Lxpup 14 final 7-20-2012

For talk and support relating specifically to Puppy derivatives
Message
Author
User avatar
James C
Posts: 6618
Joined: Thu 26 Mar 2009, 05:12
Location: Kentucky

#201 Post by James C »

Another frugal install, this time on an old P4 test box. No problems yet.

-Computer-
Processor : Intel(R) Pentium(R) 4 CPU 2.80GHz
Memory : 512MB (144MB used)
Operating System : Unknown distribution
User Name : root (root)
Date/Time : Sat 15 Sep 2012 12:41:25 AM CDT
-Display-
Resolution : 1024x768 pixels
OpenGL Renderer : Unknown
X11 Vendor : The X.Org Foundation
-Multimedia-
Audio Adapter : ICH4 - Intel ICH5

# report-video
intel
Slacko Puppy, version 5.3.3 on Sat 15 Sep 2012

Chip description:
2.0 VGA compatible controller
Intel Corporation 82865G Integrated Graphics Controller (rev 02)
oem: Intel(r)865G Graphics Chip Accelerated VGA BIOS
product: Intel(r)865G Graphics Controller Hardware Version 0.0

X Server: Xorg
Driver used: intel

X.Org version: 1.9.5
dimensions: 1024x768 pixels (270x203 millimeters)
depth of root window: 24 planes

...the above also recorded in /tmp/root/ as report-video,
and archived with xorg.conf and Xorg.0.log as report-video-full.gz
#

Looking good so far.

User avatar
Ray MK
Posts: 774
Joined: Tue 05 Feb 2008, 09:10
Location: UK

#202 Post by Ray MK »

Hi Jejy69

Your latest LXDE Puppy with SeaMonkey 2.12 and with links to your LXDE-Pup website is absolutely brilliant.

The overall presentation is truly outstanding and the fact that it works so well on my ram challenged 10yr old Acer laptop, is astonishing.

You are to be wholeheartedly congratulated on your work here - the combination of an excellent puppy, linked to an incredibly well designed website, that gives direct links to JM’s Puppy forum, is simply superb.

Truly stunning - many thanks and very best regards - Ray.
[b]Asus[/b] 701SD. 2gig ram. 8gb SSD. [b]IBM A21m[/b] laptop. 192mb ram. PIII Coppermine proc. [b]X60[/b] T2400 1.8Ghz proc. 2gig ram. 80gb hdd. [b]T41[/b] Pentium M 1400Mhz. 512mb ram.

User avatar
rg66
Posts: 1158
Joined: Mon 23 Jul 2012, 05:53
Location: Vancouver, BC Canada / Entebbe, Uganda Africa!?!

#203 Post by rg66 »

Have been playing with LXpup today and so far so good except Firefox keeps crashing. It's strange because it was working fine for a few hours.

Oh, and you can't make a new shortcut on the desktop because lxshortcut is missing. I found an lxshortcut.pet so no big deal.

Other than that It seems pretty good, I'll test some more tomorrow.

cthisbear
Posts: 4422
Joined: Sun 29 Jan 2006, 22:07
Location: Sydney Australia

#204 Post by cthisbear »

On Distrowatch:


http://distrowatch.com/weekly.php?issue ... 17#waiting

" Lxpup. Lxpup is a lightweight Linux distribution based on Puppy Linux
and featuring the LXDE desktop environment. "

Congrats....Chris.

nooby
Posts: 10369
Joined: Sun 29 Jun 2008, 19:05
Location: SwedenEurope

#205 Post by nooby »

I did a frugal install on NTFS both of them.
They are a bit different. LXPrecise have SeaMonkey
while LXSlacko has Firefox. Seamonkey has Flash built in
while Firefox one have to use the flash installer which is easy to do.

But to my surprise the LXSlacko version seems to have
some built in update or something. Suddenly the savefile
went too small. I had only installed Flash and nothing else.

So does that mean that the flash is bigger than 200MB?

How else to explain it? Read warning can not download
not enough memory. Delete files or increase storage.

I hope somebody can explain what is most likely explanation.
I had only assigned a 256MB savefile but Flash is at most 50MB
so what what was all the other big download about?
I use Google Search on Puppy Forum
not an ideal solution though

User avatar
vicmz
Posts: 1262
Joined: Sun 15 Jan 2012, 22:47

#206 Post by vicmz »

Hi nooby!
You said LXSlacko has got Firefox, which hasn't got an easy option to handle all the caché. I think that can have to do with the space taken in your savefile. Try setting Firefox to clear the cache on exit.
[url=http://murga-linux.com/puppy/viewtopic.php?t=76948]Puppy Linux en español[/url]

nooby
Posts: 10369
Joined: Sun 29 Jun 2008, 19:05
Location: SwedenEurope

#207 Post by nooby »

I started all over without any savefile
and now I have two new frugal installs
and they do work but I feel totally spoiled.

As a child with too many new toys looking very similar

I have gotten used to Lupu528-005 so
to have two additional Puppy OS to boot into
seems overkill unless them are different enough
to do things better than what Lupu528-005 does?

What is it about LX that you love that makes it
worthy of replacing old faithful Lupu528-005 ?

Does the newer kernel an LX do things more safely
or faster or look more cool or what? Easier to set up
to your own taste or what is that different that I should change?

Sorry if I am too spoiled to get it. What is in it for you and me then :)
I use Google Search on Puppy Forum
not an ideal solution though

User avatar
Jejy69
Posts: 710
Joined: Thu 20 Jan 2011, 18:10
Location: Perpignan

#208 Post by Jejy69 »

Okay, okay enough of this speech style, I quite understand, what I do is useless for many, that's for sure, after all, you've already said (yes, already, you remember anything?). I did not come here to challenge your supremacy or to competition, I just offers a small bonus for Puppy, you are not obliged to try, to watch it.
I understand that you want to do like dogs, you pee on your territory, it's your, it's okay. Do not come by denigrating the work of others ESPECIALLY when you have already served. I 'am tired.

If you're really spoiled, do at least an effort to respect others. I respect your opinion and you, so I will not say anything more.
It is a pity that we should shoot themselves in the feet, anyway ...
I'm not saying that what I've done is great, but when writing :
I have gotten used to Lupu528-005 so
to have two additional Puppy OS to boot into
seems overkill unless them are different enough
to do things better than what Lupu528-005 does?

What is it about LX that you love that makes it
worthy of replacing old faithful Lupu528-005 ?

Does the newer kernel an LX do things more safely
or faster or look more cool or what? Easier to set up
to your own taste or what is that different that I should change?
We will have to justify and say "Yeah that's better because gnagnah"
We haven't got the same PC.


It's your life man.





I come in peace.

nooby
Posts: 10369
Joined: Sun 29 Jun 2008, 19:05
Location: SwedenEurope

#209 Post by nooby »

So sorry my poor English misled you to take it this way.

As I remember a lot of the posters told you they love it.

Remember I am more like the village fool in this forum.
Read my signature. Trust the others and ignore my text okay!

I think you should be happy over the encouraging responses
and realize that my confusing text where just one voice among many.

So trust the others and ignore me please. They want you to share
your take on it here so that is what you should be happy about.

Don't let an old grumpy guy from the backwaters of Europe
take you down at all. I am not good at expressing myself I do apology!
I use Google Search on Puppy Forum
not an ideal solution though

mrokosz
Posts: 25
Joined: Sat 28 Jan 2012, 11:58

#210 Post by mrokosz »

I did full install, unfortunately did not work well, I had to reinstall 2 times, once I tried mate desktop, the lx broke down. I decide go back to Lubuntu.

aragon
Posts: 1698
Joined: Mon 15 Oct 2007, 12:18
Location: Germany

#211 Post by aragon »

hi Jejy69,

just tested this pup in virtualbox ... very nice!!!

aragon

swiftlinuxcreator
Posts: 20
Joined: Tue 07 Dec 2010, 15:18

LXDE vs. JWM

#212 Post by swiftlinuxcreator »

Jejy69:

How much heavier is LXDE than the JWM + ROX combo of the parent distro? I see that your LXDE derivative has an ISO size of just 137 MB, which is nearly the same as that of Wary Puppy. I was under the impression that LXDE is substantially heavier than JWM + ROX, just as Xfce is substantially heavier than LXDE, and GNOME/KDE is substantially heavier than Xfce.

I am the founder and lead developer of a Linux distro called Swift Linux. It was originally based on antiX Linux, but I have switched it to a Linux Mint Debian Edition base.

Although I haven't tried Lxpup yet (which I will do soon), you have made me consider changing the desktop of Swift Linux from IceWM + ROX pinboard to LXDE. You said that you chose LXDE because it's more user-friendly and more complete out-of-the-box than JWM is. I've been sticking to IceWM + ROX pinboard for Swift Linux simply because it's what antiX Linux uses.

The reason I never considered using LXDE until now is that I perceived it as being substantially heavier than IceWM + ROX pinboard. The biggest challenge for developing Swift Linux isn't RAM but the size of the ISO. One of the main selling points of Swift Linux is that it fits onto a CD. (LMDE is sized around 1.2 GB, so I have a LOT of chopping to do.) If switching to LXDE saves me much of the effort needed to polish IceWM + ROX pinboard while only adding a few MB to the size of the ISO file, the change would be well worth it. (I'm sure I can use the time I save to figure out what other packages I can safely cut.)

User avatar
Tman
Posts: 808
Joined: Sat 22 Jan 2011, 21:39
Location: Toronto

#213 Post by Tman »

Hi Swiftlinuxcreator,

I did try out one of your versions before, when I was distro-hopping .. it was nice, but I prefer good-old puppy :)

From my experience, you would only notice the difference in performance between LXDE and icewm in really old machines or modern-under-powered ones. When I say, really old, I mean low-end Pentium 3's or under.

If you're talking about "heavy" size-wise, Icewm starts off pretty light, but can get pretty big once you start adding on themes. Openbox themes, in contrast are usually smaller.

User avatar
Jejy69
Posts: 710
Joined: Thu 20 Jan 2011, 18:10
Location: Perpignan

#214 Post by Jejy69 »

Hello !

Nooby,

I am also sorry for my behavior, which is not good either ... I would cut short this mishap, and I hope to resume with a friendly understanding. Surely I had a bad week, and I would not stay on this problem ... :(
Thanks you.

User avatar
Jejy69
Posts: 710
Joined: Thu 20 Jan 2011, 18:10
Location: Perpignan

#215 Post by Jejy69 »

Aragon, thanks to try it, but above all thank 01Micko for the excellent Slacko base.

swiftlinuxcreator, ISO base (Slacko by 01Micko) is about 115mo. The desktop environment LXDE themes, including libs therefore add about 50MB in ram, either 22mo in compressed ISO. LXDE is obviously heavier than JWM. This is incontestable.
You said that you chose LXDE because it's more user-friendly and more complete out-of-the-box than JWM is.
I do not carry the word of the gospel, LXDE meets my expectations, I find it aesthetically pleasing, openbox themes are many, the bar is easily customizable, several plugins available.
At first, I was under windows, Ubuntu and then Antix Mepis :) , so I kept habits like right click on the desktop to change the wallpaper, copy and paste inter-windows, avoiding going through a lot of third party software to change the appearance.
The question really keeping with this kind of topic is: "What habits do I have?"
Many people like to have the menu by right-clicking on the desktop, so I can not really tell you what is best. I put only highlight its specificities. In fact, none is better than the other. They do what they must do to each of us according to our tastes, which is the strength of linux and uniqueness of the human race, all different, and it's great.
Well after I go into a frenzy philosophical .... :roll:
There is also a notion of update, Icewm for example is not developed to this day it seems.

I wish you good luck, may the force be with you. :)

Habits, choice, freedom...

swiftlinuxcreator
Posts: 20
Joined: Tue 07 Dec 2010, 15:18

LXDE vs. JWM

#216 Post by swiftlinuxcreator »

Jejy69 wrote:
swiftlinuxcreator, ISO base (Slacko by 01Micko) is about 115mo. The desktop environment LXDE themes, including libs therefore add about 50MB in ram, either 22mo in compressed ISO. LXDE is obviously heavier than JWM. This is incontestable.

I do not carry the word of the gospel, LXDE meets my expectations, I find it aesthetically pleasing, openbox themes are many, the bar is easily customizable, several plugins available.
Jejy69, thanks for the information. Exactly what do you add to Puppy Linux in order to create your Lxpup derivative? I understand that LXDE offers a number of different packages but doesn't actually require all of them and has fewer dependencies than Xfce, GNOME, and KDE. I'm suspecting that I can make LXDE more lightweight than most distros' implementations by skimping on the themes and backgrounds. (I've been doing this all along in Swift Linux. I just offer a few of the most basic backgrounds with small file sizes. I also cut out fancy themes that are less readable or take up excessive disk space.)

starhawk
Posts: 4906
Joined: Mon 22 Nov 2010, 06:04
Location: Everybody knows this is nowhere...

Re: Lxpup, multi desktop.

#217 Post by starhawk »

Jejy69 wrote:It runs well even on older computers produced in 1999, and it does not require 3D acceleration.
Well done! I'm staring at LXPup on my Dell Latitude CPi. 300MHz Pentium II CPU, 128mb RAM.

The sfs itself loads almost instantly on bootup, and it slows down a little after, but at desktop it tries to display 800x600 resolution (1024x768 screen -- large pixels are not pretty). xorgwizard fixed that.

Pmount (to apply the patch via USB) takes a very long time (1 minute or more) to load and mount/unmount devices. Pulling up the Puppy shutdown menu (restart x) takes at least 30 second to do its thing.

I'm impressed by the fact that it loads fast, but I am sad that it does not run fast. Still, to boot on this hardware is amazing.

nooby
Posts: 10369
Joined: Sun 29 Jun 2008, 19:05
Location: SwedenEurope

#218 Post by nooby »

Thanks Jejy69 I am so clumsy when I try to be funny.
I understand that my attempt misfired and I apology too.

I wish you all the best. As you see people like you here
so follow your inner drive and share your visions and
what your up to and hopefully the others share their takes too.

Computing should be fun and forget old grumpy men like Nooby :)
Nooby is a spoiled child kind of sort so I'm hopeless to satisfy.
I use Google Search on Puppy Forum
not an ideal solution though

User avatar
Eyes-Only
Posts: 1043
Joined: Thu 10 Aug 2006, 06:32
Location: La Confederation Abenaquaise

#219 Post by Eyes-Only »

Hi Starhawk,

How interesting... you've described exactly how my computer responds using Slacko - regardless of the desktop/window manager environment - and it is a Dell with a 2.4gig Celeron processor, 512megs of onboard RAM with 1.6gigs of swap! Starts up in a few seconds to the desktop but is excruciatingly slow to get anything else running afterwards to the point where after an hour or so of use ( if I can endure it that is! ) the entire system will freeze up and crash.

It makes no difference whether it's a hard drive or frugal install, nor the kernel version Micko has used. And this has persisted with every version of Slacko for me, plus anything based off from it.

This is why I had asked Jejy if he could port his amazing LXDE desktop system over to Precise-Pup as for some odd reason this machine has never had a problem running anything Debian/Ubuntu-based. Imagine my delight when he returned from his vacation and ported nearly every single one! 8) Ever since it's been like Christmas for this ol' boy! :D

So Starhawk, whilst you've had problems being unable to run Jejy's LXpup on that machine I'd be very curious to know your results from trying to run his version of "CheckMate Precise" also offered elsewhere in this section ( I believe? ). Between that and his "Mate Precise" desktop - from which I'm making this post now - they are both my "default Puppy desktops" as I switch back and forth between the two quite often throughout my computing session. :)

Good luck Starhawk!

Cheers/Amicalement,

Eyes-Only
"L'Peau-Rouge"
*~*~*~*~*~*
Proud user of LXpup and 3-Headed Dog. 8)
*~*~*~*~*~*

starhawk
Posts: 4906
Joined: Mon 22 Nov 2010, 06:04
Location: Everybody knows this is nowhere...

#220 Post by starhawk »

I'll try it. IIRC the thing that threw me with his GNOME-Precise was that somewhere between Slacko and Precise the timezone stuff changed and I couldn't find US-Eastern in the list. Amazing how frustrating little stuff like that can be!

...but I WILL try it.

BTW, the Dell CPi I have is from 1999 -- I'm 99% sure. It has a "Y2K compliant" sticker on the bottom!

Post Reply