A vote for a modular use of Puppy Linux

For talk and support relating specifically to Puppy derivatives
Post Reply
Message
Author
User avatar
RSH
Posts: 2397
Joined: Mon 05 Sep 2011, 14:21
Location: Germany

A vote for a modular use of Puppy Linux

#1 Post by RSH »

Hi.

As most of you already know, I'm using my several LazY Puppy Systems strictly modular and without the use of a save file.

In my humble opinion there is too many postings on the forum, about problems with the use of a save file (Help, my save file is filling up, can't use XXX after installing YYY etc.pp.) followed by lots of pages of instructions, how to "fix" such.

This is boring and of course it doesn't really help to make people willing and able to change from Windows (or any other Linux OS) to Puppy Linux and to become a Puppy Linux Newcomer.

That's why I want to make a vote for a modular use of Puppy Linux and to compare some (still available) Puppy Linux Operating Systems with some of my modular LazY Puppy Operating Systems.

I will use for this: Studio 1337, Vincent van Puppy and the Lucid 5.2.8 (no Plus, no Libre, just the basic version).

Non-Modular Operating Systems:

Studio 1337:

- ISO Size: 715 MB
- SFS Size: 376 MB (Main SFS)
- Applications: 91 (.desktop files in /usr/share/applications)
- Applications: 11 (inside the extra SFS, 333 MB)

Vincent van Puppy 3.9.9.2:

- ISO Size: 635 MB
- SFS Size: 628 MB
- Applications: 219 (.desktop files in /usr/share/applications)
- no extra SFS

Lucid 5.2.8:

- ISO Size: 130 MB
- SFS Size: 125 MB
- Applications: 178 (.desktop files in /usr/share/applications)
- no extra SFS


Modular Operating Systems:

LazY Puppy 2.0.2-005 WebVersion:

- ISO Size: 177 MB
- SFS Size: 172 MB
- Applications: 570 (.desktop files in /usr/share/applications)
- no extra SFS

LazY Puppy 4 (my current private Version):

- ISO Size: 130 MB
- SFS Size: 126 MB
- Applications: 823 (.desktop files in /usr/share/applications)
- no extra SFS

LazY Precise 1.5.6 (my current private Version):

- ISO Size: 225 MB
- SFS Size: 220 MB
- Applications: 580 (.desktop files in /usr/share/applications)
- no extra SFS

All Sizes of SFS Files are in GZ-Compression!

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

#2 Post by RSH »

Hi.

Since I've reserved this post for further information of "How to use" the modular concept, I'm suggesting herein...

...so, here are some of them (am still collecting)

How to build your personal SFS Puppy

- offers a script to download for manually editing
- offers also a detailed instruction of how to use this

How to add SFS files to a multisession CD/DVD?

- shows development of the script
- offers the script to download for manually editing
- latest version of script is at the end of this thread

SFS P.L.U.S. 2.0.5

- offers two versions of SFS P.L.U.S. (extracted from LazY Puppy for almost any other Puppy, except FatDog)
- offers lots of information for the use of this
- plus some (one or two) update files (please, read the thread carefully)

Modularity Package - was for testings only, now removed, is now SARA B.
- completely new written, based on the Ideas of SFS P.L.U.S. and RoxApp Builder
- needs and uses only what's already installed in a Puppy Linux

Skript by mikeb
- a small but useful script to load SFS Modules without the use of sfs_load
- ability to load SFS Modules on top of the pup_ro layers
- - as well as on top of the main layer
- - pretty cool (imho)

That's all for now ...

... but there's some more. Just need to search and to find...

If anyone finds something that might fit into the Modularity Concept, please post a link here, or send a PM. I will include such information into this post.

RSH
Last edited by RSH on Fri 17 Jan 2014, 21:10, edited 5 times in total.
[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
mikeb
Posts: 11297
Joined: Thu 23 Nov 2006, 13:56

#3 Post by mikeb »

Yo....

well one vote based on a pleasant reality :)

Even the save is a module.

Actually when a save is made I write the new one and if error = 0 it then replaces the old. Silly me should rename the old to .bak and then make the fresh one ...instant backup with no speed penalty.

Modular mini distros...a plan with no obvious major drawbacks that I have found....this will invite several posts I am sure :D

mike

User avatar
Moose On The Loose
Posts: 965
Joined: Thu 24 Feb 2011, 14:54

Re: A vote for a modular use of Puppy Linux

#4 Post by Moose On The Loose »

RSH wrote:Hi.

As most of you already know, I'm using my several LazY Puppy Systems strictly modular and without the use of a save file.
I am typing this from a full install of 528.

Making things modular and make them a lot more reliable if done correctly. Doing it wrong can lead the the problem of incompatible shared libraries and the like.

When we make a modular system, it would be nice if a lot of the modules could live on the CD so that network access is not needed to plug things in when needed. I see no reason that a largish number of SFS or pet files could not be on the CD.

Modules should be able to be plugged in when needed and unplugged when not needed.

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

#5 Post by starhawk »

[snip]
Vincent van Puppy 3.9.9.2
[snip]
I'm blown slam away! :D :D

Thanks, RSH! If I may ask, what made you choose my pudgy Pup for your experiments...?

Also: what the ___ did I do right this time? :P

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

#6 Post by oldyeller »

Hi RSH,
As most of you already know, I'm using my several LazY Puppy Systems strictly modular and without the use of a save file.
What do you mean by modular and how is this done? This is new to me, so explain!

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

#7 Post by RSH »

Moose On The Loose wrote:Doing it wrong can lead the the problem of incompatible shared libraries and the like.
Such would mostly be an (unsolvable) problem by using PET instead of SFS. Some of my LazY Puppy Systems have Jack Audio installed which conflicts with two of my VLC SFS Modules, because of different shared QT libraries.

My main LazY Puppy (4, 130 MB) doesn't have Jack Audio installed. So, I'm able to use each of the three VLC SFS Modules I do own - just have to choose one. At least I'm able to do so, after unloading the Jack Audio SFS.

Also I can use Openshot and KDenLive, which will never work, when both are installed - just have to choose one (and possibly unloading the conflicting one, which can be done automatically by the SFS P.L.U.S. RunScripts - just need to define once the conflicting SFS for that).

I have some SFS Module that needs different versions of QT, which then is defined as dependent SFS and loads automatically. I can use all of them - just need to choose one (and possibly unloading ... ... ... ).

You can't do such by using PET and -as far as I know- full installs.
starhawk wrote:If I may ask, what made you choose my pudgy Pup for your experiments...?

Also: what the ___ did I do right this time?
Like Studio 13.37, by its size, it was a good example, to show the difference of an OS with lots of huge applications installed, compared to an OS, that has just some RunScripts installed, to load SFS files and execute its application automatically.

I don't know, what you did "right this time", but I'm sure, you did nothing wrong with that Puppy.

Though, by using the modular concept, you could have been able to give a smaller OS to the users - including all Vincent-Work-Needed-Applications. This would have made users with less RAM computers able to use Vincent van Puppy as well. And those users surely don't need Libre Office installed when they just want to work on a picture using the GIMP.

Packages like Libre-Open-OrWhatElse-Office and/or Browser packages should not be installed by default, because: once you shut down the computer and rebooting it, there is a new version of the Office Suite or Browser package.
oldyeller wrote:What do you mean by modular and how is this done? This is new to me, so explain!
Modular just means: to use SFS files. Each SFS is a Module containing an application. Modular use means: load an application (its Module) only when needed to work with. Keeps the OS small and therefor offers a lot of free RAM for the application in use.

Why to have 150 MB Office Suite plus 30-40 MB Browser package installed, when just wanting to use the GIMP?
[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
inoxidabile
Posts: 148
Joined: Sat 13 Sep 2008, 12:37

#8 Post by inoxidabile »

Hi everybody!
I'm curious about this concept and the I'll try Lazy.
Sorry for this, but I would have just one question.
What will be the change in terms of stress on usb mem stick install?
I mean, I've seen a lot of suggestion and similar things to the aim of limit the useless read write cycle, so this absence of save file does change anything?
Once again, I apologize for the question if it will be too newbie :)

User avatar
MochiMoppel
Posts: 2084
Joined: Wed 26 Jan 2011, 09:06
Location: Japan

Re: A vote for a modular use of Puppy Linux

#9 Post by MochiMoppel »

RSH wrote:As most of you already know, I'm using my several LazY Puppy Systems strictly modular and without the use of a save file.
In my humble opinion there is too many postings on the forum, about problems with the use of a save file
My humble question: If having no save file is part of the "strictly modular" concept. then how and where are personal settings saved? I need the nag screen at startup (quick setup) only once, not every time I boot. When I choose one of the 3 window managers included in Lazy, I want Lazy to remember my choice. I want Lazy to remember preference setting I made to Gimp even after I unload the application. How do I do that without a save file?
inoxidabile wrote:What will be the change in terms of stress on usb mem stick install?
Less stress as nothing will be saved. Everything runs in RAM. I assume that depending on your use case you can even remove the stick like you can remove a live CD after booting.

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

#10 Post by sunburnt »

RSH states:
Modular just means: to use SFS files.
So the Save file is not needed for modularity as he`s running with no Save file.
But as mikeb states: The Save file is also a module.

# Suggestion: No-install apps. can overcome the library conflict problems.
And they can also contain the Save ( settings ) portion of an app., SFS can`t do this.
This way if you copy the app., the settings go with it and are not lost.
And no Save file is needed ( at least for the apps. ).

Strictly SFS files can`t completely overcome library conflicts as files overshadow each other..
And strictly Pet packages ( normal loose files ) can`t do anything about the problem.
But both of these package types can be "patched" to use unique libraries with a wrapper script.
At least SFS files don`t take up the Save file space like Pet packages do.

I downloaded Mint Linux at 900+ MB. WOW... What a waste of bandwidth.!
I use very little of what Puppy has in it, and some folks call it bloated.!

# I agree completely with RSH`s view that apps. should be Add/Remove modules.

# A small modular O.S. so the user gets exactly what he wants and no extra crap.
.

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

#11 Post by nooby »

Like MochiMoppel I also or me too need the OS to remember
that I use Swedish keyboard and that Stockholm is the time zone
and that the screen is 1024 x 768 whatever.

If i have no save file it would ask again and again each time I boot.
I use Google Search on Puppy Forum
not an ideal solution though

raffy
Posts: 4798
Joined: Wed 25 May 2005, 12:20
Location: Manila

base

#12 Post by raffy »

Thanks for this!

Is "modular" built on a base (or core)? I ask because there are three names listed in the original post.

Can we test one of these to fully grasp the implementation of "modular" (Lazy 4 will be good)?
Puppy user since Oct 2004. Want FreeOffice? [url=http://puppylinux.info/topic/freeoffice-2012-sfs]Get the sfs (English only)[/url].

User avatar
mavrothal
Posts: 3096
Joined: Mon 24 Aug 2009, 18:23

#13 Post by mavrothal »

As far as I can see the LayZ ISOs do not have any modules/applications so they must be downloaded to be used, which is OK I guess.
What I find less convenient is that module installation can not be done with "live" boots.
You may want to provide a really big ISO with the SFS extension included that will allow the "live" and also "off line" use of the OS. At least to go with the "no savefile" theme :wink:
== [url=http://www.catb.org/esr/faqs/smart-questions.html]Here is how to solve your[/url] [url=https://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~sgtatham/bugs.html]Linux problems fast[/url] ==

simargl5

#14 Post by simargl5 »

You can have both "strictly modular" AND use persistent changes at the same time... Like... SLAX

gcmartin

#15 Post by gcmartin »

Firstly, I want to begin by apologizing for I have NEVER installed a PUP on any storage media .... ever!. I have run primarily from Live media.

I fully understand what you propose. But, the world since I started using Puppyland distros has changed. Back then I had some tiny 1990s systems. Today, most of my hardware is pre-2006 PCs and a couple of old X2 desktop and 1 64bit Atom.

I do NOT have any PC with less than 1GB RAM. I am NOT the norm for this community, but, I can say that what you share about issues with savefile as you point out, I have missed many/most all of them.

The savefiles on the Live media are stored in a modular fashion.

Here's the dilemma
If you are a non-developer, Puppy Linux (and most every desktop distro) is the one for you, IMHO. As a user, I have no need for understanding of whether a system is modular or not. Most of us look for stability and functionality. I do not lift the covers to see whether my RAM is full or not as I run with a SWAP partition and allow Linux to spread its wings and manage its flight.

I had a FATDOG vintage 5xx that ran non-stop for over a year. I rarely if ever boot the systems I use for production. I have installed PETs and in most every case, I have NOT rebooted the running system to begin use. Further, no PET that I am aware of has produced a detrimental behavior in the system, even if I uninstall PETs for newer ones.

That being said, I think that as we discuss system design(s), we should discuss them in their merit. For example, in the many many years that I have been in IT corporations and in OS development design, we discuss, plan and implement a system design based upon the goals we set. I have worked with implementations that use rollin-rollout (this is what modular design systems do) as well as with systems which use subsystem that are ever-present. These approach are vastly different in thought and planned operations.

The value is NOT whether or not it is modular but whether it meets or exceeds objective. An objective must discuss and maybe demonstrate how its design selection resolves and addresses the functionality needed.

Over the past 40 years this has been an item of debate. But, each time, the intellectual of us have measured and shown corporations which of the findings best meet the results needed.

Modularity should NOT be an emotional discussion. Posting ISO sizes in an effort to show that it somehow has deprived functionality should not be an approach that we use to justify a directional movement. We can, though, discuss how to make successful modular implementations where a rollin-rollout system's operation will be a more beneficial approach to stable and responsive system operations versus any current method in use, today.

If the fact is that tools can be constructed to better assist problem determination is existent or easily achieved in a modular system design, than what exist currently, then this too can be a good point of interest for additional modular efforts.

Please understand that the audience for modular OS approaches is the Puppy developers. For us testers, we need some valid methods to measure to show the true merits of a modular design.

One other problem is when I've seen members post that because of an application's size, it is good or bad. When viewing this, I have sometimes seen where posting are structured to support the one element the user needed and as such disregard all/most of what the larger application may bring to the table for its users.

Further, most often times, I have seen the idea for modularity done at the application level. The internal operations of a full-on versus a modular application are vastly different. It is here where modularity really shines. Reason: All elements of the application need not be present until the user hits a selection for the functionality that the user needs. This is done with the knowledge that the user MUST wait while the appl manager does a rollin-rollout as necessary.

In an OS's operations, many of its subsystems are present, but sit idle until some system event wakes them. These RAM resident subsystems intend to give the system and the user(s) the greatest possible experience or the frequency of their use demands this, or ...

One other member of the Puppy community has been working with JamesBond on a system implementation where SFS would be expanded at startup time and the compression-decompression would never occur in system operations. This has merit in the systems performance. On most 64bit systems this is a non-issue because of the amount of RAM that usually comes with the system. Thus instead of RAM-Swap sitting around unused, this is how performance increases to the user can occur over and above a normal system operations. In cases like this, users would only see "lightning-fast" speed while not knowing what caused it. Nor would anyone care.

One of the primary reasons some of us use a fully feature PUP is that it negates the need to install anything for the utility functions we will use. For example, I don't use my office tools all the time. Since I don't, should I call them bloat because of that? If I like 98% of what's in a distro I select, should I write the author to tell him that the 2% is bloat (or any percentages)? I thnk you see the point. In my cases that 2% has not been seen to have any impact on my systems behavior. Its just NOT used.

For some, especially with the selections that Distrowatch provides us, we can choose any of the 100s of Linuxes which most nearly meet our needs. I can have a forensics or a PVR or a NAS or system for noting my musical score directly from an instrument, or a .... This, is just what the distro developers do for us in Puppyland. And for many users, here, we will use your distros because of the functionality it provides for the task(s) we need.

Is is hoped that there may be some value in this insight.

User avatar
mikeb
Posts: 11297
Joined: Thu 23 Nov 2006, 13:56

#16 Post by mikeb »

Wow ...said there would be lots of replies :)
Making things modular and make them a lot more reliable if done correctly. Doing it wrong can lead the the problem of incompatible shared libraries and the like.
I see this just as often with pets.... if the contents lack something the format is irrelavant. I also find I can make packages needing far less dependancies than the standard ubuntu ones so the idea is to be more puppy like too.

If i recall multisession cd can load sfs from the cd as standard.... not to ram unfortunately.

When I build a bumper slax cd I have many modules in an 'optional' folder which can be loaded at run time on the fly (puppy has the ability to do this since 2.16 by the way.)

Hi sunburnt... perhaps we meet on a less emotional thread. :)

As to a modular save that's my way...I am not 100% certain of RSH's method...perhaps a module of the first run settings as that would make sense so would work like a custom one machine remaster without the remaster.

Only problem with standard pups is the modules are layered in the wrong order...ie additions go underneath the main sfs... this is a bit of a pain for some applications that need to alter an original file or library. Also the number of loop devices is often limited but a kernel parameter can ovveride that.... that only leaves the dynamic creation of loop devices which is no problem.

so many posts to reply too...and cold fingers......
mike

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

#17 Post by RSH »

nooby wrote:Like MochiMoppel I also or me too need the OS to remember
that I use Swedish keyboard and that Stockholm is the time zone
and that the screen is 1024 x 768 whatever.

If i have no save file it would ask again and again each time I boot.
For such things needed to be done, I do use my Personal Data SFS and Configuration SFS Manager. It is described here and here.

If I want such settings to be permanently in the OS, I'm just doing a remaster.
inoxidabile wrote:What will be the change in terms of stress on usb mem stick install?
As MochiMoppel wrote: Less stress as nothing will be saved. Everything runs in RAM.
MochiMoppel wrote:I assume that depending on your use case you can even remove the stick like you can remove a live CD after booting.
No.

Once an SFS is loaded when X is running, the CD drive and/or USB flash drive will be locked by this SFS. To be able to remove CD or USB flash, the SFS needs to be loaded at boot up by boot options like the zdrv.sfs usually is loaded (when existing).

I can do such with each and every SFS just by submitting its name from a boot menu entry or console input.

There seems to be some differences between loading SFS at boot up and loading SFS by sfs_load.
mavrothal wrote:As far as I can see the LayZ ISOs do not have any modules/applications so they must be downloaded to be used, which is OK I guess.
Yes. They do download automatically when trying to execute an application by menu entry or desktop icon (do mount the boot drive first). Any dependent SFS (like JAVA, or Python will be downloaded as well - though, it should so).
What I find less convenient is that module installation can not be done with "live" boots.
Yes, it can not be saved to a CD - maybe using a CD-RW will work, but I did not test this. Of course it will take much longer than downloading to HD or USB flash.
You may want to provide a really big ISO with the SFS extension included that will allow the "live" and also "off line" use of the OS.
Yes, the ISO would be really BIG. In case of LazY Puppy 2.0.2-005 it will be somewhat around 4 to 5 GB.
raffy wrote:Is "modular" built on a base (or core)? I ask because there are three names listed in the original post.

Can we test one of these to fully grasp the implementation of "modular" (Lazy 4 will be good)?
For modular use I'm just downloading and booting a Puppy. Then loading my LazY Puppy SFS P.L.U.S. SFS via sfs_load and after this I am able to use almost all of my SFS Module based applications (depends on what libs are installed in the used OS).

My private version LazY Puppy 4 is not usable for non-DE users, but LazY Puppy 2.0.2-005 WebVersion already will show all of its possibilities.
[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
mavrothal
Posts: 3096
Joined: Mon 24 Aug 2009, 18:23

#18 Post by mavrothal »

RSH wrote:
What I find less convenient is that module installation can not be done with "live" boots.
Yes, it can not be saved to a CD - maybe using a CD-RW will work, but I did not test this.
No, what I mean is that you must install LazY before you use extensions.
They do not download to RAM or a destination that you define. So you can not use/test them on first boot.

BTW why would you use a layered file system for LazY if you do not want a save/working layer?
You may want to look ay Tinycore and their "on demand" system as well as and their self contained SCM extensions.
== [url=http://www.catb.org/esr/faqs/smart-questions.html]Here is how to solve your[/url] [url=https://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~sgtatham/bugs.html]Linux problems fast[/url] ==

User avatar
MochiMoppel
Posts: 2084
Joined: Wed 26 Jan 2011, 09:06
Location: Japan

#19 Post by MochiMoppel »

RSH wrote:For such things needed to be done, I do use my Personal Data SFS and Configuration SFS Manager. It is described here and here.
I've noticed that you even took the trouble to remove the save option from rc.shutdown. All this to prevent the use of a simple and pretty reliable save solution in favour of a undocumented private "solution"?
RSH (in his linked post) wrote:I mean, our whole life is modular. We live in modules, usually move by modules (a few exceptions are there), we are wearing modules, our daily work and activities is modular and also divided in a modular way. It leads directly to a modular use of Operating Systems and applications.
..and Linux is modular and Puppy is modular. Aren't you a bit carried away in your crusade for modularization? I appreciate your efforts and all the work and new ideas that went into Lazy Puppy and I understand your desire to promote this work (one of the reasons for this thread?), but frankly I don't see how basically merging the package list of the Package Manager into the menu makes it more modular than other Puppies. I remember (Lucid?) which didn't even came with a browser. Had to be selected, downloaded and installed. Not modular? Previous Puppies came with 2 window managers, now with only one, Lazy comes with 3. Which one is more modular? I have a collection of sfs and pet files on my HD, which I load when I need them, but I use something that you call a "Non-Modular Operating System". Does it make my system half-modular?

Puppy is tiny. What would be the benefit of scraping 30MB off a 160MB distro? I don't like all standard apps included in the distros, but they are good enough for a start and I would mind if I had to download and load all this stuff as modules. Whatever I need I can add, permanently or per session. As you pointed out: everything is modular. It's already here.

User avatar
mikeb
Posts: 11297
Joined: Thu 23 Nov 2006, 13:56

#20 Post by mikeb »

Once an SFS is loaded when X is running, the CD drive and/or USB flash drive will be locked by this SFS. To be able to remove CD or USB flash, the SFS needs to be loaded at boot up by boot options like the zdrv.sfs usually is loaded (when existing).

I can do such with each and every SFS just by submitting its name from a boot menu entry or console input.

There seems to be some differences between loading SFS at boot up and loading SFS by sfs_load.
Ok one sfs load script from puppy I looked at expanded the tmpfs and loaded the sfs to it like at boot IF there was enough space to do so...so remaining floating in ram is possible. If there is a lack of room then if the app is unloaded after use then the source medium could be removed then.

Adding modules to cd... isomaster would do it.

Puppy now has to have sfs choices set up in bootmanager .... the older method which I continued with is to flag sfs with a naming convention...eg _412.sfs .... so still works in say a pfix=ram run for compiling... a lost but to me better feature of puppy.

I keep the save options apart from the usb one as snapmerge is not ideal...instead an sfs is created (I did use tar but the initrd version was too flaky at the time) so usb sticks can be removed but the user effectively has all the usual features of a save file in a robust format.

As for the modular argument I did suggest before that all software could come as an sfs and the package manager would simply extract those for anyone using a convention save or a full install... so reducing the need for software in 2 forms..pet and sfs. That would also mean less space needed for the install process and less bandwidth.

mike

Post Reply