Puppy 5.1 to 6

News, happenings
Message
Author
User avatar
jemimah
Posts: 4307
Joined: Wed 26 Aug 2009, 19:56
Location: Tampa, FL
Contact:

#101 Post by jemimah »

ttuuxxx wrote: When My job is finished a few weeks I might look into building a new puppy from scratch if I have a team to work with, I do have a few weak spots when it comes to linux, not many but a couple. I'm no Barry but I do strive to succeed.
ttuuxxx
I can help.

User avatar
Lobster
Official Crustacean
Posts: 15522
Joined: Wed 04 May 2005, 06:06
Location: Paradox Realm
Contact:

#102 Post by Lobster »

Guys with IRC timing - allowing for various times . . .
I would suggest you get on IRC - maybe register a name, maybe use X-chat for more facilities.

I am online sometimes with the name CrustyLobster2
So just get familiar if you are not already . . .
http://puppylinux.org/wikka/IRC

So we may set up a formal meet
or just chat as required - up to you guys . . . :)
Puppy Raspup 8.2Final 8)
Puppy Links Page http://www.smokey01.com/bruceb/puppy.html :D

User avatar
RetroTechGuy
Posts: 2947
Joined: Tue 15 Dec 2009, 17:20
Location: USA

#103 Post by RetroTechGuy »

Jim1911 wrote:
ttuuxxx wrote:sounds great But please keep in mind that my main goals is reduction in size, So that older computers that run Xp will fly with puppy. Bloat has infiltrated into puppy mainstream just push a next release and to make it simpler.
I'm not one those who bend to that, I've had hundreds of pm's/email from people loving my releases and that a puppy 100MB is not dead yet. At least I hope not
ttuuxxx
I am hoping that I can find a version that is basically a drop in replacement for Windows 98 (a number of rather modest machines will run Win98, but they struggle with Puppy -- because Puppy still requires too much horsepower).
Hi ttuuxxx, great to have you back on the forum, that job has really kept you busy. Other things than hobbies must take priority though. Looking forward to your new releases.

I agree that puppy should keep it's size down, for a segment of it's users, however keep in mind, that even low end systems have a fast processor with 4G of ram that can be purchased new now.
I don't believe that a single machine I own will accept 4GB. I even doubt that any of them would accept 2GB.

My highest end machine is an older 2200 Athlon, with 1 GB. From there, my available memory (and processor speed) goes down. And I'm not going to throw them out, just to buy adequate hardware to support such an OS.
A new low end system will have 4G of ram and run Windows 7 as a minimum. So, should the target audience be primarily those with less than 512MB of ram? I think not, we need to target the growing population that have better hardware while still meeting the needs of all these groups and keeping all three groups pushing with up-to-date software. The reason that puppy remains high on distribution lists is that it is keeping up-to-date. Look at all the fat pup derivatives available versus the skinny pups and that's great because puppy is meeting the needs of all groups.
Let us not forget the mission statement shown here:

http://puppylinux.org/main/index.php?fi ... tarted.htm

"Fast - Because Puppy is small, it can live in your PC's memory and be ready to quickly execute your commands, whereas in other systems, programs are first read from drive storage before being executed."

"Old PCs that no longer work with new systems will still work good-as-new with Puppy."

Here's the way I see it. As long as Puppy is compatible with the newest, greatest hardware, why would ANYONE demand that it use MORE MEMORY?

I don't really want an operating system whose hardware requirements are the same as the "big boys" (Debian, Redhat, Ubuntu, ...). And if I had such hardware, why wouldn't I just run one of those full-blown systems?

User avatar
efiguy
Posts: 164
Joined: Thu 07 Sep 2006, 02:51

Puppy 5.1 to 6

#104 Post by efiguy »

Hi Group,

How about looking at Puppies by years that the drivers best support average hardware.

Create a database of stable distro's for each span segment.

- Perhaps in 3 to 5 year spans and of course there will be overlaps.

- 1995 to 1999
- 2000 to 2004
- 2004 to 2007
- 2008 to 2011
- 2012 to

- I don't know how to search for that kind of data, but could bet it is present, buried in this forum as questions and solutions.
- I feel this could tidy up historical issues.


- Although most of my hardware is 2K, with the latest of my laptops an '07, believe that Puppy must push to be able to run present day hardware, if it is to flourish, for to stay static is to die.

- If the system will support the drivers, then developers will write programs, and down the road, means will be found to use that extra ram and hardware in ways that we may never have imagined.

- This may mean that future issues of pets for this newer hardware will be in-compatible to older puppies, and that is OK, progress like it or not (Someday my '70 car will be banned from city streets;).


have a better day,
Jay

User avatar
01micko
Posts: 8741
Joined: Sat 11 Oct 2008, 13:39
Location: qld
Contact:

#105 Post by 01micko »

ttuuxxx wrote:Personally I think Puppy head developers should have some sort of meeting and decide what is puppy's main goals, its always been bleeding edge but I think it might have to rethink at this. A lot of the the newer introduce bloat is Xorg/Kernel/Gnome libs.
Hi ttuuxxx,

The way I see it, the trouble is, that to run newer apps such as Google Chrome (which users want, and that is only an example) some of the bloat, for want of a better term, is necessary. We really do need to define "bloat". Anything unnecessary of course is bloat.

Also, and this is not in defence of Ubuntu, Ubuntu package equivalents to Puppy are compiled with more dependencies. This can actually be a good thing in that a user can grab Ubuntu packages from their official repos, and use them in Puppy. It is, I believe and as stated by Barry on his Woof page one of the major motivations behind Woof. Remember, woof supports Slackware, Arch and Debian too, all with good repos.
Tell you the truth I think woof is a great idea in theory, but it does bring a lot of unnecessary weight to this small distro. It might be a case to revert back to 2 series ways, compile every app/lib from source and be independent of any other distro. Use a older kernel(like 4 series) and xorg(like 4 series) with all newer introduced series 5 gnome deps removed.
Hmmm... woof is the future. You can actually build a 431 from it as it is now. Once a "distro" is built from woof, then you can recompile whatever you want and backport it.. and you can use whatever kernel is available.

Xorg is a different kettle of fish. With newer hardware come newer demands. Xorg 7.2, for example, may not support the latest and greatest. In Lucid Puppy 5 development we did come across some peculiar issues with Xorg, mostly to do with Intel chipsets. So, what to do? It seems Puppy can't support everything from a p2 with 128 meg of RAM and one of those cirrus-logic video chips and a lightening fast 8 core monster with 8 gig of ram and a video chip that could run your car at the same time! Or can it?

Still could use the latest Gtk2/Glib/Gcc, Basically bring it back to the magic 100MB size, I think it was wayyyyyyyyyyyy to quick to jump and badge a 130MB release as puppy 5. So maybe puppy 6 could be a rethink of the foundation.
Why? Not much else was happening apart from quirky, and, dpup which was bigger! Not detracting at all from techno's work with 4.4 and your work with 432. Also Kirk's and Jemimah's work, though they are not touted as "official" Puppy releases although they are "official" in the sense that Barry has given them full support.

What we need is more developers... are we going to attract them without a bone?

Lucid Puppy 5 is what it is and it's out there. Warts and all. Reviews have been mostly good. the motivation was not really creating a Puppy 5, ask playdayz, but when Barry saw us flagging at Distrowatch, wanted a release. It was the most worked on at the time, and was following Woof. It is a ground breaking release in that it showcases Woof and what can be achieved.
Like it has had many times before. I do commend the work that went into puppy 5, Its just too large for liking. No offense to the developers what so ever, you done a spot on job with what you had.
When My job is finished a few weeks I might look into building a new puppy from scratch if I have a team to work with, I do have a few weak spots when it comes to linux, not many but a couple. I'm no Barry but I do strive to succeed.
ttuuxxx
Man, we commend the work you've done around here, plenty of it :wink: . Why don't you follow woof? You can of course as you know, build a Tpup, all native Puppy, weighing in at around 100MB. Without ridiculous Gnome dependencies. :) . I'm not too sure Barry is interested in his "Very Wary " effort, using the 2.6.30.5 kernel from 431 and Xorg 7.3.

Just some thoughts, and hey, I'm barely a bash coder!

Cheers
Puppy Linux Blog - contact me for access

User avatar
Lobster
Official Crustacean
Posts: 15522
Joined: Wed 04 May 2005, 06:06
Location: Paradox Realm
Contact:

#106 Post by Lobster »

Development meeting
http://puppylinux.org/wikka/meeting30May2010/

Forum thread
http://www.murga-linux.com/puppy/viewto ... 098#421098

Agenda

Meets and greets
Reports from active Puppys
Developer Discussion
Any other business
Set next meeting
Close and thanks
Puppy Raspup 8.2Final 8)
Puppy Links Page http://www.smokey01.com/bruceb/puppy.html :D

User avatar
James C
Posts: 6618
Joined: Thu 26 Mar 2009, 05:12
Location: Kentucky

#107 Post by James C »

01micko wrote:
Man, we commend the work you've done around here, plenty of it :wink: . Why don't you follow woof? You can of course as you know, build a Tpup, all native Puppy, weighing in at around 100MB. Without ridiculous Gnome dependencies. :) . I'm not too sure Barry is interested in his "Very Wary " effort, using the 2.6.30.5 kernel from 431 and Xorg 7.3.

Cheers
I just happened to be running Ttuuxxx's Tpup 001 tonight.Still have it installed on my test box and other than Abiword not wanting to play nicely it would be a pretty solid starting point.Other than the 2.3.31.5 kernel it's pretty much "regular" Puppy. :)

There are lots of interesting possibilities in the ever-expanding Puppy universe. :lol:

User avatar
01micko
Posts: 8741
Joined: Sat 11 Oct 2008, 13:39
Location: qld
Contact:

#108 Post by 01micko »

I'm not too sure Barry is interested in his "Very Wary " effort, using the 2.6.30.5 kernel from 431 and Xorg 7.3.
Um, I should re-phrase that. I meant that IMO Barry is doing very-wary as more of an afterthought for those with older gear. We all know his main focus is Quirky.

There, that's better!

Cheers
Puppy Linux Blog - contact me for access

User avatar
jemimah
Posts: 4307
Joined: Wed 26 Aug 2009, 19:56
Location: Tampa, FL
Contact:

#109 Post by jemimah »

01micko wrote: What we need is more developers... are we going to attract them without a bone?
What definitely won't attract new developers is infighting within the community. It seems rather unlikely that we can get everybody together and all agree on a single vision for Puppy. And that's ok - having multiple puplets that implement different ideas is better than one compromise-puplet that doesn't do anything particularly well.

What attracted me to Puppy is the open, collaborative, community where I get to do my own thing and follow my own ideas. If I had to implement other people's ideas, I'd quickly get bored and leave.

The idea that some puplets are "official" and some are not seems like it's going to cause problems. Perhaps there's a better way to denote puplet quality and level of support that's not guaranteed to alienate people.

User avatar
ttuuxxx
Posts: 11171
Joined: Sat 05 May 2007, 10:00
Location: Ontario Canada,Sydney Australia
Contact:

#110 Post by ttuuxxx »

jemimah wrote:
What definitely won't attract new developers is infighting within the community. It seems rather unlikely that we can get everybody together and all agree on a single vision for Puppy.
The Community editions went pretty good, only a couple of fights, but the end results were excellent.
All we need to do is have a rough outline what the release goals are, etc and start there, maybe even have Barry lend a hand if we get stuck along the way, I'm talking about 100% from scratch. To my knowledge Barry is the only one ever to do it that way, well of course we'll reuse the puppy scripts etc, but all the apps/libs etc should be compiled.
ttuuxxx
http://audio.online-convert.com/ <-- excellent site
http://samples.mplayerhq.hu/A-codecs/ <-- Codec Test Files
http://html5games.com/ <-- excellent HTML5 games :)

User avatar
dejan555
Posts: 2798
Joined: Sun 30 Nov 2008, 11:57
Location: Montenegro
Contact:

#111 Post by dejan555 »

Yay pupians on IRC :P

Well, since there are now many ways to build puppy and Barry started naming projects differently as he did with Quirky maybe we should have official "puppy linux" versions to be "puppy puppy" builds meaning building puppy from own packages and have other upup/dpup/whatever builds as separate projects and not jumping from repo to repo on every different release. That way we're not making progress because of simple reason that is confirmed with 5.0 - different base causes different hardware support and different bugs.

And the reason we're doing it is we simply don't have enough packages in puppy's own repo and they don't get updated and recompiled to match newer kernels and software versions. I mean look - pidgin 2.4 is still in official repo that doesn't work for anyone most of the people joining IRC for support first ask about pidgin not working with their MSN accounts and ayttm crashing on MSN too :roll:
puppy.b0x.me stuff mirrored [url=https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B_Mb589v0iCXNnhSZWRwd3R2UWs]HERE[/url] or [url=http://archive.org/details/Puppy_Linux_puppy.b0x.me_mirror]HERE[/url]

shariebeth
Posts: 242
Joined: Tue 26 Jan 2010, 19:37
Location: Florida

#112 Post by shariebeth »

jemimah wrote:What definitely won't attract new developers is infighting within the community.
Agreed.
It seems rather unlikely that we can get everybody together and all agree on a single vision for Puppy. And that's ok - having multiple puplets that implement different ideas is better than one compromise-puplet that doesn't do anything particularly well.
Agreed again.
What attracted me to Puppy is the open, collaborative, community where I get to do my own thing and follow my own ideas. If I had to implement other people's ideas, I'd quickly get bored and leave.
Nobody wants you to do either. There is a difference between organizing and making sure all of the needs of puppy users are met, than trying to force you to do what you don't want to do.
The idea that some puplets are "official" and some are not seems like it's going to cause problems. Perhaps there's a better way to denote puplet quality and level of support that's not guaranteed to alienate people
This is EXACTLY what is needed!

Lobster wrote:Ttuuxxx I am happy to report that the IRC (click on desktop chat)
is now capable of supporting meetings after its recent expulsion
of those suffering from voluntary tourette syndrome
The most you might find is a lost troll
or crazy cructacean . . .

Maybe something can be arranged in a few weeks time :)
*sighs* You still don't get it, do you. :?



Are concerned Puppy citizens welcome/allowed to this meeting? Or just selectively so? I for one am thrilled to see this, not that most of you care ;)

User avatar
jemimah
Posts: 4307
Joined: Wed 26 Aug 2009, 19:56
Location: Tampa, FL
Contact:

#113 Post by jemimah »

ttuuxxx wrote: The Community editions went pretty good, only a couple of fights, but the end results were excellent.
All we need to do is have a rough outline what the release goals are, etc and start there, maybe even have Barry lend a hand if we get stuck along the way, I'm talking about 100% from scratch. To my knowledge Barry is the only one ever to do it that way, well of course we'll reuse the puppy scripts etc, but all the apps/libs etc should be compiled.
ttuuxxx
I admit, part of the appeal of Puppy for me is the handcrafted, built from scratch concept, and woof is huge step away from that. My guess is though - that trying to do community edition skipping woof entirely could be extremely divisive. Maybe not.

Personally though, the project sounds fun to me, and I'd like to help.

I wonder if it would take too long though - if we can't generate good momentum soon enough or fast enough it's difficult to keep things moving.

big_bass
Posts: 1740
Joined: Mon 13 Aug 2007, 12:21

#114 Post by big_bass »

I think most will agree that there is a need for teamwork

most of the troubles though are due to "trying to be the one to rule the planet and not just being yourself "


seeing strengths in other people is a good thing
while some people see it as threat

knowing where you shine and other people shine
create overlapping skills that complement each other

mostly the drive you have dictates what you have interest in

if you have interest in art work desktops icons themes and such thats your strong point
not saying that you can't do other things you will
only be happy doing what your good at though
that's just my thoughts on that not a rule

and this same idea goes for programmers ,techs,etc...


when you focus on what you are good at
good things follow


new friendships are made old friendships are healed

life continues happily on its way

Joe

User avatar
Lobster
Official Crustacean
Posts: 15522
Joined: Wed 04 May 2005, 06:06
Location: Paradox Realm
Contact:

#115 Post by Lobster »

Guys
there will be a meetings on Sunday on the open chat forum
http://puppylinux.org/wikka/meeting30May2010

Everyone is welcome,
though our primary interest is providing a meeting
for developer exchange.

If need be (Ttuuxxx has expressed an interest)
private chats just for developers can be arranged
though that can easily happen through pm, email,
Barrys blog, Jemimahs Puppee forum and so on

Suggested 'Reports from active Puppys'
can take the form of a brief intro
and Q & A
on for example
Puppy 5, 5.1, Slaxer_Pup, Quirky, Puplet creators
. . . depends who turns up

8)
Last edited by Lobster on Wed 26 May 2010, 05:16, edited 1 time in total.
Puppy Raspup 8.2Final 8)
Puppy Links Page http://www.smokey01.com/bruceb/puppy.html :D

User avatar
tubeguy
Posts: 1320
Joined: Sat 29 Aug 2009, 01:04
Location: Park Ridge IL USA
Contact:

#116 Post by tubeguy »

Lobster wrote:Everyone is welcome,
though our primary interest is providing a meeting
for developer exchange.
Looking forward to lurking. I'm no dev but I'm a good fly on the wall. ;-)
[b]Tahr Pup 6 on desktop, Lucid 3HD on lappie[/b]

scsijon
Posts: 1596
Joined: Thu 24 May 2007, 03:59
Location: the australian mallee
Contact:

Puppy 6 proposal

#117 Post by scsijon »

I hope to "attend" if I may.

I'd also like to expand and put my idea forward again that it's time the puppy system grew up and had two component stages.

Puppy 6 may be that time!

The first stage is the core, that part of puppy that should be a "bare-bones of bare-bones". Consisting of the system and basic utilities only, covered under the menu as filesystem, utility, and above, but not including any applications other than a tiny (basic non-invasive) browser. It should be java aware by default. All configuration components should be working towards being interfaced via the browser, then many help directions and messages can be available. I believe there is even a text type browser out there somewhere, that can be used for the pre-x stages.

The second stage consists of applications and packages of applications. The only requirement is that they must be inclusive. In other words, would have no component that is reliant on another package or set of packages. I would only put a restriction on this group of a requirement of having an individual .pet for each application in their .sts package set. This is so those that only want one application can have access to it.

I think you would find that many groups would willing to work to this matrix, as they wouldn't have to supply the core level part, only what is required to meet their version.

i'll add more later (washing for the line calls :-) )

scsijon

Jim1911
Posts: 2460
Joined: Mon 19 May 2008, 20:39
Location: Texas, USA

Re: Puppy 6 proposal

#118 Post by Jim1911 »

scsijon wrote:The first stage is the core, that part of puppy that should be a "bare-bones of bare-bones". Consisting of the system and basic utilities only, covered under the menu as filesystem, utility, and above, but not including any applications other than a tiny (basic non-invasive) browser. It should be java aware by default. All configuration components should be working towards being interfaced via the browser, then many help directions and messages can be available. I believe there is even a text type browser out there somewhere, that can be used for the pre-x stages.
Barry's woof is already the core. From there, the possibilities are endless.

shariebeth
Posts: 242
Joined: Tue 26 Jan 2010, 19:37
Location: Florida

Re: Puppy 6 proposal

#119 Post by shariebeth »

scsijon wrote:I hope to "attend" if I may.

I'd also like to expand and put my idea forward again that it's time the puppy system grew up and had two component stages.

Puppy 6 may be that time!

The first stage is the core, that part of puppy that should be a "bare-bones of bare-bones". Consisting of the system and basic utilities only, covered under the menu as filesystem, utility, and above, but not including any applications other than a tiny (basic non-invasive) browser. It should be java aware by default. All configuration components should be working towards being interfaced via the browser, then many help directions and messages can be available. I believe there is even a text type browser out there somewhere, that can be used for the pre-x stages.

The second stage consists of applications and packages of applications. The only requirement is that they must be inclusive. In other words, would have no component that is reliant on another package or set of packages. I would only put a restriction on this group of a requirement of having an individual .pet for each application in their .sts package set. This is so those that only want one application can have access to it.

I think you would find that many groups would willing to work to this matrix, as they wouldn't have to supply the core level part, only what is required to meet their version.

i'll add more later (washing for the line calls :-) )

scsijon
Ehhhm sounds like Arch Linux ;)

scsijon
Posts: 1596
Joined: Thu 24 May 2007, 03:59
Location: the australian mallee
Contact:

#120 Post by scsijon »

Arch Linux?

will have a look at it, i'm ex-suse myself

scsijon

Post Reply