Page 4 of 49 [730 Posts]   Goto page: Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, ..., 47, 48, 49 Next
Author Message
greengeek
PostPosted: Thu 12 Sep 2013, 05:02    Post subject:

sunburnt wrote:
Older versions don`t tend to be better
If thats true then why is mikeb still running on a v2 puppy? Must be a reason why he hasn't gone to a 5 series puppy.

And look at what RSH is doing with puppy - in a way he is "de-inflating" it. By using the sfs approach he is enabling a tight core, with the specific additions the user wants.

I'm referring to the idea of having a technique of sticking with the smallest, fastest kernel that DOES support your hardware, and adding on only the required sfs files for the newer software functions you want.

As hardware marches on, maybe it is not the entirety of puppy that needs to keep pace - maybe only the kernel and sfs loader or ROX-app loader that need to be updated. So you only need to update if your hardware fails to work with the previous kernel/loader combo.

Still just spitballin' here...
sunburnt
PostPosted: Thu 12 Sep 2013, 02:35    Post subject:

Older versions don`t tend to be better. New ones support newer stuff and the old also.
The older O.S.s and software get the less compatible and more worthless they are.

Like Apple, if you have fixed known hardware, then compile the driver modules into the kernel.
This is the way Linus Torvalds intended it to be. Supporting all types of hardware is a nightmare.
.
mikeb
PostPosted: Wed 11 Sep 2013, 18:37    Post subject:

Hmm you describe something between an apple mac and those linux netbooks that appeared for a while. The latter had such as suse on them using older kernels and drivers built specifically.

I am one for compiling drivers on established kernels and as you mention trying to keep up with hardware changes is producing some humungus kernels/modules/firmware builds. My feelings on the subject would be to modularise at least wifi drivers ie more akin to the windows approach of installing drivers to suit... even with video this sort of happens if you have Nvidia or Ati. This thought does tend to fall in a heap when you are dealing with multiple kernel changes every week though. I wonder if such as Lucid have had such popularity partly through sticking with one kernel for a sustained period. As someone pointed out a kernel change is akin to a new release of windows.

Are we off topic ... usually and apologies to RSH et al but I suppose the pros and cons of 'distro fever' are related.

wear loose clothing

mike
greengeek
PostPosted: Wed 11 Sep 2013, 18:14    Post subject:

Thanks for the answer mike. I certainly see the value in keeping one's custom pup under wraps to avoid it soiling the floors of people who run completely different hardware...
I do sometimes wonder if a good approach to getting a well-functioning pup would be to have a project built around a specific hardware. For example your custom pup obviously works well for the hardware you use it on (including good boot speed I imagine..). It seems to me that part of the reason for puppy's fragmentation is that the hardware keeps changing so the development of any given puppy never quite stabilises.

I'd like to see a project to make an old puppy perform like magic on something like one specific model of an older HP laptop (I can't say specifically which one would be good for the process..).

Imagine if a 2 series pup could be made to run real quick on such a machine - surely it would only need a basic, speedy core with a modern browser sfs and office sfs added on? Does it really need a 5 series pup weighted down with modules and modifications that allow it to run on a wide range of hardware??

Just spitballin' here.
mikeb
PostPosted: Wed 11 Sep 2013, 16:13    Post subject:

@greengeek ... Erm No and sort of.... Intially changes were made to optimise and try out alternative saving methods and sfs loading. I tended to keep things 'the puppy way' but eventually it becomes necessary to break away from the convention. Saying that when it comes to the initrd I built around the 2 series as a simpler base after finding 4+ increasingly hairy so to anyone familiar with older pups its not that different...eg no sub sub sub sub folders and numerous kernel parameters to try and circumvent a slow boot process..but those only used to puppy 5 would find things uncomfortably different..

Of course it also becomes the case that anyone doing this will only have the hardware at hand to test on eg in Lucid usbhid drivers were split up and involved script hacking to deal with and if its not right wireless input devices might go awry for example but I have none to verify all is still happy. I have no dial up modems so cannot check those, though I tried to leave such alone, if a kernel has been swapped they may be affected (modprobe backend and related scripts)
I add certain proprietry drivers as needed. I avoid bleeding edge.

In other words such projects tend to become custom jobs though I do have a small menagerie here that would beat me up if the machines did not behave Very Happy It also means my scripts become less and less compatible as puppy marches on.

Anyone releasing their baby on the puppy public is exposing themselves and it can be a thankless task... I have only had a small taste of that so generally I tend to throw in and discuss ideas so perhaps others might want to give them a whirl on their projects.

A long winded vague answer for you....

mike
sunburnt
PostPosted: Wed 11 Sep 2013, 16:01    Post subject:

To use LazyPup as an example, just a few are needed to maintain a bare-bones core O.S.
And folks each specializing in a chosen group of new app. packages, and so doing it well.
Web browsers, media players-editors-encoders, office suites, games, languages & dev., etc.
Once there`s a good set of app. groups, then the only work is building newly released apps.

With about 6 people ( and 4 substitutes so no one`s over worked ) this could be sustainable.
This is how Debian and Ubuntu maintain their distros. And they`re very large cooperatives.
This type of organization could work even better in smaller groups like is needed for Puppy.
It depends so heavily on the people involved, but limiting the work load for each sure helps.
.
greengeek
PostPosted: Wed 11 Sep 2013, 15:33    Post subject:

mikeb wrote:
I have taken all the Puppy initrd/boot/wrapper/shutdown scripts apart and rewritten or tidied as appropriate adding features in the process.
Hi Mike, have those changes found their way into any mainstream pups or were they changes made for your own use? I'd be keen to try an iso with such updates.
mikeb
PostPosted: Wed 11 Sep 2013, 13:47    Post subject:

Quote:
In Puppy`s case, it wouldn`t take many people to form a group.

how many exactly... I heard three's a crowd Very Happy

I got the Lucid initrd init down from 60K to 25k with a similar range of options so theres always room for optimising.

The main releases are definately the work of several individuals though one man shows can sometimes produce good results... half the problem is testing with the huge range of hardware and software out there and thats where input is needed. The murga forum at least does provide a good source of feedback for anyone attempting developement.

Perhaps what I see lacking is an effective way to contribute ideas to the main releases which as I suggested earlier is why puplets often appear, not including the ones which are just standard releases with 2 added programs and a nice wallpaper.
How much of the ideas in Lazy puppy will actually ever get utilised in precise??. And bear in mind its dev has been inspired by other older puplets showing the possibilities...

mike
sunburnt
PostPosted: Wed 11 Sep 2013, 13:32    Post subject:

Puppy`s boot process is complex because of it`s many boot types.
And the union file system adds more complexity to all aspects.

# In line with RHS`s retirement:
Puppy is for the most part a one-man-show. Many of them...
This doesn`t lend itself to preserving the improvements made.
And greatly limits what can be accomplished. The efforts of one.

# Doesn`t it seem that cooperation for common good is best?

Debian and Ubuntu are cohesive as the individual`s load is small.
So the participants remain doing what they do best for the whole.

# In Puppy`s case, it wouldn`t take many people to form a group.
.
mikeb
PostPosted: Wed 11 Sep 2013, 10:42    Post subject:

Well since puppy is held together with a plethora of scripts their condition is relevant to the description of Puppy as 'simple'...not just my opinion ask anyone who has worked on it.

The binaries are taken from other distros with few exceptions so any 'simplicity' in that domain has nothing to do with Puppy.

I have taken all the Puppy initrd/boot/wrapper/shutdown scripts apart and rewritten or tidied as appropriate adding features in the process. I may not be a 'programmer' but i do have a chunk of experience in this particular area.

mike
jpeps
PostPosted: Wed 11 Sep 2013, 09:54    Post subject:

mikeb wrote:
Quote:
The beauty is in the simplicity.


Ah so you have never examined puppies scripts.
For simplicity look at slitaz or slax.....


Scripts are non-compiled code. If you think you can improve a script, I'd suggest you learn how to do that vs writing meaningless comments about everyone elses' work.
mikeb
PostPosted: Wed 11 Sep 2013, 06:53    Post subject:

Quote:
The beauty is in the simplicity.


Ah so you have never examined puppies scripts.
For simplicity look at slitaz or slax.....

As for pup most changes I see in the main releases are the ones implemented by Ubuntu. The real innovations are seen in the puplets and community releases.

mike

@sunburnt...the neat stuff is used here on a daily basis Very Happy
jpeps
PostPosted: Wed 11 Sep 2013, 01:48    Post subject:

sunburnt wrote:

But as many say... This is probably all Puppy will ever be.
Quote:
Thomas Alva Edison:
No new idea will ever prosper in an existing company.
A new company must be formed around it.


Puppy is at the top of it's class for a minimal sized distro. The creativity and innovation shown by the community has been nothing short of phenomenal.

Puppy isn't a company, so there's not much in the direction of innovative breakthroughs with broad appeal. It's more like a language, that can easily be adapted for individual use. The beauty is in the simplicity.
sunburnt
PostPosted: Tue 10 Sep 2013, 23:28    Post subject:

Mike; But I`m sure you`ll agree that the "neat" stuff should be canned for posterity.

What makes Debian and Ubuntu work? Lots of folks each doing a small part.
They aren`t one-man-shows, like it is here at Puppy.
But as many say... This is probably all Puppy will ever be.
Quote:
Thomas Alva Edison:
No new idea will ever prosper in an existing company.
A new company must be formed around it.
mikeb
PostPosted: Tue 10 Sep 2013, 09:31    Post subject:

Quote:
I don't understand why many people try to release their own Puppy!

Because they vainly hope it will bring in new ideas but eventaully they realise that having it for your own use is as far as you will get.

So we have some neat distros kicking around hidden in our kitchen cupboards Very Happy

mike
Display posts from previous:   Sort by:   
Page 4 of 49 [730 Posts]   Goto page: Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, ..., 47, 48, 49 Next

Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group