Puppy Linux Discussion Forum

[fun500]

I've set-up a little survey to do some research:
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/viewform?formkey=dEFxa0JiN19sNGw5b19WVHltVjBHNGc6MQ
Thanks for your time.

[Eyes-Only]

And thanks for thinking of us fun500, asking us to participate in your survey. 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"

[ttuuxxx]

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

[sunburnt]

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.

[amigo]

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?

[jemimah]

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.

[darkcity]

SFSs in my experience break things more than PETs. They need to be built just as carefully as PETs.

[Colonel Panic]

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.

[harii4]

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

[sunburnt]

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.