We're Number . . . 12

lcafiero · 2012-09-30 16:43:26

OK, so you've heard me say in the past how unreliable and inaccurate the Distrowatch.com rankings are, and I still stand by that assessment. However, a lot of people like to use that as a metric in gauging the "success" (or lack thereof) of a distro, even though it's only based on page visits and downloads.

Also, since there are few other proverbial yardsticks to measure a distro's popularity (or lack thereof), it seems to be the most popular way to tell how a distro is doing, regardless of the accuracy (or lack thereof).

So, CrunchBang usually ranges between the 20s and 40s (sometimes the 50s) in the top 100 ranking at Distrowatch.com but a couple of days ago, we moved up in the 7-day rankings:

(The reason for this is fairly obvious -- corenominal released another testing image, it was announced on the Distrowatch page that day and folks went to check it out. It's the same bounce that distros which release on a regular basis -- Fedora, Ubuntu, Linux Mint, etc. -- get when they release an alpha, beta or new version)

Just thought I'd pass that on in case someone asks, "Oh yeah? If CrunchBang is so great, where is it in the Distrowatch list?"

anlem · 2012-09-30 17:17:40

Pay attention on that list to those positions 11, 12, and 13. It can't be coincidence that those three distros are so close each other. They all have very well maintained forums, very loyal users and what's more important: they all are the best choices for old computers...

lcafiero · 2012-09-30 19:11:44

Right, anlem, and if you go to the site and look at where they rank depending on the range (for example, 7-day, 30-day, 6-month, year) they're not far from each other.

However, again, this is ranked only by page visits and, assumedly, downloads, so it's not the best measure.

Zilvarael · 2012-10-03 02:59:14

Go #! I cant wait to see what the new site is like!

CrunchBang Linux

SEARCH

#1 2012-09-30 16:43:26

We're Number . . . 12

#2 2012-09-30 17:17:40

Re: We're Number . . . 12

#3 2012-09-30 19:11:44

Re: We're Number . . . 12

#4 2012-10-03 02:59:14

Re: We're Number . . . 12

Board footer