The world has changed

What features/apps/bugfixes needed in a future Puppy
Message
Author
Volhout
Posts: 547
Joined: Sun 28 Dec 2008, 08:41

#81 Post by Volhout »

jpeps wrote: Someone with basic linux skills would have already adapted the first five categories on their own, and have no need for #6.
Yep.... definitely no USER.

But I have to admit that I am hooked to puppy for reasons mentioned. And my wife is not. This thread is for her, and koulaxizis friends, and gcmartins friends, tazoc's friends, R-S-H's friends, and nameless others.

But I am currently exploring other distro's that combine speed and snappyness with decent set of applications to replace windows for her. Currently looking at LXLE (they created what "Lubuntu should have been"). But it is huge (1.3Gbyte). Pro is that it is LXLE's MAIN DISTRO, and therefore it is supported. LTS even. Lubuntu had similar problems (missing the killer apps), but someone had the courage to pick it up.
Last edited by Volhout on Fri 23 Aug 2013, 11:00, edited 1 time in total.

jpeps
Posts: 3179
Joined: Sat 31 May 2008, 19:00

#82 Post by jpeps »

Volhout wrote:
But I have to admit that I am hooked to puppy for reasons mentioned. And my wife is not. This thread is for her, and koulaxizis friends, and gcmartins friends, tazoc's friends, R-S-H's friends, and nameless others.
Yeah, and if your experience is anything like mine, they'll be looking to you to fix their windows computer. No problem getting them interested in an android device, though, but your wife will probably want you to install apps for her.

User avatar
L18L
Posts: 3479
Joined: Sat 19 Jun 2010, 18:56
Location: www.eussenheim.de/

#83 Post by L18L »

Volhout wrote:
jpeps wrote: Someone with basic linux skills would have already adapted the first five categories on their own, and have no need for #6.
Yep.... definitely no USER.
Who is USER :?:

Code: Select all

echo $USER
...and this puppy USER could remaster any puppy for the needs of his wife.
That's Puppy :wink:

User avatar
oldyeller
Posts: 889
Joined: Tue 15 Nov 2011, 14:26
Location: Alaska

#84 Post by oldyeller »

L18L wrote:
Volhout wrote:
jpeps wrote: Someone with basic linux skills would have already adapted the first five categories on their own, and have no need for #6.
Yep.... definitely no USER.
Who is USER :?:

Code: Select all

echo $USER
...and this puppy USER could remaster any puppy for the needs of his wife.
That's Puppy :wink:
That is what makes puppy-puppy anyone can produce a nice puplet if they put the time into it. I enjoy puppy the it is designed so that an individual could create his own master piece. It really does not matter if no one else likes it or not as long as that person is pleased.

Just as BarryK said puppy is the way it is because thats how he likes it.

Can't please everyone, someone will fine something wrong no matter what one does.

User avatar
sunburnt
Posts: 5090
Joined: Wed 08 Jun 2005, 23:11
Location: Arizona, U.S.A.

#85 Post by sunburnt »

Well said Volhout;
This thread is for her, and koulaxizis friends, and gcmartins friends, tazoc's friends, R-S-H's friends, and nameless others.
This speaks of the wider audience that cares, and has valid observations, ideas, and concerns.
So many Puppy users that are a part of the community, and shouldn`t be minimalized or ignored.
These people`s importance is that of any who are here, no matter what others may think of them.

User avatar
RSH
Posts: 2397
Joined: Mon 05 Sep 2011, 14:21
Location: Germany

#86 Post by RSH »

Hi.

Please, don't get confused. I just could re-activate my old RSH account.
sunburnt wrote:So many Puppy users that are a part of the community, and shouldn`t be minimalized or ignored.
Yes, this is especially true in the case of my work on the forum as well as of my work on LazY Puppy. Most of the time it has been a single German user who has made the testings as well as he did 'swallow' my 'treatments' on him while developing that whole bunch of ideas and programs.

Some might remember:

LazY Puppy 528-4, the first version ever, did already come with its SFS-Concept. It has loaded SFS-Suites (several programs in a category based/named sfs) directly by a script without to use sfs_load manually.

But:

It did not execute any application.

So, the basic idea, to refine the scripts to load the sfs first. and after that directly to execute the program was offered also by this single German user (incl. the LazY Puppy VarioMenu with hard work by himself and SFR)!

Meanwhile he did install it at his public school as main OS on 20 computers - Windows removed!

What I want to say, is: the problem is the goodness of Puppy Linux and Linux in general. The problem is on the developers side/hand.

The (Puppy Linux) developer decides what to do. If it doesn't fit into his needs he would probably not work on any suggestion made. Why should he care if it doesn't work for anyone else, as long as it works for him.

I did it and am still doing it that way!

And if I would be able to do all the things needed to be done, I would like to do the following:

- LazY Puppy architecture as the basic application handling (SFS-Concept)
- Restructuring the menu (Expert and User should be enough)
- Adding the ADRV-Concept for applications
- Adding the WDRV-Concept for Window Managers (so, the desktop sfs discussion would become real)
- Adding LazY Puppy's Personal Data SFS (this is not available in the 2.0.2-005 web version) (as mavrothal mentioned it is similar to something used in tiny core)

The above as a basic construction for each Puppy OS to produce.

Then there is some stuff in ArchPup (heard about it, did never checked) which is similar to some I did made over here for my private setup, like a file wherein are some settings defined for example like to set keyboard layout and/or path's etc.pp.

As far as I know ArchPup does this file somewhere in /root.

I do have this at boot partition, because my OS always knows its boot partition and boot directory. Using the above named file I do have directly access to files and directories at boot partition and directory inside a openbox menu pipe and am able to send them files to its related applications.

This is quite comfortable but might be too very special in front to reach/achieve common sense of a new/refined/changed development basement.

RSH (also known as R-S-H :wink: )
[b][url=http://lazy-puppy.weebly.com]LazY Puppy[/url][/b]
[b][url=http://rshs-dna.weebly.com]RSH's DNA[/url][/b]
[url=http://murga-linux.com/puppy/viewtopic.php?t=91422][b]SARA B.[/b][/url]

jpeps
Posts: 3179
Joined: Sat 31 May 2008, 19:00

#87 Post by jpeps »

sunburnt wrote: These people`s importance is that of any who are here, no matter what others may think of them.
You may be a little late to the party in saving them from Microsoft. Microsoft is trying to save itself. Computers now command only 15% share of connected internet devices, and is rapidly declining.

Don't despair, though. There are still other areas of technology like genetic engineering, 3D printing, self-driving cars, etc.

ahoppin
Posts: 172
Joined: Mon 16 May 2011, 04:13

#88 Post by ahoppin »

Distrowatch doesn't have a category for "light Linux," but as I type this, it lists Puppy as the #1 choice for "old computers."

Puppy must be doing something right! So what if the desktop looks a little old fashioned, like Windows 98 or 2000? I suspect that a lot of Puppy users would rather use their CPU cycles for running useful programs, not for making animated 3d icons and swooshing windows. That stuff is just "eye candy."

Personally, I *like* Puppy's vague whiff of chaos. I *like* seeing the range of different ideas that come from a diverse community of developers who aren't cat-herded into some corporate business plan.

Back when we had our choice of CP/M and MS-DOS on micros, the mantra was "pick your software, then your OS, then your hardware." We knew that it was the application software that made a computer a useful tool. That is still true today. Without a good list of useful programs, an OS is nothing.

A Puppy based on Ubuntu is fine. You can use Ubuntu's huge repository, though you might have to do a little tinkering with some of the programs. Debian would probably be just as good a base. Look around and you'll see that almost every independent developer has a binary for Ubuntu, and most have one for Debian. Slackware, I'm not so sure about - I haven't tried either Slackware or Slacko - but if it has enough software support, then it should be OK too.

Puppy has found a niche. It's an operating system for moderately knowledgable computer users who like a lean, clean, swift open source OS. It's for people who value substance over style. Many Pupsters may not want to compile their own kernels, but most probably don't mind (or might even enjoy) tinkering a little bit.

But if Puppy isn't the right Linux for you, there are hundreds of others! Go look on Distrowatch, search the web. Look at screenshots, read the forums, download them, try them. You'll find what makes you happy, I promise. Or make Puppy what you want it to be, and launch your own puplet. It's a big world out there.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying don't make suggestions. Some good ones have come up in this thread.

But as the Distrowatch ranking shows, many thousands of people like BK's vision of what Puppy should be. So, have fun with your custom puplet, feed it rich chow, make it as fat as you like. Share it with other Pupsters.

If enough of people like your puplet, fork it away from Puppy, and call it something else.

You may think you don't have the programming skills to do this, but it's not that difficult to learn them. You don't even have to learn C; most of what makes Puppy distinctive is shell scripts. Tinkering with Puppy is a great way to learn to write and modify them.

Who knows, maybe next year, your "Hungrywolf," or whatever you call it, will be #9 at Distrowatch, when Puppy is #10!

That's the right way to go about it. There's no need to fatten up BK's sleek little Puppy that so many people love.

User avatar
sunburnt
Posts: 5090
Joined: Wed 08 Jun 2005, 23:11
Location: Arizona, U.S.A.

#89 Post by sunburnt »

A simple observation and thought about Puppy in general.

If Puppy variants have the same base Puppy, then apps. will work for most all of them.
Change the base and the variant builder now has to provide special build apps. for it.
Ubuntu is going in new directions, maybe good, maybe not. But it`s a popular variant.

Most "changes" to any O.S. are the desktop environment and the users choice of apps.
So the focus is on making the apps. work very well in most of the desktop environments.
Standard Puppy is a combination of unrelated parts, making it a little difficult to deal with.
.

User avatar
Q5sys
Posts: 1105
Joined: Thu 11 Dec 2008, 19:49
Contact:

#90 Post by Q5sys »

sunburnt wrote:A simple observation and thought about Puppy in general.

If Puppy variants have the same base Puppy, then apps. will work for most all of them.
Change the base and the variant builder now has to provide special build apps. for it.
Ubuntu is going in new directions, maybe good, maybe not. But it`s a popular variant.

Most "changes" to any O.S. are the desktop environment and the users choice of apps.
So the focus is on making the apps. work very well in most of the desktop environments.
Standard Puppy is a combination of unrelated parts, making it a little difficult to deal with.
.
I'd be willing to argue that the most important part of base puppy is in fact its toolchain. Different apps built with different toolchains usually wont work too well together. There is some backwards compatibility, but its not always guaranteed.
While the Desktop Enviroment is the biggest change most users see, I'd say its less a matter when it comes to compatibility. Firefox doesnt depend on the DE, nor do most apps.
The problem is once you start any divergence from something, as you add more and more libs into the mix, it gets further away and thus less compatible. Version Skew with libraries are biggest headache with linux, when trying to make a application across different versions.

amigo
Posts: 2629
Joined: Mon 02 Apr 2007, 06:52

#91 Post by amigo »

"the most important part of base puppy is in fact its toolchain" -That! except that the real state of affairs is like this:"the most important part of base puppy *should be* its toolchain"

The only way to satisfy both Jack Spratt, who could eat no fat, & his wife, who could eat no lean, is to build a distro that is fully modular. Modular means building it and providing it based a certain 'unit' of software -most commonly called a 'package'.

Actually, even more important than the toolchain, which includes glibc, is the process of creating the toolchain and the packages of *each and every* program/group-of-programs which get included -either by default or as an option.

A clear understanding of what comprises a 'minimal system' is necessary and must really be defined. For my own distro, I define minimal as:
The software needed to boot succcessfully on local hardware (no network drives) and arrive at *console* login in multi-user mode. Period. Note that this means for a run-time system -think of what a linux 'appliance' might include. Such a system is comprised of about 50 packages of standard linux items. Because many standard programs are part of a collection from sources, the minimal system will already include many utilties which are not needed to boot to console login, but which are *expected to be present on any POSIX-conformant system*.

Now, the above run-time-only system is obviously not the default installation or even a real alternative -unless as an applicance. the above would not even include any archiving tools which would be needed in order to extend the system with optional packages. And, it certainly would not be able to reproduce itself -*which any full distro should be able to do*. So, if you add in a few archive-handlers like tar, gzip & Co, then add in the toolchain and all the stuff needed to reproduce itself, then you come to a much larger list of packages. But *the concept of 'minimal' must be kept as simple as possible* to have any value. (I saw a user ask for this one time: Just a minimal system with firefox and all the codes -which is very far from 'minimal')

For a developer which wants to create and maintain a distro, the above extended defintion of 'minimal' is the only place to start from -the smallest list of packages to comprise a system which can rebuild and extend itself.

A LiveCD is an example of an appliance -since it comes with a specific list of software which is not easily extendible within the context of a LiveCD. It is, apparently, tempting to 'construct' a one-time collection of programs, hacks(arbitrary modifications) and pre-made configuration files to constitute a releasable LiveCD (appliance), *but*, doing so means that the construction steps cannot be readily repeated or easily modified(to vary the choice of packages) -because this manual construction technique goes against the repeatability concept, and the arbitrary mix/matching of software goes against the modularity concept.

Of course, many here will argue about sfs files, mega-packages(which include dependencies from other sources), etc., But, these are also simply software packages. the differences are in how the software is deployed (made available for use). The problem with mega-packages or groups of programs which come from multiple sources, is that it destroy modularity and complicates the ability to upgrade a simgle package or whole system. And the problem with software which is temporarily available -as opposed to being 'installed', is that not all software can be deployed that way. There will always be a certain minimum that is really necessary in order to boot, login and be extendible.

Of course, the idea of including needed dependencies in the same package is tempting, but again, a very bad idea because it means you may have multiple copies of the same thing, or conflicting versions. This is where dependency-resolution comes in. It needs to be really, really good and that is a big problem -too big for this posting! This is where it is tempting to base your distro on someone else's packages. But, a LiveCD boots and operates very differently than an 'installed' system, so it does a lot of things in a different way -which means programs are used which must be compiled with different options than the package for the 'parent distro'. The more your system diverges from 'normal' systems, the more packages you'll need to supply -and critically, avoid the standard packages from the parent distro. This diminishes the utility of native dependency-resolution.

The above may explain some of why I so insist that a real distro must roll their own toolchain and create all their own packages -even if they use an already-existing package format and package-creation tools.

The most important element of building and maintaining a distro is the method/software used to create individual packages. Since package creation is the thing which consumes the most time (apart from testing and working out exactly which versions of what to include), the most effort must go into the *process* of creating packages. A 'remastering' script doesn't fit the bill as it completely ignores the concept of modularity.

User avatar
greengeek
Posts: 5789
Joined: Tue 20 Jul 2010, 09:34
Location: Republic of Novo Zelande

#92 Post by greengeek »

Given that those toolchain integrity parameters need to be satisfied somehow, and given that there would be different personal views on how best to satisfy them - is it even possible to make a start on such a project?

Does such a project already exist within puppydom?

Would such a project need BK to "buy-in"?

Is there a critical mass of suitably skilled persons who would be interested in trying to make such a project a reality? (including the difficulties of subjugating personal creativity and preferences to the direction and goals of the group...?)

User avatar
session
Posts: 89
Joined: Mon 07 Feb 2011, 23:11
Location: Valley of the Sun

#93 Post by session »

ahoppin wrote:Personally, I *like* Puppy's vague whiff of chaos. I *like* seeing the range of different ideas that come from a diverse community of developers who aren't cat-herded into some corporate business plan.
Well said, ahoppin. There are plenty of light distros out there, but Puppy's friendly hodge-podge aesthetic is one-of-a-kind. It forces new users to dig a little, but it never alienates them.
[color=green]Primary[/color] - Intel Pentium 4 2.40GHz, 571MB RAM, ATI Radeon 7000. Linux Mint 17 Qiana installed.
[color=blue]Secondary[/color] - Pentium 3 533MHz, 385MB RAM, ATI Rage 128 Pro ULTRA TF. Precise Puppy 5.7.1 Retro full install.

gcmartin

#94 Post by gcmartin »

Barry creates a distro which has tools and usefulness for a single PC user who wants to get to the LAN. The guys from "down-under" work closely in the generation of BOTH Precise distros that exist in the community. Stepping back for a second to look, one would think that Barry and Pemasu are one-in-the-same as how the technology shows for in the distros for its users.

Geoffrey, Elroy and RG66 have collaborated together to make Carolina a reality as they have taken a departure and have shown how it can be great user distro.

Kirk and JamesBond have collaborated toward a far-reaching effort to address both old and new 64bit BIOS architectures and boot techniques in the great FATDOG6+ distros.

There's even a collaboration afoot to help persons who have mobility and other disabilities to have distro versions which can address those user's need to use technology via a PUP (and tools which can be used in other PUPs).

These are examples of "some" (I'm sure I have missed other obvious efforts of collaboration) who have worked together sharing and cross-referencing their ideas as they have moved to accommodate user needs and user requests in tailoring distro contents.

When we see posts from @Greengeek, @Oldyeller, etc. it seems that they too have seen or see the value in a collaboration as a means to build a greater, thought-thru, system addressing the general needs of the systems users.

@Volhout started this thread under the heading that "The World has changed" and indeed, "it has". Since 2005, we have seen countless changes in the technology landscape as well as have witnessed increasing collaborations to address a base complement of tools viewed as desired by the community...generally. He also shares what some might call the collaboration between his wife and himself is adapting Puppy to their household needs, similar in what we seen from the several collaboration already mentioned.

There is very good ideas positioned in this thread on distro content and if a new distro approach is to surface, ideas are shared where the initiation of that base should begin and its control necessary for sustainability.

Today we are staring at hardware technology changes which are struggling to get out of the starting gate into a consistent singularity as it moves from what we know as the old (current for most of us) platform to the new platforms.

I have always been impressed at how the distro developers in this community have been able to address so much of the newness of what's happening for Puppy good. An example of this is the eforts we've seen from @BarryK, @Jamesbond, @Lobster, @Smokey01 and others in the work centering on the rise of the ARM processors. This advances as even the ARM platform itself morphs and the LInux community rushes to respond.

Yes, collaboration has already demonstrated to us, that it can work and it can produce healthy results.

I saw something, today, that spells a 2010 report I read about the "life-expectancy" of dial up as the Communications Networks worldwide move from the old circuit based implementation to the newer technologies of today that are IP (packet) based. The very first "major" Corporation to announce it is discontinuing dial-up is the UK's BT. So, where I considered the time-tables mentioned as aggressive, its looking like the paper is on target for the begin dates of wind-down. I guess the FaceBook founder also read it and has attracted much attention over the past weeks on those idea he has shared about publicly available internet based upon the current technology change. What this means is that the amount of data reaching users, homes,and vehicles is destined for very sharp increases....2-way. Our concerns about distro sizes, for example, doesn't have the same ring today, as it had in 2005.

The world HAS changed. Its not the same as it use to be and continues to advance. And, as I have seen it, Puppy has continued to advance along with it; not just the technology but also in the example we see in how we work together.

Here to help

User avatar
sunburnt
Posts: 5090
Joined: Wed 08 Jun 2005, 23:11
Location: Arizona, U.S.A.

#95 Post by sunburnt »

Q5sys; Correct of course. Ubuntu does a good job I`m sure of make their crap work.
So if a Puppy base is "all Ubuntu", then it should have a good chance for portable apps.
Ubuntu has a huge base of apps., and I`m sure it`s pretty well arranged for compatibility.
As long as the Puppy variant builder doesn`t decide to go off into the weeds, all is okay.

The desktop and above is just another app. more or less, until it comes to KDE and Gnome.
A desktop environment chooser gui`d be nice, it`d show the available SFSs and RoxApps.
Many desktops take a lot of space, so keeping them out of Puppy`s Save file`s a good idea.
.

rokytnji
Posts: 2262
Joined: Tue 20 Jan 2009, 15:54

The World Has Changed

#96 Post by rokytnji »

Not reading the whole thread, Just shoot me why don't cha. 8)

I approach Puppy Linux like if it was a SLackware Live cd Install (with some cool tricks included).
You get the base to start things off. You can compile and install what you want like in Slackware. Like Slackware. Dependency checking is your responsibility sometimes.

Sometimes some one takes pity on everyone and prebuilds something and posts about it.

You upgrade just like in Slackware unless you have a testing branch of browser.

The world may be changing but I bet Slackware aint. :wink:

I appreciate everyone and all builders on this forum. It is easy to talk the talk.
Harder to walk the walk. For all in one Puppy Iso. Look to

http://extonlinux.wordpress.com/?s=puppy

But, someone will find fault with anything . I guess, The worst thing you can do to someone is offer them something for free.

Edit: I am not pointing fingers or whatever. I know this thread was meant to see if things can be made easier on new users. Happy Happy Joy Joy. Problem is. I don't care I guess. Nobody held my hand through life after my nuts dropped.

User avatar
Karl Godt
Posts: 4199
Joined: Sun 20 Jun 2010, 13:52
Location: Kiel,Germany

#97 Post by Karl Godt »

But, someone will find fault with anything . I guess, The worst thing you can do to someone is offer them something for free.

Edit: I am not pointing fingers or whatever. I know this thread was meant to see if things can be made easier on new users. Happy Happy Joy Joy. Problem is. I don't care I guess. Nobody held my hand through life after my nuts dropped.
+1
:lol:

User avatar
sunburnt
Posts: 5090
Joined: Wed 08 Jun 2005, 23:11
Location: Arizona, U.S.A.

#98 Post by sunburnt »

From the Puppy community web site.
Linux is a free operating system, and Puppy Linux is a special build of Linux meant to make computing easy and fast.
This would seem to envision an on-going effort, but maybe not.
All observations are valid, and any desktop could be easier to use.

The real Q is, what could stand improving that would make the most difference?
Apps. that work for most Puppies comes to my mind. Ubuntu Puppy is this breed of dog.
.

User avatar
RSH
Posts: 2397
Joined: Mon 05 Sep 2011, 14:21
Location: Germany

#99 Post by RSH »

sunburnt wrote:From the Puppy community web site.
Linux is a free operating system, and Puppy Linux is a special build of Linux meant to make computing easy and fast.
This would seem to envision an on-going effort, but maybe not.
All observations are valid, and any desktop could be easier to use.

The real Q is, what could stand improving that would make the most difference?
Apps. that work for most Puppies comes to my mind. Ubuntu Puppy is this breed of dog..
By now seven (7) pages in this thread!

Looks like everyone is talking but only a few are really listening and understanding.

Talk: huge.
Theoretical effort: a lot.
Practical results: none.

As usual!

RSH
[b][url=http://lazy-puppy.weebly.com]LazY Puppy[/url][/b]
[b][url=http://rshs-dna.weebly.com]RSH's DNA[/url][/b]
[url=http://murga-linux.com/puppy/viewtopic.php?t=91422][b]SARA B.[/b][/url]

User avatar
Q5sys
Posts: 1105
Joined: Thu 11 Dec 2008, 19:49
Contact:

#100 Post by Q5sys »

sunburnt wrote:Q5sys; Correct of course. Ubuntu does a good job I`m sure of make their crap work.
So if a Puppy base is "all Ubuntu", then it should have a good chance for portable apps.
Ubuntu has a huge base of apps., and I`m sure it`s pretty well arranged for compatibility.
Ubuntu is also good at F'n things up by changing things all the time. That's were a distro like Debian or Slackware are a better choice. If you don't want to reinvent the whee every 6 months, use a distro that provides LOOOOOONNNNNGGGGG Time support and is know for Stability.
Debian and Slackware have just as many applications as Ubuntu if not more.

I just find it ironic that the people that want a long term stable puppy release always want to go wth ubuntu which is not as stable as others. I guess some people are confusing 'stable' with 'noob friendly'

Post Reply