SEARCH

Enter your search query in the box above ^, or use the forum search tool.

You are not logged in.

#1 2013-07-29 18:34:45

drewdle
#! Member
From: Victoria, Canada
Registered: 2011-08-12
Posts: 92

Not sure if what I've just installed is CrunchBang anymore.

Well, I'm busted. I got into a modification mood last night.

From the stock Waldorf install, I enabled backports (albeit only on request). I installed the 3.9.0 kernel from there, as well as a newer 4.x version of LibreOffice. I installed XFCE 4.8 from the repositories, and decked it out with the CrunchBang theme objects. I swapped a couple of programs (Ristretto for Viewnior, etc). Installed MDM login manager from LMDE's repositories. Installed WhiskerMenu from a downloaded package. Installed Plymouth, stole the pulsing CrunchBang logo theme ("Script") from the Statler repositories. I removed Openbox, Tint2, etc.

Then I set about making sure XFCE runs as lean as possible. On a cold boot, I'm only using 105Mb, which is 10Mb more than a cold boot under OpenBox. I know CrunchBang used to ship with XFCE as an option, but Phillip opted to focus on Openbox instead. Which is great, because the latest version, Waldorf, is as good as I've ever seen it. Personally, however, I've finally found a sweet spot environment for me. I don't think building off Debian as a start would have yielded the same results, thanks to the firmware, codecs, and other goodies included by default in CrunchBang.

But should I still call it CrunchBang? Or heavily modified Debian?  neutral

EDIT: Originally, I'd claimed 130Mb on a cold boot. Not sure how I made that mistake, but Conky is reporting 105Mb, boot after boot, so better than I thought.

Last edited by drewdle (2013-07-29 19:45:51)


~ Drewdle ~
Toshiba Satellite A200 - Pentium T2310 1.46Ghz / CrunchBang Waldorf

Offline

Be excellent to each other!

#2 2013-07-29 20:55:29

VDP76
#! Bean Roaster
Registered: 2012-04-12
Posts: 832

Re: Not sure if what I've just installed is CrunchBang anymore.

drewdle wrote:

But should I still call it CrunchBang? Or heavily modified Debian?

good question, if you still have CrunchBang's repos enabled, I would call it #!... wink

Last edited by VDP76 (2013-07-29 20:55:54)


#!#!#! Forum etiquette #!#!#!
Are you a new member!? Have you introduced yourself?!
CLI basics | LVM | smxi | chrooting | multiarch

Offline

#3 2013-07-29 21:04:56

lcafiero
The #! Guy
From: Felton, California, USA
Registered: 2011-07-21
Posts: 2,196
Website

Re: Not sure if what I've just installed is CrunchBang anymore.

What VDP76 said.


Res publica non dominetur | Larry the CrunchBang Guy speaks of the pompetous of CrunchBang

CrunchBang Forum moderator

Offline

#4 2013-07-29 21:29:03

schwim
#! Die Hard
From: Interweb's #1 Devotee
Registered: 2012-10-11
Posts: 604

Re: Not sure if what I've just installed is CrunchBang anymore.

Call it whatever you'd like as long as you don't call it late for dinner.

Offline

#5 2013-07-29 21:34:49

Kaokao
#! Member
From: The Netherlands
Registered: 2011-04-27
Posts: 68

Re: Not sure if what I've just installed is CrunchBang anymore.

drewdle wrote:

On a cold boot, I'm only using 105Mb, which is 10Mb more than a cold boot under OpenBox.

My #! uses 68 MiB after a cold boot smile
That's one of the reasons I love CrunchBang!

Offline

#6 2013-07-29 21:54:41

drewdle
#! Member
From: Victoria, Canada
Registered: 2011-08-12
Posts: 92

Re: Not sure if what I've just installed is CrunchBang anymore.

VDP76 wrote:
drewdle wrote:

But should I still call it CrunchBang? Or heavily modified Debian?

good question, if you still have CrunchBang's repos enabled, I would call it #!... wink

That's a good reasoning. Without the CrunchBang repos, this would be far less magical, I think. I just didn't want to give the wrong impression of the distro to others who may be looking over my shoulder. CrunchBang it is.

Kaokao wrote:

My #! uses 68 MiB after a cold boot smile
That's one of the reasons I love CrunchBang!

I'm assuming you still have a GUI and networking? Because that's fantastic. To be honest, 105Mb for a working XFCE desktop is incredible to me, given most distros that come standard with XFCE seem to toll 200Mb+. And I'm not even sure why. It's not like there are things I can't do on this install that I could do on Xubuntu or Mint XFCE. Perhaps the 'buntu base is at fault.

EDIT: In the interest of staying closer to Waldorf's stock configuration, and because this is *supposed* to be a production machine, I've dropped back to the stock kernel, and pulled Plymouth, but I've kept XFCE and MDM. I was also playing around with ditching PulseAudio because of a disappearance of my audio when the machine locked/slept, but I'm not sure if that was due to the BPO kernel or Pulse itself.

smile Still love my CrunchBang.

Last edited by drewdle (2013-07-30 18:20:58)


~ Drewdle ~
Toshiba Satellite A200 - Pentium T2310 1.46Ghz / CrunchBang Waldorf

Offline

#7 2013-07-31 20:34:56

Kaokao
#! Member
From: The Netherlands
Registered: 2011-04-27
Posts: 68

Re: Not sure if what I've just installed is CrunchBang anymore.

drewdle wrote:

I'm assuming you still have a GUI and networking? Because that's fantastic. To be honest, 105Mb for a working XFCE desktop is incredible to me, given most distros that come standard with XFCE seem to toll 200Mb+.

A standard #! install on my computers (three up 'till now, and a virtual machine) has always used somewhere around 80 MiB of memory after a fresh boot. I think Waldorf used 76 or so, then I disabled cb-compositor, pnmixer and clipit as I don't use these features, and I'm down to 68 MiB.

There's a topic dedicated to minimizing RAM usage, called The CrunchBang below 100-club or something like that. I was surprised, because for me, CrunchBang had always used less than 100 MiB of RAM without tweaking anything. Seems it uses different amounts of RAM on different computers, maybe something to do with the chipset and corresponding drivers?

Linux Mint XFCE uses something like 120 MiB on my laptop after a fresh boot I think. Or maybe I'm wrong and it was more like 140 MiB, but never 200 Mb+!

Offline

#8 2013-07-31 21:27:34

pidsley
Window Mangler
Registered: 2012-05-23
Posts: 1,752

Re: Not sure if what I've just installed is CrunchBang anymore.

drewdle wrote:

I'm assuming you still have a GUI and networking? Because that's fantastic. To be honest, 105Mb for a working XFCE desktop is incredible to me, given most distros that come standard with XFCE seem to toll 200Mb+.

LinuxBBQ "Proof" -- Xfce with compositing enabled:

screen_Fetch_2013_07_31_14_29_28.jpg

Last edited by pidsley (2013-07-31 21:32:08)

Offline

#9 2013-07-31 23:24:10

ew
#! Die Hard
Registered: 2012-09-27
Posts: 1,975

Re: Not sure if what I've just installed is CrunchBang anymore.

Nope, that`s not Crunchbang any more. The kernel doesn`t mather, but  removing openbox and tint2 removes whatever could be considered as uniqe to Crunchbang. The main selling point is a well-configured openbox/tint2 - desktop, and the instant you stray away from that, then you are no longer using Crunchbang  devil


- apt-mark hold account

Offline

#10 2013-08-01 02:15:11

antiv0rtex
#! Die Hard
From: Earth
Registered: 2012-10-05
Posts: 574

Re: Not sure if what I've just installed is CrunchBang anymore.

Kaokao wrote:

My #! uses 68 MiB after a cold boot smile

How?! yikes

Last edited by antiv0rtex (2013-08-01 02:15:25)

Offline

#11 2013-08-01 04:55:00

drewdle
#! Member
From: Victoria, Canada
Registered: 2011-08-12
Posts: 92

Re: Not sure if what I've just installed is CrunchBang anymore.

ew wrote:

Nope, that`s not Crunchbang any more. The kernel doesn`t mather, but  removing openbox and tint2 removes whatever could be considered as uniqe to Crunchbang. The main selling point is a well-configured openbox/tint2 - desktop, and the instant you stray away from that, then you are no longer using Crunchbang  devil

I suppose that's one way to see it.

I gave it some thought, and I think Crunchbang is more philosophy than it is appearance. Phillip has put tons of work into the Openbox shell, but for a specific purpose: to make a sleek, light, fast and cruft-free system. I've changed the decorations a bit, perhaps, but XFCE is the closest cousin to #!'s stock setup. A lot of the components for #! come from XFCE. I've made sure all the #! theme assets (window decorations, icons, color schemes, etc) are the same as what you get in the stock environment, to maintain some of that #! appearance. And I've even used #! wallpaper assets to theme MDM. In adding packages, I've only added what brings the least baggage with it, again keeping with the no-cruft philosophy. I've kept the entire underbelly of packages that Phillip adds to #! that do not pertain to Openbox, but to Debian itself, as those modifications are excellent.

So the question I asked a few days ago has been answered, for me anyways. This is still CrunchBang, just with a few differences in how you interact with it.

pidsley wrote:

LinuxBBQ "Proof" -- Xfce with compositing enabled:
screen_Fetch_2013_07_31_14_29_28.jpg

Credit where credit is due, sir. That's excellent.


~ Drewdle ~
Toshiba Satellite A200 - Pentium T2310 1.46Ghz / CrunchBang Waldorf

Offline

#12 2013-08-01 13:26:15

ew
#! Die Hard
Registered: 2012-09-27
Posts: 1,975

Re: Not sure if what I've just installed is CrunchBang anymore.

drewdle wrote:

So the question I asked a few days ago has been answered, for me anyways. This is still CrunchBang, just with a few differences in how you interact with it.

Perhaps that`s true for you, but not for me. The wallpaper, icon-theme and gtk-themes are just a starting point in any distro, but openbox, tint2 and the cb-scripts written for openbox, are what differs Crunchbang from any other Debian-distro. This is where Phillip has done the effort, not with the appearance. That`s pretty much just standard stuff. Nothing special with either the icon-theme, gtk-theme, fonts or wallpaper...Not in my mind anyway..


- apt-mark hold account

Offline

#13 2013-08-01 19:39:40

drewdle
#! Member
From: Victoria, Canada
Registered: 2011-08-12
Posts: 92

Re: Not sure if what I've just installed is CrunchBang anymore.

ew wrote:
drewdle wrote:

So the question I asked a few days ago has been answered, for me anyways. This is still CrunchBang, just with a few differences in how you interact with it.

Perhaps that`s true for you, but not for me. The wallpaper, icon-theme and gtk-themes are just a starting point in any distro, but openbox, tint2 and the cb-scripts written for openbox, are what differs Crunchbang from any other Debian-distro. This is where Phillip has done the effort, not with the appearance. That`s pretty much just standard stuff. Nothing special with either the icon-theme, gtk-theme, fonts or wallpaper...Not in my mind anyway..

You know what's funny, ew? After a couple of days in XFCE land, I tried to change my wallpaper. Ristretto wouldn't open some of the JPEG files, and every time I wanted to find a wallpaper in the XFCE desktop settings, I had have to re-browse for my wallpaper directory. I missed Nitrogen. So I went back to see if it worked as easily as it did before, and yep, it still did. I'm sure there would have been other examples had I stayed long enough.

So in short, you're right. Try as hard as I might, it didn't feel quite like the Real Thing(TM). So I'm back on Openbox again. Thanks for being so persistent. smile Though I'll admit, an auto-updating Openbox menu would be the cat's ass.

Last edited by drewdle (2013-08-01 19:40:48)


~ Drewdle ~
Toshiba Satellite A200 - Pentium T2310 1.46Ghz / CrunchBang Waldorf

Offline

#14 2013-08-01 22:18:16

ew
#! Die Hard
Registered: 2012-09-27
Posts: 1,975

Re: Not sure if what I've just installed is CrunchBang anymore.

drewdle wrote:

So in short, you're right. Try as hard as I might, it didn't feel quite like the Real Thing(TM). So I'm back on Openbox again. Thanks for being so persistent. smile Though I'll admit, an auto-updating Openbox menu would be the cat's ass.

Hey, don`t take it like that. I have a second CB-install myself, and I use xfce4 on that install. I like it, but for some reason I always end up using the original install most of the time. An auto-updating openbox menu is not on my wishlist, because I prefer to add just those apps that I want in the menu, and other apps that I rarily use, I start from terminal. An alternative is the Debian-menu, it takes only one line in the openbox-menu, so it doesn`t bloat down the menu like an autoupdating openbox-menu would.


- apt-mark hold account

Offline

#15 2013-08-02 05:18:58

drewdle
#! Member
From: Victoria, Canada
Registered: 2011-08-12
Posts: 92

Re: Not sure if what I've just installed is CrunchBang anymore.

ew wrote:
drewdle wrote:

So in short, you're right. Try as hard as I might, it didn't feel quite like the Real Thing(TM). So I'm back on Openbox again. Thanks for being so persistent. smile Though I'll admit, an auto-updating Openbox menu would be the cat's ass.

Hey, don`t take it like that. I have a second CB-install myself, and I use xfce4 on that install. I like it, but for some reason I always end up using the original install most of the time. An auto-updating openbox menu is not on my wishlist, because I prefer to add just those apps that I want in the menu, and other apps that I rarily use, I start from terminal. An alternative is the Debian-menu, it takes only one line in the openbox-menu, so it doesn`t bloat down the menu like an autoupdating openbox-menu would.

No no, it's fine. I'm not upset or angry about it. I may end up keeping both too; I just meant to say that you're right, there is something quintessentially CrunchBang about the standard layout. That's all. It is unlike most other distros. And I do like that sometimes.


~ Drewdle ~
Toshiba Satellite A200 - Pentium T2310 1.46Ghz / CrunchBang Waldorf

Offline

#16 2013-08-02 11:00:11

ew
#! Die Hard
Registered: 2012-09-27
Posts: 1,975

Re: Not sure if what I've just installed is CrunchBang anymore.

drewdle wrote:

No no, it's fine. I'm not upset or angry about it. I may end up keeping both too; I just meant to say that you're right, there is something quintessentially CrunchBang about the standard layout. That's all. It is unlike most other distros. And I do like that sometimes.

I like that also, so we agree:)


- apt-mark hold account

Offline

Board footer

Powered by FluxBB

Copyright © 2012 CrunchBang Linux.
Proudly powered by Debian. Hosted by Linode.
Debian is a registered trademark of Software in the Public Interest, Inc.

Debian Logo