Puppy Linux Discussion Forum Forum Index Puppy Linux Discussion Forum
Puppy HOME page : puppylinux.com
"THE" alternative forum : puppylinux.info
 
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   RegisterRegister 
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

The time now is Wed 16 Apr 2014, 09:44
All times are UTC - 4
 Forum index » Taking the Puppy out for a walk » Misc
What do you want in a Linux Distro?
Moderators: Flash, JohnMurga
Post new topic   Reply to topic View previous topic :: View next topic
Page 1 of 1 [10 Posts]  
Author Message
fun500

Joined: 10 Aug 2006
Posts: 10
Location: NY

PostPosted: Sun 22 Jan 2012, 17:20    Post subject:  What do you want in a Linux Distro?  

I've set-up a little survey to do some research:
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/viewform?formkey=dEFxa0JiN19sNGw5b19WVHltVjBHNGc6MQ
Thanks for your time.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message 
Eyes-Only


Joined: 10 Aug 2006
Posts: 1046
Location: La Confederation Abenaquaise

PostPosted: Thu 09 Feb 2012, 11:38    Post subject:  This was really fun! Thanks! :)  

And thanks for thinking of us fun500, asking us to participate in your survey. Smile I, for one, enjoyed answering your questions and I hope many others will take part in this survey as well.

A few questions if I may? Any particular reason for this survey? Are you perhaps using the information garnered for a web news article? A school/college paper? Or simply to satisfy your own curiousity?

Perhaps once you've gathered enough info you could share a few of your findings with us?

Thanks again fun500 and welcome to the kennels!

Ciao/Amicalement,

Eyes-Only
"L'Peau-Rouge d'Acadie"

_________________
*~*~*~*~*~*
Proud user of LXpup and 3-Headed Dog. Cool
*~*~*~*~*~*
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message 
ttuuxxx


Joined: 05 May 2007
Posts: 10730
Location: Ontario Canada,Sydney Australia

PostPosted: Fri 10 Feb 2012, 11:57    Post subject:  

all I want in a linux distro is a equal playing ground with MS/Apple
like how adobe makes dreamweaver and photoshop just for MS/Apple and apple is based on Linux anyways. But doesn't support Linux other than flash!! maybe its because MS has 30% stake in apple, same with video game manufacturers, they make major games for MS/Apple and nothing for Linux.
fix that and Linux will be on top for desktop users.
ttuuxxx

_________________
http://audio.online-convert.com/ <-- excellent site
http://samples.mplayerhq.hu/A-codecs/ <-- Codec Test Files
http://html5games.com/ <-- excellent HTML5 games Smile

Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website 
sunburnt


Joined: 08 Jun 2005
Posts: 4978
Location: Arizona, U.S.A.

PostPosted: Fri 10 Feb 2012, 14:40    Post subject:  

I`d like a Linux that has no legacy .tar.gz (.pet) package management.
A Linux O.S. that is all Squash files and no loose files installed into it.
Much like Puppy, just simpler and more reliable.

# ttuuxxx; How about a new law?
All software manufacturers have one year to port their product to all platforms.
After that time the product is freeware on any platform not already covered.
So if someone else ports it to another platform, then it`s their property.

Monopolies should be illegal in the U.S., ttuuxxx`s statement shows otherwise.
There`s different forms of monopolizing. So apps. can make monopolies of O.S.s.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message 
amigo

Joined: 02 Apr 2007
Posts: 2165

PostPosted: Fri 10 Feb 2012, 15:05    Post subject:  

So how ia a bunch of loos sfs files different than a bunch of loose files contained in packages?
If it were all sfs files, then how do you offer a chance to change anything to the user? How do you resolve conflicts between sfs files which contain duplicate files. How about if we just offer the 'whole enchilada' as a single binary blob? Is anyone going to be happy having to modify the sources, recompile and re-create the sfs every time they want/need to change a single character in a single file?
What is so magic about sfs's? They are simply a file-system image composed of a bunch of loose files!
Really, I do understand you, I think. You like the idea of easy 'modularity' -of being able to easily extend or contract your system just by adding or removing various SFS files. How exactly does that differ from adding/removing 'packages'? Doesn't it involve exactly the same problems and complexities as managing 'packages' -except that it is less flexible, implies more duplication and needs more resources (CPU-cycles, RAM, time and disk-space) in order to create, maintain and modify them?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message 
jemimah


Joined: 26 Aug 2009
Posts: 4309
Location: Tampa, FL

PostPosted: Fri 10 Feb 2012, 19:03    Post subject:  

The "magic" is they give you less rope to hang yourself with. It's hard to break your system with an sfs since (in puppy) they mount bottom layer and have no facilities for dependencies.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website 
darkcity


Joined: 23 May 2010
Posts: 2408
Location: near here

PostPosted: Sat 11 Feb 2012, 05:45    Post subject:  

SFSs in my experience break things more than PETs. They need to be built just as carefully as PETs. Arrow
_________________
helping Wiki for help | IF SendSpace link = "dead" THEN PM me ("up file to http://meownplanet.net/")
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website 
Colonel Panic


Joined: 16 Sep 2006
Posts: 1438

PostPosted: Sat 11 Feb 2012, 07:20    Post subject:  

For me, a Linux distro needs to be able to run on old computers like mine, and be able to do what are the basics for a 2012 OS; it needs to be able to both start and shut down quickly and reliably, be able to create and edit office documents (including simple databases), view pictures, play multimedia files, and browse the Internet including playing video files with full sound at a reasonable volume (Swift Linux., for example, plays Youtubes too quietly for my taste especially as my machine isn't particularly quiet itself). Anything else (including games) is a bonus.
_________________
Compaq Deskpro Pentium III (866 MHz), 512 MB of RAM, 30 GB hard drive running Puppy Fire Hydrant Inferno, Puppy Precise 5.71 Retro, Puppy 5.5 Wary, Puppy Legacy OS4 Mini and Puppy Legacy OS2.1 LTS.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message 
harii4


Joined: 30 Jan 2009
Posts: 444
Location: La Porte City, IA , U.S.A.

PostPosted: Sat 11 Feb 2012, 13:25    Post subject:  

An simple, easy and stay-out-of-your-way Distro Wink
With only one application per task.
Don't need tons of fluff and the kitchen sink. Cool

_________________
3.01 Fat Free / Fire Hydrant featherweight/ TXZ_pup / 431JP2012
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Peace and Justice are two sides of the same coin.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website 
sunburnt


Joined: 08 Jun 2005
Posts: 4978
Location: Arizona, U.S.A.

PostPosted: Sat 11 Feb 2012, 22:52    Post subject:  

jemimah; Correct... They`re simple.

amigo; I understand your point completely, as I know you understand mine.
I like modularity, compressed ( for ram ), greatly reduced file tracking,
no viruses, no file corruption ( pwr. failure ), or installing ( load on-the-fly ).
Being able to load into ram makes Squash files more flexible and faster.
But loading to ram partially duplicates the apps. data, the compressed file
and it`s files being run, not to mention the ram wasted on unused files.
A compressed file in ram is faster than an uncompressed one on the H.D.

# I`m not sure why you say Squash files consume resources...
Making legacy type packages is about the same as Squash file packages.
Both package types are compressed, Squash files just stay that way.
I know using a Squash file uses more cpu cycles, but see this...
I copied a 615MB dir., then Squashed the dir., mounted it and copied it`s
contense. Surprise! The Squash file took 48.5 sec., the dir. took 72 sec.
I don`t know why this is so, but I`m sure anyone can duplicate the results.

A properly setup legacy type loose file system should have all it`s read-only
files on a read-only partition, and the read-write ones on a read-write partition.
Squash files sort of do this by their read-only nature.

I also think the union file system is an unnecessary complexity, simplify!
File duplication conflicts occur when using loose file type file systems.
A union file system allows loose files and "image" files to exist together
in a legacy Unix file system. But apps. don`t have to be legacy installed.
If they`re loose files in a dir. or mounted image files they won`t conflict.
Simple apps. do this well, complex ones not so much ( browsers & media ).
But Puppy already has problems with it`s browsers and media apps.

So a really good Squash file loader ( ram / no ram ) is needed, then the
Squash files copy to ram when they`re run and are deleted at app. close.
Good Squash file app. build tools are needed, then we`ll see more of them.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message 
Display posts from previous:   Sort by:   
Page 1 of 1 [10 Posts]  
Post new topic   Reply to topic View previous topic :: View next topic
 Forum index » Taking the Puppy out for a walk » Misc
Jump to:  

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
[ Time: 0.0708s ][ Queries: 12 (0.0040s) ][ GZIP on ]