with which I can reformat this drive, assuming I know its location (e.g. /dev/sda1)?
Regards,
/L

palimpsest (tricky spelling) has a nice gui that worked for me.

R3nCi · 2012-10-29 00:14:51

dbvolvox wrote:

R3nCi wrote:
The only remaining obstacle between #! and my laptop is the fact that I need to back up my files.
I recently received a friend's old Time Machine backup drive. It has many files on it, but he has informed me that he no longer needs them.
I would like to reformat this drive in order to free up as much space as possible to back up my own files for the move. That being said, I am unsure of how to do so.
Is there a straightforward command-line (Terminal) tool available with which I can reformat this drive, assuming I know its location (e.g. /dev/sda1)?
Regards,
/L
palimpsest (tricky spelling) has a nice gui that worked for me.

Hi, DB -

I am very much aware of palimpsest; I tried it for this operation, but unfortunately it showed the drive as being busy and the operation failed.

Thank you very much nonetheless.

/L

Last edited by R3nCi (2012-10-29 00:15:14)

el_koraco · 2012-10-29 00:18:23

Gparted?

CrunchBang Linux

SEARCH

#1 2012-10-25 03:17:29

Is CrunchBang Statler more or less stable than Xubuntu?

#2 2012-10-25 03:28:08

Re: Is CrunchBang Statler more or less stable than Xubuntu?

#3 2012-10-25 04:08:09

Re: Is CrunchBang Statler more or less stable than Xubuntu?

#4 2012-10-25 04:16:14

Re: Is CrunchBang Statler more or less stable than Xubuntu?

#5 2012-10-25 04:23:42

Re: Is CrunchBang Statler more or less stable than Xubuntu?

#6 2012-10-25 05:03:54

Re: Is CrunchBang Statler more or less stable than Xubuntu?

#7 2012-10-25 05:16:29

Re: Is CrunchBang Statler more or less stable than Xubuntu?

#8 2012-10-25 06:22:19

Re: Is CrunchBang Statler more or less stable than Xubuntu?

#9 2012-10-25 09:22:45

Re: Is CrunchBang Statler more or less stable than Xubuntu?

#10 2012-10-25 10:05:37

Re: Is CrunchBang Statler more or less stable than Xubuntu?

#11 2012-10-25 14:37:13

Re: Is CrunchBang Statler more or less stable than Xubuntu?

#12 2012-10-25 16:44:35

Re: Is CrunchBang Statler more or less stable than Xubuntu?

#13 2012-10-25 16:52:32

Re: Is CrunchBang Statler more or less stable than Xubuntu?

#14 2012-10-25 23:09:26

Re: Is CrunchBang Statler more or less stable than Xubuntu?

#15 2012-10-26 00:06:01

Re: Is CrunchBang Statler more or less stable than Xubuntu?

#16 2012-10-26 01:30:08

Re: Is CrunchBang Statler more or less stable than Xubuntu?

#17 2012-10-26 05:27:03

Re: Is CrunchBang Statler more or less stable than Xubuntu?

#18 2012-10-26 05:56:33

Re: Is CrunchBang Statler more or less stable than Xubuntu?

#19 2012-10-26 09:33:19

Re: Is CrunchBang Statler more or less stable than Xubuntu?

#20 2012-10-26 10:12:21

Re: Is CrunchBang Statler more or less stable than Xubuntu?

#21 2012-10-28 07:02:53

Re: Is CrunchBang Statler more or less stable than Xubuntu?

#22 2012-10-28 07:42:59

Re: Is CrunchBang Statler more or less stable than Xubuntu?

#23 2012-10-28 23:04:51

Re: Is CrunchBang Statler more or less stable than Xubuntu?

#24 2012-10-29 00:14:51

Re: Is CrunchBang Statler more or less stable than Xubuntu?

#25 2012-10-29 00:18:23

Re: Is CrunchBang Statler more or less stable than Xubuntu?

Board footer