CrunchBang Linux Forums » CrunchBang Talk » Should CrunchBang change it's name ?
With CrunchBang moving to Debian stable the disclaimer that CrunchBang is not for those who cannot handle breakage is obsolete.
So what should this distro be called ? And what should replace the disclaimer ?
how about muppet
#!CrunchBang is too solid though, with that camel case name at that. So l33t mang. I get your drift though, witht the insinuation that its stability with no performance to spare nullifies the breakage associated with Crunch Bang. Peace
Even if Corenomial makes the most stable distro ever, we will mess with it until it goes CRUNCH! BANG! because that's the kind of geeks we are here on these forums. 
^yup. Which reminds me.... (there's a post in another thread I need to do before I forget it all).
So what should this distro be called ?
Gee, I don't know how about Crunchbang?
I just love the name, what can I say 
I know I can break just about anything if I mess with it enough.
Just seems CrunchBang is a name for something based on Debian Sid not stable.
It's not based on Debian Stable (yet). 
Once Squeeze becomes stable though, the disclaimer will be very funny. The name is fine though, I don't see why that should be changed.
I know I can break just about anything if I mess with it enough.
True, and I can also break most anything even when not messing around with it enough. 
And personally I think it's pretty darned stable since it's working for me well. I have a long boring story about how my Statler box became a production machine late summer for a while out of necessity and I was able to do a bunch of stuff on it I didn't think I could at first (it's pretty old and haphazardly put together). But it worked great, I just had to stop tinkering for a while and start actually using it and it came through wonderfully. *
Just seems CrunchBang is a name for something based on Debian Sid not stable.
It's the same name as when it was using Ubuntu as a base.
I don't know. CrunchBang is just a fun name. It has whimsy and to me anyway, encourages play, and then some of the playing can actually help later when you need it. It's not up to us anyway but if the name were different or serious, it just wouldn't feel the same.
***
* Edit- not to hijack this thread or anything, but if I wasn't so broke lately I would be sending some love through the Paypal link. I *am* sending strong hints to the spouse that I would like a t-shirt very much as an X-mas gift. So the name simply can't be changed, or else I'd feel pretty silly walking around in that shirt.
Last edited by chillicampari (2010-11-05 23:46:05)
Even if Corenomial makes the most stable distro ever, we will mess with it until it goes CRUNCH! BANG! because that's the kind of geeks we are here on these forums.
^ I whole heartedly agree. 
"If it isn't broken -- don't fix it. Or tweak it until it goes CRUNCH*BANG -- then fix it"
snowpine wrote:Even if Corenomial makes the most stable distro ever, we will mess with it until it goes CRUNCH! BANG! because that's the kind of geeks we are here on these forums.
^ I whole heartedly agree.
"If it isn't broken -- don't fix it. Or tweak it until it goes CRUNCH*BANG -- then fix it"
true dat
I don't think that the project should change it's name. Because CrunchBang became a "major brand" in the whole distribution jungle. A change could confuse a few less people.
CruchBang is fine name, stable or not stable.
#! = the coolest distroname ever.
With CrunchBang moving to Debian stable the disclaimer that CrunchBang is not for those who cannot handle breakage is obsolete.
It's not easy, but sometimes I manage to let my machine go CRUNCH! BANG! So there is still a reason for the name. And it's great to start the computer when giving a presentation and let everyone see the crunchbang-login-screen.
I know I can break just about anything if I mess with it enough.
Just seems CrunchBang is a name for something based on Debian Sid not stable.
No more appropriate for Sid right now than Squeeze. Of course Sid isn't stable in the Debian sense of the word (constantly evolving) but it's as immune to breakage as Squeeze.
Only time I've ever made a CrunchBang machine truly go "Crunch!! Bang!!" was when I dropped it.
The allusion to shell scripting in the name is what first attracted me to this distro.
I didn't know what "crunchbang" actually means before I looked it up, but yeah, it's a fitting name for a *NIX distro, especially this one as it's rather "geeky".
Since the "canonical" sense of the word doesn't actually refer to instability, I say we keep the name!
+1 for keeping the name, #! has definite "geek cred" as a brand, and caters well to tinkerers, which i don't see changing, so why mess with a good thing?
Can we get a poll on this?
I'm sure that the majority will want to keep the #! name, but having it stated in figures is always nice
Can we get a poll on this?
I'm sure that the majority will want to keep the #! name, but having it stated in figures is always nice
No. Look around to see how far democracy brought us on this planet. Projects should - by the way - only change their name when the following happens:
or
^
Posts [ 1 to 25 of 27 ]
CrunchBang Linux Forums » CrunchBang Talk » Should CrunchBang change it's name ?
Forums powered by PunBB. Hosted by Linode.
Copyright © CrunchBang Linux.
Proudly powered by Debian GNU/Linux.
Debian is a registered trademark of Software in the Public Interest, Inc.