Puppy's big problem with woof and woof CE

What features/apps/bugfixes needed in a future Puppy
Post Reply
Message
Author
oui

Puppy's big problem with woof and woof CE

#1 Post by oui »

it is clear that Puppy did know more suitable times.

it is similarly clear that woof and woof CE are actually the limit for a healthy not growing but only preservation of previous results of popularity although Puppy did persuade to be a really most popular distribution (rang 9 a LONG time in the past!)

it is clear that the support on new version within long, no extremely long threads until about 1000 messages per threat is not support any more but, excuse me, chaos...

it is clear that the wiki of Puppy could be non existent it would be the same :roll: . we have good luck, Barry does not use it at all so that we can better find a lot of information directly on his site and blog but not or rarely about new versions not from him himself!


and it is also clear that Puppy is not any more that what it's name suggest what is today the difference between a Puppy and a FATdog? Only the name and content but not the size any more :idea:

are our methods optimal can be an answer to above considerations? certainly it is good that Puppy continues to offer a scope of app's for each user or user's family in actually 300..350 Mb (high packed ISO equivalent to 2 or 3 more uncompressed) plus 120..200 Mb (also high packed) development tools in a external file. but is that competitive, this size, compared with other Linux versions? not really any more!

would you pack that what Debian would install through DEBOOTSTRAP and add xorg, jwm, rox, and compact it into an ISO, you would wonder how tiny Debian can bei (the debootstrap installation of Debian is so what like the baby form of Debian...) and you get a system with maximal evolutions aptitude and perfect documentation...

same thing with arch, etc, more perhaps but you have to accept a more uncomfortable installation...

what is really the force of such really too fat babies of our animal? it must have a force as it get used! yes, the force is to process, if you use it so, completely in your RAM :idea: but today it is reduced to this only one force at the price of a number of inconveniences ...

no no no! Puppy can be built per woof, by a confirmed distribution builder also!

is that correct? for certain, certainly :idea: but for the other, the most unix users not :roll:

why? because no streamlined documentation, it is true :oops: !

oui

is that a fatality?

#2 Post by oui »

is that a fatality?

I dont find that...

as well Debian as Ubuntu (and perhaps the other derivated distributions, they are a lot) continue to accept the old Debian standard:

DEBOOTSTRAP needing only one unique dependency, wget and access to one depository of the package where ALL USED PACKAGE are available. that is the only one constraint. and the used script language must be the same (I add this clause as I know, also it is not explicit documented, that some "mother distributions", LFS ist really one today, have not exactly the same code for bash for ex. of course, the script crashes under such conditions... we also have a lot of old stuff in our Puppies...) and can install in a directory of an host system! it does not require some own partition...

after the process, you get a operable Debian like system and as script build, you have the chance to adapt the script as you want (a lot of puppyists did maike the bad experience it is not really so in woof like builders).

why not add Puppy stuff in the script offered WITH EACH NEW VERSION by Debian readapted to that new version without you need to have to do somewath for it? or use a separate Puppy-stuff-script to do the same?

if you use the abilities of the Debian packages of the avanced package system family from Debian "apt" you can recompile in some kind automatic the result of DEBOOTSTRAP from the sources before you use it!

and, of course, you get a companion system, the original one build by debootstrap...

oui

it would not be a real Puppy any more

#3 Post by oui »

it would not be a real Puppy any more ...

is that so important? the attractiveness of our Puppy does not depends really of it's content! we have terribly different mixtures and nothing in the last months did better in dramatic kind the loose of attractiveness and avoid that we rich today place 33 at distrowatch (is distrowatch so important? no... but it is the most known ranking site to compare a bit the OS's. if you know better, please, announce the colors...)

the thing in Puppy is the design as entirely in RAM running, ready to use OS if enough RAM, and permitting to stick easily more stuff in it's layered file system without to install, as well as the ability to become remastered so.

the fact to be able to start out an usual CD as burned ISO seems to become less important in the last years (but can explain why new designs like easyOS also did not permit to see a big progress of number of new users; as easyOS has an own full equipment with own forum, it will be possible after a certain time to see the progress).

.(orthography...)
Last edited by oui on Thu 21 Feb 2019, 23:15, edited 1 time in total.

darry19662018
Posts: 721
Joined: Sat 31 Mar 2018, 08:01
Location: Rakaia
Contact:

#4 Post by darry19662018 »

I've said it before and will say it again I don't give a Rats arse what distrowatch rates us as - still using Puppy when I can. Right now actually Stretch 7.5 and so far it is right lovely.

HerrBert
Posts: 152
Joined: Thu 03 Nov 2016, 15:11
Location: NRW, Germany

#5 Post by HerrBert »

"Sicher: ohne Qualität - kein Hi-Fi! Wann aber wird die Technik zum Selbstzweck? Wo liegt die Grenze zwischen sinnvollem Aufwand und reiner Philosophie?" - SANYO Prospekt '76
Google translation:
"Certainly: no quality - no hi-fi! But when does technology become an end in itself? Where is the border between meaningful effort and pure philosophy?" - SANYO brochure '76
I think, you have to seperate puppy linux and woof(CE). For me, recent Puppies, mostly based on De|buntu, seem to be a racing duel - not for Puppy Linux, but for woof. The goal seems to be up to date.

But is this the philosophy of Puppy?

When i first tried Puppy, it was praised for running old|outdated|low_ressource hardware. It still does indeed...
And that's, why i keep it, even if it doesn't always run OOTB.

Just my 2¢ - though i almost only use slackos, it's a question in general (and principle)

oui

#6 Post by oui »

da hast Du wohl recht:
HerrBert wrote:I think, you have to seperate puppy linux and woof(CE). For me, recent Puppies, mostly based on De|buntu, seem to be a racing duel - not for Puppy Linux, but for woof.
:idea:

that is the main reason why I would find better to forget the woof technic: it is not a progress any more if so cryptic (ask Rainer RSH in German what is his opinion!)... You can count the people on the 10 fingers and 10 toes that can really handle, without some help (not existing :roll: ) with it. To start Debootstrap you just need to be able to read something (and not even fluently) ...
The goal seems to be up to date.
yes, and it is a performent goal at the time where youtube (*1 makes the connecting dependent from if you have or not an actual system, for ex. (and not only youtube, skype and other also; if you try to read some newspaper, le figaro, is for me as French man important, and does not have 64 bits AND an actual system, you will have a terribly slow system if it does not, even, crash!)

if I must open my full installation from Devuan (*2 to do that, I don't need Puppy any more and my poor one-person-number would not be present any more in the quantities shown at distrowatch! but their are perhaps thousands of person in my situation :wink: :idea:

(*1 we did have years along as well youtube as skype connection ability even in very early versions of Puppy!

(*2 also Devuan offers a debootstrap ...

.(orthography)
Last edited by oui on Thu 21 Feb 2019, 23:37, edited 2 times in total.

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

#7 Post by bigpup »

Distrowatch ratting is nothing but how many times somebody accesses the page for a specific listed distribution.

When someone starts paying people to work on Puppy.
Then they can control how it is developed.
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)

wiak
Posts: 2040
Joined: Tue 11 Dec 2007, 05:12
Location: not Bulgaria

#8 Post by wiak »

Well, I had become enthused playing online chess, but I've started to lose concentration with that no longer addressing my occasional boredom. So having just successfully, I thought, given up much interest in computing of any kind, I find myself itching to install a few distributions to experiment with. Actually, after years of using dogs (my fav for dev work since pretty much do anything full Debian/Ubuntu systems can do), I'm in the mood to have a return, for a while, to Puppy itself to decide if and what it'd advantages are. I'm not so interested in limitations since in practice I mainly just need a fast small distro with a reliable slim browser. Anyway, I may hopefully not start programming again except perhaps twiddle a bit with makepup. It seems to me that there is refreshingly quite a bit of new Puppy dev work going on such as some new versions, and I've long wanted to try scotman's new package manager efforts, which could be key to future of Puppy if working well.

In the end tho, for me there has to be some compelling reason not to use dogs instead - but if Puppy truly proves leaner and easy to use, whilst not limiting like slitaz/tiny core Linux, then that would be great. I do not think huge repository availability is itself so important - just using dog when I need that, but I want less bloat.

wiak

oui

#9 Post by oui »

bigpup wrote:Distrowatch ratting is nothing but how many times somebody accesses the page for a specific listed distribution.
ok, ok , ok but say me an other really known ranking system for OS distribution, announce the colors...
When someone starts paying people to work on Puppy.
Then they can control how it is developed.
it is wrong - totally wrong! internet is a baby from Unix and Linux because early Windows and before Windows IBM systems, don't forget please the decision's errors of IBM, were not really able for such a job and to cryptic! the best software designers of the planet did work with Unix, until Linux did appear, with preference with Linux and the free and paymentless character of all the web and internet did depend to start from the good will of such guys being able to work more a their universities etc to start this beautiful project for all the planet.

before that time, military's and engineer's of big projects (atom reactors, refineries, steel and mining project) did do, for money, somewhat with comparable nature (I can affirm this: I did work for Babcock, same Babcock and Wilcox, and Krauss-Maffei, the known German military fabric but in the civil sector), but becoming

never

the planetary success of web and internet!

but even a paymentless enterprise needs an organization concerning methods and among of work to do that. it was

always

needing. we did have luck, that generous universities in Switzerland and France did really start the open and free internet (yes Puppyists! in Switzerland, the country were it was not possible to enter the keyboard code in Puppy years and years along and now the same thing happens again with the code US INTL . probably to irritate the Trump's administration, possible, this code does not be usable any more in for ex. puppy_upupbb_18.05 ! a trick only is possible - enter it in xorg.conf and restart the graphical server but you can do it one time but not interchange the keyboard any more within the same document, ridiculous! it is also yet in the system, but the real access did be erased...) and that also very generous university in USA (Berkeley etc,), Germany (Tübingen were KDE, the clone of M$-office, was born) did follow! without them, the net would be probably and stay the private net of such big plant providers like Babcock and Wilcox and normal people did never have the access with have now!

you will impregnate our vision of the world with new concepts of payment although yourself did never pay in the past?
Last edited by oui on Fri 22 Feb 2019, 08:38, edited 1 time in total.

oui

#10 Post by oui »

wiak wrote:Well, I had become enthused playing online chess, but I've started to lose concentration with that no longer addressing my occasional boredom. So having just successfully, I thought, given up much interest in computing of any kind, I find myself itching to install a few distributions to experiment with. Actually, after years of using dogs (my fav for dev work since pretty much do anything full Debian/Ubuntu systems can do), I'm in the mood to have a return, for a while, to Puppy itself to decide if and what it'd advantages are. I'm not so interested in limitations since in practice I mainly just need a fast small distro with a reliable slim browser. Anyway, I may hopefully not start programming again except perhaps twiddle a bit with makepup. It seems to me that there is refreshingly quite a bit of new Puppy dev work going on such as some new versions, and I've long wanted to try scotman's new package manager efforts, which could be key to future of Puppy if working well.

In the end tho, for me there has to be some compelling reason not to use dogs instead - but if Puppy truly proves leaner and easy to use, whilst not limiting like slitaz/tiny core Linux, then that would be great. I do not think huge repository availability is itself so important - just using dog when I need that, but I want less bloat.

wiak
a wunderfull speech for the defense of Puppy and it's development to make easy!

HerrBert
Posts: 152
Joined: Thu 03 Nov 2016, 15:11
Location: NRW, Germany

#11 Post by HerrBert »

oui wrote:(ask Rainer RSH in German what is his opinion!)...
no need to ask - as of what i read from him, we are unanimous (unisono), though we never "met" here :wink:
oui wrote:yes, and it is a performent goal at the time where youtube (*1 makes the connecting dependent from if you have or not an actual system, for ex. (and not only youtube, skype and other also; if you try to read some newspaper, le figaro, is for me as French man important, and does not have 64 bits AND an actual system, you will have a terribly slow system if it does not, even, crash!)
I know... Since i have no fall_back_system, i do it like kernel-devs: depreciate it, if it doesn't do, what i want.

To be true, it's not always easy to do so, but I AM NOT A SLAVE TO ANY SERVICE OF THEM!!!
oui wrote:... but their are perhaps thousands of person in my situation :wink: :idea:
I guess, there are. If i didn't erase ALL my WinDings :wink: , i would have tried out things with it.

But i'm a refugee - with NO RETURN!

So i have to take it (...)

BTW: Puppies ranking on distrowatch is not so bad... there are several others not even mentioned... :!:

jamesbond
Posts: 3433
Joined: Mon 26 Feb 2007, 05:02
Location: The Blue Marble

#12 Post by jamesbond »

Puppy grows big for two reasons:

1. New version of the same software is always bigger.
2. Support for more diverse kind of hardware requires more drivers and firmware and make it bigger.

Use older software? E.g. browser: youtube doesn't work, bank websites reject you.
Don't include all firmware (and drivers)? Or use older kernels? Soundcards don't work, network cards don't work, graphic cards, don't work ... you get the point.
Don't use bloated software? Ok, now try to use dillo or netsurf or anything else about the same size. See if you can survive the Internet today.

---

There are modern, complete Linux systems under 4MB today. E.g. those that runs on routers.
The catch? They support exactly *one* hardware platform. They perform exactly *one* function.

Long time ago, before I knew Puppy, I was mesmerised by a distro called Damn Small Linux (DSL). A complete Linux distro with everyday tools (wordprocessing, spreadsheet, watching videos) in less than 50MB. Compare this with Knoppix that as over 600MB. This is in the days of 56Kbps V92 dial-up modem download. What's not to like? So I got that. I burned that to a CD-R and boot it up.
1. My soundcard didn't work.
2. My network didn't work.
3. My screen resolution was odd (it supported only VESA resolutions, the X server being Xvesa).
4. The general UI was ugly (GTK1 or Xaw widgets - can't recall).
5. It can't open my Windows documents.
6. It cannot print to my printer.
Some of these weren't exactly DSL faults; back in the day many hardware didn't have Linux drivers. But when I booted Knoppix, all those things worked (to a certain degree).

Case in point? It's impossible to make a system that is general enough to satisfy everybody, and still keep it small. Compared to DSL, even the earliest functional Puppy (version 2.x onwards) were between 70 - 80% larger than DSL to begin with.

---

As a comparison, Firefox 52 alone is 47MB, that's XZ-compressed (which compresses things on average 2x smaller than GZip compressed employed by Puppies of old). Do you know how was the size of Firefox 6, from 2011? It was 16M, gzip compressed, which if compressed with XZ, will only be about 8 MB. That's a growth size of 500% - on Firefox alone.

Today, for example, Fatdog's kernel + drivers + firmware alone is 69MB, XZ-compressed. That's almost the size of Puppy 1.x, all for the kernel alone !!

Wait a minute, you say. Modern Tiny Core Linux has its Core package at 11MB. Ok. Does it has GUI? No. Does it support wireless? No. Does it have any apps at all? No. It's basically just an installer. You run it, and before you can use it, you must install other things. Now, get the list of apps in Puppy, and count the total size of TC + TCZ when those apps is included. You will quickly see that the number will be more or less the same.

Now you can argue that "who stuffs up so much apps in Puppy, apps that I don't use and don't care"? Well as I said, just because you don't use or don't care about the app, doesn't mean others don't. It is hard to satisfy everybody.

---

Conclusion: Puppy's size has nothing to do with Woof or Woof-CE. It's because Puppy's target audience grows (not only running in older computers but also in __new__ computers) and the demand of modern software computing (new browsers, new this and new that).

You want to make Puppy small, it's only possible (in general) by making it specialised. Specialised to your hardware, specialised to your needs with only software that you use. But wait! There is already such a specialisation tool, it is called "remaster tools" ... :wink:
Fatdog64 forum links: [url=http://murga-linux.com/puppy/viewtopic.php?t=117546]Latest version[/url] | [url=https://cutt.ly/ke8sn5H]Contributed packages[/url] | [url=https://cutt.ly/se8scrb]ISO builder[/url]

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

#13 Post by musher0 »

Well said, jamesbond.
musher0
~~~~~~~~~~
"You want it darker? We kill the flame." (L. Cohen)

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

#14 Post by bigpup »

+1!

People that really want to help with Puppy development need to do 2 things.

Actually go to Woof-CE on Github and help with the work that is done there. Even if all you do is help test or make comments.
The real internal workings of Puppy are done there.

Do the same thing, with some version of Puppy, that is newly released or is still in development.
They are all posted on this forum.
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
666philb
Posts: 3615
Joined: Sun 07 Feb 2010, 12:27
Location: wales ... by the sea

#15 Post by 666philb »

puppy is still small, a linux mint or manjaro iso is now nearly 2gb!

puppy has to grow as do all distros. ubuntus lucid release was about 700mb and it's bionic release is nearly 2gb.

jamesbond is right about "New version of the same software is always bigger."
if you tried to build tahrpup now, using the exact same kernel and build recipe, it comes out about 20mb bigger, just because of ubuntu updating libs in its repository.

the kernel has increased in size and firmware requirements have increased
tahrpup64 kernel 77mb & firmware 21mb
bionicpup64 kernel 120mb & firmware 89mb

does tahrpup64 work on my modern desktop. yes but it can't see its M2 ssd and doesn't have the firmware for my modern graphics card, has issues with some modern browsers and can't run some of the latest applications.

puppy grows every release as it always has http://puppylinux.ca/vintage/ if it didn't it would become obsolete .
Bionicpup64 built with bionic beaver packages http://murga-linux.com/puppy/viewtopic.php?t=114311
Xenialpup64, built with xenial xerus packages http://murga-linux.com/puppy/viewtopic.php?t=107331

oui

#16 Post by oui »

Hi James Bond
jamesbond wrote:Puppy grows big for two reasons:

1. New version of the same software is always bigger.
2. Support for more diverse kind of hardware requires more drivers and firmware and make it bigger.

Use older software? E.g. browser: youtube doesn't work, bank websites reject you.
Don't include all firmware (and drivers)? Or use older kernels? Soundcards don't work, network cards don't work, graphic cards, don't work ... you get the point.
Don't use bloated software? Ok, now try to use dillo or netsurf or anything else about the same size. See if you can survive the Internet today.

---

There are modern, complete Linux systems under 4MB today. E.g. those that runs on routers.
The catch? They support exactly *one* hardware platform. They perform exactly *one* function.

Long time ago, before I knew Puppy, I was mesmerised by a distro called Damn Small Linux (DSL). A complete Linux distro with everyday tools (wordprocessing, spreadsheet, watching videos) in less than 50MB. Compare this with Knoppix that as over 600MB. This is in the days of 56Kbps V92 dial-up modem download. What's not to like? So I got that. I burned that to a CD-R and boot it up.
1. My soundcard didn't work.
2. My network didn't work.
3. My screen resolution was odd (it supported only VESA resolutions, the X server being Xvesa).
4. The general UI was ugly (GTK1 or Xaw widgets - can't recall).
5. It can't open my Windows documents.
6. It cannot print to my printer.
Some of these weren't exactly DSL faults; back in the day many hardware didn't have Linux drivers. But when I booted Knoppix, all those things worked (to a certain degree).

Case in point? It's impossible to make a system that is general enough to satisfy everybody, and still keep it small. Compared to DSL, even the earliest functional Puppy (version 2.x onwards) were between 70 - 80% larger than DSL to begin with.

---

As a comparison, Firefox 52 alone is 47MB, that's XZ-compressed (which compresses things on average 2x smaller than GZip compressed employed by Puppies of old). Do you know how was the size of Firefox 6, from 2011? It was 16M, gzip compressed, which if compressed with XZ, will only be about 8 MB. That's a growth size of 500% - on Firefox alone.

Today, for example, Fatdog's kernel + drivers + firmware alone is 69MB, XZ-compressed. That's almost the size of Puppy 1.x, all for the kernel alone !!

Wait a minute, you say. Modern Tiny Core Linux has its Core package at 11MB. Ok. Does it has GUI? No. Does it support wireless? No. Does it have any apps at all? No. It's basically just an installer. You run it, and before you can use it, you must install other things. Now, get the list of apps in Puppy, and count the total size of TC + TCZ when those apps is included. You will quickly see that the number will be more or less the same.

Now you can argue that "who stuffs up so much apps in Puppy, apps that I don't use and don't care"? Well as I said, just because you don't use or don't care about the app, doesn't mean others don't. It is hard to satisfy everybody.

---

Conclusion: Puppy's size has nothing to do with Woof or Woof-CE. It's because Puppy's target audience grows (not only running in older computers but also in __new__ computers) and the demand of modern software computing (new browsers, new this and new that).

You want to make Puppy small, it's only possible (in general) by making it specialised. Specialised to your hardware, specialised to your needs with only software that you use. But wait! There is already such a specialisation tool, it is called "remaster tools" ... :wink:
each one here know, that this kind to describe the problematic is wrong because each one here did try SliTaz...

SliTaz is known as a well working (*1 little distro smaller than DSL and long time enough having had Firefox in it's 22 Mb ISOm (at the tuime where Firefox did be in the ISO! (*2 )

your declaration on DSL remember baslin (*3 (in my eyes the juwel of small Linux distros), yes, you can't do all what you will in basic linux, it's true, but in 2 old floppy disks with 1,5 Mb, the second one normal let free room on the second one of the FD and baslin is graphical Linux, with drag and draw, with a calculator with well looking graphic sign for mathematical operations, with web connection, with a free hand drawing system and what a one (a modified version of Magic Point, the presentation of baslin, Puppy, Slitaz did never have a presentation!), with a smart looking file manager (a modified version of the browser links), etc. your description on DSL is about conform to some baslin experiences depending of hardware but baslin is

15

time smaller as the size you did give for DSL.

puppy before version 1.0 did be better and did also have between 20..30 Mb depending of the version, and work...

it is not a realistic approach!

(*1 with some exceptions ok, as especially with the graphic from intel , but the most linux have also had difficulties to manage them because linuxers don't like intel and intel doesn't like Linux :lol:

(*2 all the sources of the first SliTaz version build from sources, all extra packages (in big tarball for each version) from SliTaz itself, and all ISO's continue to be downloadable from mirror.slitaz.org !

(*3 is abandoned but seems to continue to be downloadable at http://distro.ibiblio.org/baslinux/ in two forms, especially a burnable ISO

oui

#17 Post by oui »

666philb wrote:puppy has to grow as do all distros. ubuntus lucid release was about 700mb and it's bionic release is nearly 2gb.

jamesbond is right about "New version of the same software is always bigger."
no, it is not true. you can not compare so:

in Puppy or Slitaz are no developement tools in the ISO! the Debian's have as far as I know a basic set of them! You must compare with the devx file included!

and in Debian's, all the stuff for documentation is generally included.

former

as I generally install Debian's with 3 languages packs, my installations are especially heavy. a lot of puppyist will confirm like I, yes my last Ubuntu installation was really heavy... but it is not correct: you will never meet a Puppy installation in more languages excepted, perhaps ToOpPY (SliTaz were ALWAYS including version 1.0 in the 3 main Swiss languages plus English also 4 tongues!).

please compare comparable things and it is not easy...

my last installations from Devuan Jessie were minimal 540 Mb (nothing excepted base in English but base with all the usual tools, partially part of devx from Puppy) and an operable graphic installation FROM ME, like in Puppy (JWM and the small goodies from Puppy) under 1 Gb (see at the Devuan forum, they are documented as I install from base to my installations level with 3 lines of apt-get, the last one very long, all the graphical stuff)

yes, the other Debian's have systemd including the poor small lubuntu. lubuntu minimal also!

and systemd grows the poor main distributions all (Debian's but also Arch etc.)

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

#18 Post by musher0 »

Hello oui.

SliTaz does not count! I was never able to get it to desktop! However, mistfire's
PupTaz, or SliPup, or whatever it's called, ran (runs) fine on my old workhorse.

As to CorePup, yes it's small, but it's ugly, and as james bond mentioned, it
needs a lot of extras to make it into a decent distro.

Yes we have to add the size of the devx to the Pup to do a strict comparison.
Except ordinary users do not need the devx, only developers need it.

E.g., including the devx, josejp2424's latest DPup, DPupBuster, is ~ 375 Mb.
Without the devx: 273 Mb.

Now tell me: how big is Debian Buster, in its smallest incarnations?
3.7 Gb for the "dvd 1" at
https://cdimage.debian.org/cdimage/week ... 86/iso-dvd
That's 13.5 times the size of José's DPupBuster.

And 636 Mb for the limited "debian-testing-i386-xfce-CD-1.iso".
That's 2.3 times the size of José's DPupBuster.

Now about taking the woof-CE devs to task, like you do --
I must say that I do not agree with all of their choices. But I am completely sure
they are sincere in those choices. It is clear to me that they are not increasing the
size of the Puppy on purpose, just to annoy Mr. Oui and the rest of us.

As jamesbond and 666philb mentioned, the apps and libs that our devs are
transforming into Puppies come bigger already from the source.

So, oui, please snap out of your "old soldier from the 1st Puppy generation"
complex? Those times are gone, my friend. Start living in today's world, please.

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

User avatar
666philb
Posts: 3615
Joined: Sun 07 Feb 2010, 12:27
Location: wales ... by the sea

#19 Post by 666philb »

oui wrote:
no, it is not true. you can not compare so:

in Puppy or Slitaz are no developement tools in the ISO! the Debian's have as far as I know a basic set of them! You must compare with the devx file included!
just tried the 639mb debian stretch iso. it doesn't come with a compiler
Bionicpup64 built with bionic beaver packages http://murga-linux.com/puppy/viewtopic.php?t=114311
Xenialpup64, built with xenial xerus packages http://murga-linux.com/puppy/viewtopic.php?t=107331

jamesbond
Posts: 3433
Joined: Mon 26 Feb 2007, 05:02
Location: The Blue Marble

#20 Post by jamesbond »

oui wrote:each one here know, that this kind to describe the problematic is wrong because each one here did try SliTaz...
Did you try it yourself?
SliTaz is known as a well working (*1 little distro smaller than DSL and long time enough having had Firefox in it's 22 Mb ISOm (at the tuime where Firefox did be in the ISO! (*2 )
I tested Slitaz long time ago but I've forgotten. Your post here raised enough curiosity to try it again. The "current rolling release" versionn is 49M for 32-bit version and 48M for 64-bit version (dated Feb 2019).

The 64-bit version failed to boot even in qemu; its kernel panicked. So that's the end of the test.

The 32-bit version at least booted in qemu. It has 272 packages inside. Let's see what's inside.
1. Firmware - about 2MB uncompressed (vs 80MB for Fatdog). Not even a driver for iwlwfi, so if you have Intel wireless - sorry, no connection for you.
2. Modules (drivers) - about 11MB, 1024 files (vs 121M, 3829 files for Fatdog). I can't be bothered to look into the details but suffice to say more than a few modern gadgets won't work.
3. Kernel version - 3.16.55. The 3.16 line was released in 2014. Attempting to use devices made after 2014 may be problematic.
4. Xorg - either vesa or fbdev. No acceleration for you (either 2D or 3D).
5. Apps: the only decent app you have is midori. It is re-purposed for many stuff - e.g. the video player (video player is midori playing video), simple spreadsheet, etc.
6. Wordprocessor? None. Spreadsheet (of the real kind)? None. Email client? None. Compatibility with documents created in Windows? None. Printing? None. "bash" shell? No.

So what's in there (apart from midori)? Let's see: busybox, vnc viewer, epdfviewer, rdesktop, leafpad, mtpaint, galculator, gpicview, irc client, mhwaveedit, sakura terminal, xterm, pcmanfm, ssh tools (not counting system configuration tools such as alsamixer, theme changes, etc).

I get it that small is beautiful. But what good is a small ISO if we can't do anything with it?

Before you make Slitaz as the the "gold standard" of small Linuxes, have you actually downloaded it, and used it in a real machine, in every day situation?

NOTE: This is not a criticism of SliTaz. SliTaz has their own audience and their own objective. Puppy has a different audience and objective; and while there is an overlap between the two, Puppy supports more diverse hardware and wider audience needs - such as Windows refugee. Trying to force Puppy to live with Slitaz's size restriction is the same as trying to change Puppy's objective and audience to that of SliTaz's.

By all means if you love SliTaz, use it. If you need "Puppy-like" SliTaz, as musher0 said - use TazPuppy. Beware that TazPuppy is about 2x bigger than SliTaz.
Fatdog64 forum links: [url=http://murga-linux.com/puppy/viewtopic.php?t=117546]Latest version[/url] | [url=https://cutt.ly/ke8sn5H]Contributed packages[/url] | [url=https://cutt.ly/se8scrb]ISO builder[/url]

Post Reply