To Crux or not to Crux

[Thrillhouse]

Haha, Dapper Dan. I just noticed you change your tag to Trusted Redneck. Very nice. How fitting you use a distro whose name is commonly referred to as the Southern Cross.

[Dapper Dan]

Haha, Dapper Dan. I just noticed you change your tag to Trusted Redneck. Very nice. How fitting you use a distro whose name is commonly referred to as the Southern Cross.

Lol... Never though about it that way... That's an interesting observation Thrillhouse! I think I'll go with it.

[anomie]

...I'm actually looking for a distro for our son, something I can set up completely, I don't mind having to tweak it for him, and basically never have to mess with it again.

Honestly, I think any reputable (read: stable) Linux distro would fit that bill.

This thread is specifically asking about Crux (which lead to a mention of Arch), so here's my 5 cents on the topic: Keep in mind that I read about both, but I've tried neither. If I were actually going to run a GNU/Linux desktop, it'd probably be either Crux or Arch.

Why? They're both minimalist without 10,000 layers of abstraction and without beginner-focused gui tools. They seem to value a healthy compromise between stability & latest apps available in the apps they provide. From what I've read I envision both as 'no fluff, no hand holding, get your work done'.

The Arch Linux Wiki has a bit on how Arch compares to Crux. They seem to have a lot in common, with one fundamental difference: Arch is primarily package based; Crux is primarily source based.

Unless that latter point is a deal maker or breaker for you, I'd say both are deserving of a trial run (keeping in mind that each may require a learning curve above and beyond the average *buntu Linux distro).

Sounds like a fun project. I suspect that in both cases, once things are set up properly you'll have a mostly unbreakable box for your kid to play with.