Why not drop "full" installs??

What features/apps/bugfixes needed in a future Puppy
Post Reply
Message
Author
User avatar
6502coder
Posts: 677
Joined: Mon 23 Mar 2009, 18:07
Location: Western United States

Why not drop "full" installs??

#1 Post by 6502coder »

Seriously, no matter how many times the "frugal vs full install" issue is explained, in the forum and in the wikis and in the Universal Installer itself, it is clear that newbies don't bother to read these explanations, or if they do, they don't understand them.

These days, how many newbies are actually trying to install Puppy to a machine so hardware-challenged as to actually need a full install? Removing full install entirely from the Universal Installer would adversely impact only those users who are installing to an ancient machine AND can't figure out how to do a manual full install from an ISO even with help from the forum. I submit that this is a far smaller number of new users than are currently blundering into the elephant pit of a full install.

musher0
Posts: 14629
Joined: Mon 05 Jan 2009, 00:54
Location: Gatineau (Qc), Canada

#2 Post by musher0 »

Hello 6502coder.

I agree.

We should also recommend the "pupsave frugal install" rather than the
"folder frugal install".

The latter is presently suggested as preferable, but the pupsave option is
more portable, and the user can more easily make a back-up of it.

BFN.
musher0
~~~~~~~~~~
"You want it darker? We kill the flame." (L. Cohen)

ozsouth
Posts: 858
Joined: Fri 01 Jan 2010, 22:08
Location: S.E Australia

#3 Post by ozsouth »

Kernel compiling - I have not managed to compile a kernel on anything but a full install. Even with 4gb ram & swap partition. I keep a tarred copy of a full install (with devx & kernel headers) & untar it to a vacant partition whenI need to compile.

User avatar
6502coder
Posts: 677
Joined: Mon 23 Mar 2009, 18:07
Location: Western United States

#4 Post by 6502coder »

If you're compiling kernels then you are not representative of the newbies that are at issue here. You obviously have sufficient technical chops to do a manual full install, with perhaps some help from the friendly folks at the forum.

In fact you're the exception that proves the rule. MOST people who end up with full installs didn't need them and didn't understand what they were getting into.

ozsouth
Posts: 858
Joined: Fri 01 Jan 2010, 22:08
Location: S.E Australia

#5 Post by ozsouth »

Yes - newbies should use frugal. I learnt to do full installs back in 1999 with Mandrake & just continued in Puppy until I saw the 'save folder' option just 2 years ago. I use that now except for compiling & responded thus to the thread title.

User avatar
perdido
Posts: 1528
Joined: Mon 09 Dec 2013, 16:29
Location: ¿Altair IV , Just north of Eeyore Junction.?

#6 Post by perdido »

I have had a remaster fail in frugal but then complete in a full.

.

User avatar
bigpup
Posts: 13886
Joined: Sun 11 Oct 2009, 18:15
Location: S.C. USA

#7 Post by bigpup »

The real question is.
Who can actually make this happen?
The things they do not tell you, are usually the clue to solving the problem.
When I was a kid I wanted to be older.... This is not what I expected :shock:
YaPI(any iso installer)

User avatar
rufwoof
Posts: 3690
Joined: Mon 24 Feb 2014, 17:47

#8 Post by rufwoof »

ozsouth wrote:Kernel compiling - I have not managed to compile a kernel on anything but a full install. Even with 4gb ram & swap partition. I keep a tarred copy of a full install (with devx & kernel headers) & untar it to a vacant partition when I need to compile.
A nice feature of Barry's EasyOS is how it flips things around. In frugal Puppy fundamentally the save area sits in memory, that's written to disk periodically (save session interval) ... or perhaps not (some like to only save (or not) changes at the end of a session). In EasyOS the main sfs (ro) has the save area (rw) as a save folder area (disk), that is constantly flushed. It also supports creating snapshots, which basically just make a sfs copy of that save folder area (could just as equally copy the save folder). That does involve different usage, for instance if you don't want to save a session you boot, create a snapshot of the current save area, use the system, and then restore the snapshot (which basically wipes the current save folder and unsquashes the snapshot sfs version of the save area back into the save folder).

A difference is that the likes of big/long compiles work fine (and after a big compile you can roll things back by restoring the prior snapshot).

EasyOS is more involved in practice. For instance restoration of a main system save folder area needs a physical reboot, both in Puppy and in EasyOS. EasyOS however supports "containers" and the main Easy container is a version of itself. Basically the main sfs is loaded into a chroot area, and that area is allocated its own separate save folder area. You can chroot into and out of that and snapshot/restore its save folder without having to reboot (chrooting out and back in again after swapping the save area content is paramount to having 'rebooted' it, without involving a physical reboot).

IMO EasyOS is a superior model and one that perhaps Puppy's should redirect towards.
bigpup wrote:The real question is.
Who can actually make this happen?
The directorate - but that has been lacking for a few years now. Barry handed that over, but since then it seems to me that Puppy has just ticked along rather than been developed.
[size=75]( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°) :wq[/size]
[url=http://murga-linux.com/puppy/viewtopic.php?p=1028256#1028256][size=75]Fatdog multi-session usb[/url][/size]
[size=75][url=https://hashbang.sh]echo url|sed -e 's/^/(c/' -e 's/$/ hashbang.sh)/'|sh[/url][/size]

User avatar
bigpup
Posts: 13886
Joined: Sun 11 Oct 2009, 18:15
Location: S.C. USA

#9 Post by bigpup »

bigpup wrote:
The real question is.
Who can actually make this happen?
rufwoof wrote:The directorate - but that has been lacking for a few years now. Barry handed that over, but since then it seems to me that Puppy has just ticked along rather than been developed.
That is suppose to be 01micko.
He took over as the overall Master Steward of Puppy Linux.
The problem is. He seems to be doing nothing!!!!
The things they do not tell you, are usually the clue to solving the problem.
When I was a kid I wanted to be older.... This is not what I expected :shock:
YaPI(any iso installer)

User avatar
rufwoof
Posts: 3690
Joined: Mon 24 Feb 2014, 17:47

#10 Post by rufwoof »

As-is typically a frugal boot boots a small busybox like cli version, sets up the environment and then switch roots into that. After the switch root that small initial area is in effect cut off/lost. If instead that small area chrooted the main (gui) system then conceptually you could exit back out of that main area (exit chroot) back into the small area (that otherwise had been lost), which opens up the potential to swap the main sessions save area in a similar manner to EasyOS containers before chrooting back into that (modified) main session. That would also require a similar model to EasyOS i.e. save area were folders, constantly updated ... plus snapshots/restores. Given the relative size of modern disks, rather than creating/restoring sfs's for the snapshots, a simpler and quicker alternative is just to rename (mv) the save folder(s). Mount main sfs, save folder /save, chroot into that and use it as desired, later exit to the initial cli boot session and mv /save to /snapshot1, create a empty /save and chroot back in again into a pristine clean session; exit chroot, mv /save /snapshot2, mv /snapshot1 /save ... chroot into that and you're back to the snapshot1 savefolder version.
[size=75]( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°) :wq[/size]
[url=http://murga-linux.com/puppy/viewtopic.php?p=1028256#1028256][size=75]Fatdog multi-session usb[/url][/size]
[size=75][url=https://hashbang.sh]echo url|sed -e 's/^/(c/' -e 's/$/ hashbang.sh)/'|sh[/url][/size]

User avatar
rufwoof
Posts: 3690
Joined: Mon 24 Feb 2014, 17:47

#11 Post by rufwoof »

bigpup wrote:The real question is.
Who can actually make this happen?
rufwoof wrote:The directorate - but that has been lacking for a few years now. Barry handed that over, but since then it seems to me that Puppy has just ticked along rather than been developed.
That is suppose to be 01micko.
He took over as the overall Master Steward of Puppy Linux.
The problem is. He seems to be doing nothing!!!!
... and no one has stepped up to address that (take the helm). Barry foreran many great ideas in producing/evolving Puppy. Since then many have followed that lead, such that currently there are many alternatives using those basic concepts/approach (running squashed filesystem based systems ...etc.). Given higher enthusiasm applied to those alternatives Puppy has been surpassed, such that many potential new adopters more often opt for one of those alternatives. Puppy is in effect in relative decay/decline.
[size=75]( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°) :wq[/size]
[url=http://murga-linux.com/puppy/viewtopic.php?p=1028256#1028256][size=75]Fatdog multi-session usb[/url][/size]
[size=75][url=https://hashbang.sh]echo url|sed -e 's/^/(c/' -e 's/$/ hashbang.sh)/'|sh[/url][/size]

User avatar
Mike Walsh
Posts: 6351
Joined: Sat 28 Jun 2014, 12:42
Location: King's Lynn, UK.

#12 Post by Mike Walsh »

From the viewpoint 6502coder has presented here, I do agree that perhaps the option for the 'full' install ought to be removed from the 'main' GUI list, and maybe moved to a 'sub-GUI' (does that make sense?) It would cut down on the sheer number of threads about the same old, same old, over & over again....

@ ruffers:-

Thanks for the clarification of how EasyOS works. That's one of the clearest explanations I've seen; well done!

Sounds quite interesting. I'm not certain how the install itself needs to be done, though; if (as with certain other of Barry's recent creations) it needs to be dd'd to a FAT32 flash drive, then I'm out of luck. Ever since keisha helped me to upgrade the BIOS, 4 yrs ago, when I switched the old Compaq over from a single-core Athlon64 to a dual-core one, I've lost the ability for the BIOS to even recognise FAT32-formatted drives any longer.

It certainly won't boot from them, that much I do know. Read from them/write to them, yes, but as for booting? Who knows?


Mike. :wink:

User avatar
rufwoof
Posts: 3690
Joined: Mon 24 Feb 2014, 17:47

#13 Post by rufwoof »

Just do a frugal to HDD install Mike. Usual initrd, vmlinuz, easy.sfs files dropped into a folder, adjust menu.lst to point to that. The awkward part for first time run is you have to manually open up initrd and edit the boospecs ... I outlined the procedure in this post http://murga-linux.com/puppy/viewtopic. ... 93#1017693. Use either my remastered version as in that link, or download Barry's compressed .img file, and uncompress/extract the initrd/vmlinuz/easy.sfs from that.

Once you have Easy up and running for the first time, subsequent frugal installs are easy, as you just have to use Easy to click on the initrd and it auto updates (you need to do that if for instance you change the folder where the initrd/vmlinuz/easy.sfs are stored).

======

On the other matter of changing initrd to use chroot instead of switch root, as proof of concept I just edited the last few lines of the easy initrd so as not to unmount sys and proc and to run chroot instead of switch root ... and it works fine. Boots to gui desktop as usual, but I can run a escape chroot hack ... that drops me back into the initial init cli environment. From that I changed the .session (save area) of the main easy desktop (added a testing.txt file into /root), restarted the chroot, started xwin ... and that change (/root/testing.txt existed) was seen OK.
[size=75]( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°) :wq[/size]
[url=http://murga-linux.com/puppy/viewtopic.php?p=1028256#1028256][size=75]Fatdog multi-session usb[/url][/size]
[size=75][url=https://hashbang.sh]echo url|sed -e 's/^/(c/' -e 's/$/ hashbang.sh)/'|sh[/url][/size]

ITSMERSH

#14 Post by ITSMERSH »

bigpup wrote:bigpup wrote:
The real question is.
Who can actually make this happen?
rufwoof wrote:The directorate - but that has been lacking for a few years now. Barry handed that over, but since then it seems to me that Puppy has just ticked along rather than been developed.
That is suppose to be 01micko.
He took over as the overall Master Steward of Puppy Linux.
The problem is. He seems to be doing nothing!!!!
Probably he's come to conclusion that Slacko just sucks?

I never understood that effort on Slacko, as all versions I tried turned out to be crap imo. Also the Ubuntu ones have better repositories with lots of more software.

I would vote for being officially focused on the Ubuntu ones, since 666philb does a great job on all of them (tahr, xenial, bionic).

musher0
Posts: 14629
Joined: Mon 05 Jan 2009, 00:54
Location: Gatineau (Qc), Canada

#15 Post by musher0 »

rufwoof wrote:
bigpup wrote:The real question is.
Who can actually make this happen?
rufwoof wrote:The directorate - but that has been lacking for a few years now. Barry handed that over, but since then it seems to me that Puppy has just ticked along rather than been developed.
That is suppose to be 01micko.
He took over as the overall Master Steward of Puppy Linux.
The problem is. He seems to be doing nothing!!!!
... and no one has stepped up to address that (take the helm). Barry foreran many great ideas in producing/evolving Puppy. Since then many have followed that lead, such that currently there are many alternatives using those basic concepts/approach (running squashed filesystem based systems ...etc.). Given higher enthusiasm applied to those alternatives Puppy has been surpassed, such that many potential new adopters more often opt for one of those alternatives. Puppy is in effect in relative decay/decline.
Which alternatives? What decline?
musher0
~~~~~~~~~~
"You want it darker? We kill the flame." (L. Cohen)

ozsouth
Posts: 858
Joined: Fri 01 Jan 2010, 22:08
Location: S.E Australia

#16 Post by ozsouth »

I have had stability problems with all ubuntu based pups on newer pc - slacko 700rc has been stable though dated. WoofCE problem maybe? I don't know. Peebee has made great efforts on slacko current. He & 666philb are very productive.

User avatar
rockedge
Posts: 1864
Joined: Wed 11 Apr 2012, 13:32
Location: Connecticut, United States
Contact:

#17 Post by rockedge »

rufwoof wrote:Puppy is in effect in relative decay/decline.
I've heard that bullshit before.

You seem to forget that Puppy Linux is still meant to run well on older hardware or no?. EasyOS isn't that easy on old machines. Once they've all died and are extinct and today's higher powered machines are tomorrow's throw a ways......

But what do I know?

ITSMERSH

#18 Post by ITSMERSH »

and today's higher powered machines are tomorrow's throw a ways......
He he!

Reminds me on Marilyn Manson's: this is the new shit!

User avatar
Marv
Posts: 1264
Joined: Wed 04 May 2005, 13:47
Location: SW Wisconsin

#19 Post by Marv »

rufwoof wrote: Puppy is in effect in relative decay/decline.
I dasn't pass that on to my users, all windows refugees, all hooked on puppy, and one a true neophyte that uses a desktop running X-Slacko 4.4 that goes for one to two years without shutdowns, reboots, or my intervention. To very badly paraphrase Eugene O'Neils dalmation, "All pups are good, but solid pups are, of course, best" :) I think many of the newer derivatives, based on the 'decaying' puppy infrastructure support a broad range of solid but affordable hardware while running what most users need including browsers new enough to handle todays garbage laden internet demands. Oh ya, frugal installs rule.

Just my 2 cents,
Pups currently in kennel :D Older LxPupSc and X-slacko-4.4 for my users; LxPupSc, LxPupSc64 and upupEF for me. All good pups indeed, and all running savefiles for look'n'feel only. Browsers, etc. solely from SFS.

Post Reply