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 Sat 30 Aug 2014, 00:48
All times are UTC - 4
 Forum index » Advanced Topics » Puppy Derivatives
A vote for a modular use of Puppy Linux
Moderators: Flash, JohnMurga
Post new topic   Reply to topic View previous topic :: View next topic
Page 3 of 11 [165 Posts]   Goto page: Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, ..., 9, 10, 11 Next
Author Message
RSH


Joined: 05 Sep 2011
Posts: 2420
Location: Germany

PostPosted: Mon 04 Nov 2013, 20:51    Post subject:  

starhawk wrote:
just objecting to an incorrect assumption

This would, could and possibly should be another point of discussion, since I did not meant poor people staying hungry in poor countries; I meant the fat German beer drinking soccer and car-racing fans, that would do each illegal (because of not paying taxes, which we do call "Schwarzarbeit") Job to get some money that weren't really needed. You'll find them in each and every more or less rich country. But again: please, do not start and/or continue any off topic discussion here.

@gcmartin

...puh, this is really a huge post (the first one of yours), and I don't know if I really do come through all of it - will try later, though.

mavrothal wrote:
They do not download to RAM or a destination that you define. So you can not use/test them on first boot.

Ok, I see now.

This is a good point, I did not thought about. My focus was on installing after downloading and getting the SFS Modules directly downloaded to install/boot directory.

Possibly a good option/feature to be added in my next edit of the SFS P.L.U.S.

Will mark this...

Quote:
BTW why would you use a layered file system for LazY if you do not want a save/working layer?

I'm not talking for a none-use of a save layer in general.

My point is to make Puppy extremely user friendly especially for Puppy Newcomers - which still I am. Just installing the OS and go - using the applications without any hassle...

A Newcomer in between would become familiar with the Puppy, in an easier way (imho) and this would prevent the Newcomer from leaving Puppy too quickly, because of all the known Puppy Linux issues.

gcmartin wrote:
How many of this thread have seen @TaZoC's Puppy's LightHouse64 "Mariner" version?
If you haven't seen it and you have a 64bit capable PC, you may want to take a moment;

I have read about LightHouse64 "Mariner" version, but I don't own a 64bit computer and so, I could not check it out.

Quote:
If so, @TaZoC's distro implementation, an over 2 year old implementation I might add, may have gone in a direction which is being discussed in this thread.

Pity, if so, as it seems to have done/executed nothing to the evolution of Puppy Linux.

Quote:
You be the Judge.

For what a Judge would be needed in this here case?

Are we executing any sort of OS-Race?

NO! This is not about my ... OS and/or to promote my ... OS!

simargl5 wrote:
Well, your suggestion about using modules is similar to how Slax works, it can load unlimited number of modules - they are called bundles, but actually they are same as sfs modules- and every program or library is provided only as sb bundle, so there is no installing packages in standard way, only activating and deactivating of bundles. Also, dependencies are resolved automatically.

mikeb wrote:
...inspired by SLAX 6

Why doesn't all this obviously good stuff/ideas have found its way into Puppy Linux and/or any Puppy Linux Derivative?

It could have me one saving a huge amount of time and therefor turning me one into a lucky owner of an Puppy Linux Operating System way much faster... Laughing

Quote:
Customise each machine easily.... just throw in whats needed for each situation.

Exactly!

_________________
LazY Puppy
RSH's DNA
SARA B.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message 
MochiMoppel


Joined: 26 Jan 2011
Posts: 367
Location: Japan

PostPosted: Mon 04 Nov 2013, 21:24    Post subject:  

RSH wrote:
Please, do have a look again into /etc/rc.d and you'll find 3 (three) rc.shutdown files.
As there are:
new-rc.shutdown
orig-rc.shutdown
rc.shutdown
I'm using this to switch a option to create a save file (if wanted), which is able to be switched on/off by LazY Puppy's Shutdown-GUI.
I used your shutdown GUI. I selected to reboot and I also selected the create save file option: The screen went black and the computer became unresponsive. Had to do a hard reset. Again my point: You replaced a perfectly usable standard solution with a ...OK, never mind.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message 
RSH


Joined: 05 Sep 2011
Posts: 2420
Location: Germany

PostPosted: Mon 04 Nov 2013, 22:10    Post subject:  

@MochiMoppel

Please, report bugs in LazY Puppy 2.0.2-005 EN version in its EN Forum.

Thanks!

Reply to this here reported by you, is in the LazY Puppy EN Forum.

_________________
LazY Puppy
RSH's DNA
SARA B.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message 
MochiMoppel


Joined: 26 Jan 2011
Posts: 367
Location: Japan

PostPosted: Mon 04 Nov 2013, 22:27    Post subject:  

I think you missed my point. It's not about the bug, it's about your goal. What do you want to achieve? You shun the current solution and try something different. Good. But how would this new solution, even if all bugs are fixed, be better than what we have now?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message 
RSH


Joined: 05 Sep 2011
Posts: 2420
Location: Germany

PostPosted: Mon 04 Nov 2013, 23:25    Post subject:  

MochiMoppel wrote:
I think you missed my point.

No!

You are missing the point!

MochiMoppel wrote:
It's not about the bug, it's about your goal.

Please, re-read again the title as well as my postings and replies, for that.

Quote:
What do you want to achieve?

I don't want to achieve anything, because obviously you can't really achieve anything in Puppy Linux - except for your own needs and your own build and used OS. If it was true, what gcmartin stated about Lighthouse Mariner, one would not need to take LazY Puppy for comparison.

There is always (too many?) people who don't want to change anything or another saying (similar): new ideas can not be realized in an old company. They always need to found a new company (or even community?).

MochiMoppel wrote:
You shun the current solution and try something different. Good. But how would this new solution, even if all bugs are fixed, be better than what we have now?

No!

I'm not talking of/about the
- non-use of a save file in general
- removing of save file functions
- replacing of save file functions by using my Personal Configuration and Data SFS Manager

I doubt this Personal Configuration and Data SFS Manager would have reached a point where it could be used for that and I'm convinced, we do have experts, who are able to solve/build such in a much more efficient way, as I did.

So, I'm just talking and voting for a modular use of applications (preferring SFS Modules) and Operating System. That's just all!

I just assumed, the used data -when comparing the Operating Systems in the first post,- would have made it clear.

And for such modular use I'm convinced of the concept - especially for Newcomers. Because it is so easy to just click a menu entry or desktop icon or whatever and getting the SFS loaded and its application executed immediately compared to load SFS Modules manually via sfs_load and/or to install PET packages stored somewhere over the HD drives etc.pp.

I'm able to use this currently in 10 different Operating Systems based on 6 different Puppies using kernels from 2.6.33-2 up to 3.2.5. All SFS Modules are stored in one directory from where the Operating Systems do load and use its applications. Some are made for a specific OS, but most of them do work in each of the Operating Systems.

And all I have to do is to create some RunScripts from the SFS Modules and to include them into a remastered OS.

Some statistical Data:

Files added to the OS (uncompressed sizes, LazY Puppy 4)

- in total: 15 MB (2383 files, 772 directories)

SFS Modules and Applications available for immediate use (GZ compressed sizes)

- in total: 6965 MB (427 files)

To compare: the above 15 MB added files are compressed to 1366 KB when creating a .tar.gz archive of the directory containing those 15 MB of files added to the OS.

If you want to check this for the applications in LazY Puppy2.0.2-005 (since we don't have any other OS for that) go check /root/.my-sfs-scripts.

Hopefully it is now clearly to be told, what am I talking about and what is meant by using terms like "modular", "modular use" and "modular concept".

_________________
LazY Puppy
RSH's DNA
SARA B.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message 
anikin

Joined: 10 May 2012
Posts: 460

PostPosted: Mon 04 Nov 2013, 23:28    Post subject:  

mavrothal wrote:
BTW why would you use a layered file system for LazY if you do not want a save/working layer?

This question has been bugging me for quite some time. I do not want/need this layer. I see it as redundant, as all my puppies run in pupmode=5 - no save file. Is there a way to remove it ... editing this part of init?
Code:
##########################LOADING PUPPY FILES###########################
RAMSIZE=`free | grep -o 'Mem: .*' | tr -s ' ' | cut -f 2 -d ' '` #total physical ram (less shared video). 110405
CRYPTO=""
STATUS=0

#decide the mount-points...
#unionfs layers:            RW (top)      RO1             RO2              PUPMODE
#full install, flash drive: tmpfs         PDEV1                            3
#First boot (or pfix=ram):  tmpfs                         pup_xxx.sfs      5
#pup_save is a partition:   PDEV1                         pup_xxx.sfs      6
#ditto, but flash drive:    tmpfs         PDEV1           pup_xxx.sfs      7
#Normal running puppy:      pup_save.3fs                  pup_xxx.sfs      12
#ditto, but flash drive:    tmpfs         pup_save.3fs    pup_xxx.sfs      13
#Multisession cd/dvd:       tmpfs         folders(tmpfs2) pup_xxx.sfs      77
CREATETMPFS="";CREATEPDEV1="";CREATEPUPXXXSFS="";CREATEPUPSAVE2FS="";CREATEFOLDERS=""
case $PUPMODE in #w003 changed some save-layer to 'ro+wh' so that whiteouts files are recognised...
 3)  CREATETMPFS="/pup_rw";CREATEPDEV1="/pup_ro1"
     OLDFILESMNTPT="/pup_ro1";NEWFILESMNTPT="/pup_ro1";UMNTMAIN="/pup_rw=rw:/pup_ro1=ro+wh";;
 5)  CREATETMPFS="/pup_rw";CREATEPUPXXXSFS="/pup_ro2"
     OLDFILESMNTPT="";NEWFILESMNTPT="/pup_ro2";UMNTMAIN="/pup_rw=rw:/pup_ro2=ro";;
 6)  CREATEPDEV1="/pup_rw";CREATEPUPXXXSFS="/pup_ro2"
     OLDFILESMNTPT="/pup_rw";NEWFILESMNTPT="/pup_ro2";UMNTMAIN="/pup_rw=rw:/pup_ro2=ro";;
 7)  CREATETMPFS="/pup_rw";CREATEPDEV1="/pup_ro1";CREATEPUPXXXSFS="/pup_ro2"
     OLDFILESMNTPT="/pup_ro1";NEWFILESMNTPT="/pup_ro2";UMNTMAIN="/pup_rw=rw:/pup_ro1=ro+wh:/pup_ro2=ro";;
 12) CREATEPUPSAVE2FS="/pup_rw";CREATEPUPXXXSFS="/pup_ro2"
     OLDFILESMNTPT="/pup_rw";NEWFILESMNTPT="/pup_ro2";UMNTMAIN="/pup_rw=rw:/pup_ro2=ro";;
 13) CREATETMPFS="/pup_rw";CREATEPUPSAVE2FS="/pup_ro1";CREATEPUPXXXSFS="/pup_ro2"
     OLDFILESMNTPT="/pup_ro1";NEWFILESMNTPT="/pup_ro2";UMNTMAIN="/pup_rw=rw:/pup_ro1=ro+wh:/pup_ro2=ro";;
 77) CREATETMPFS="/pup_rw";CREATEFOLDERS="/pup_ro1";CREATEPUPXXXSFS="/pup_ro2"
     OLDFILESMNTPT="/pup_ro1";NEWFILESMNTPT="/pup_ro2";UMNTMAIN="/pup_rw=rw:/pup_ro1=ro+wh:/pup_ro2=ro";;
 *)  RDSH="yes";; #precaution.
esac
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message 
sunburnt


Joined: 08 Jun 2005
Posts: 5016
Location: Arizona, U.S.A.

PostPosted: Mon 04 Nov 2013, 23:54    Post subject:  

mikeb; Good points as usual. It certainly precludes the idea of SFS`s with groups of apps.
SFS files that are large groups of apps. would fill up ram with unused apps.
And to have each app. a separate SFS file makes for many layers in the union.
Aufs will do this, but I hardly think it`s very efficient. However AppDirs don`t pose this problem.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message 
MochiMoppel


Joined: 26 Jan 2011
Posts: 367
Location: Japan

PostPosted: Tue 05 Nov 2013, 00:28    Post subject:  

RSH wrote:
Please, re-read again the title as well as my postings and replies, for that.
I can read. In case you didn't notice:There is nothing in the title or in your posts that answers my question. You linked the save file issue with the modular topic, not me - and I don't see why. For me this issue doesn't even belong here, but somehow it must be important for the creators of a "strictly modular" system, otherwise they wouldn't take so much care to avoid the current solution and you wouldn't have mentioned it in your very first sentence.
Quote:
I don't want to achieve anything
Then why take the trouble to change things?
Quote:
There is always (too many?) people who don't want to change anything or another saying (similar): new ideas can not be realized in an old company. They always need to found a new company (or even community?).
Carried away again? Wink If someone can't explain why something has to be changed, then I don't change. I'm still talking save file, not modular,OK?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message 
RSH


Joined: 05 Sep 2011
Posts: 2420
Location: Germany

PostPosted: Tue 05 Nov 2013, 01:03    Post subject:  

MochiMoppel wrote:
I'm still talking save file, not modular,OK?

Just do what you want. I don't care about. I can live with and without any of your decisions related to Puppy Linux.

Quote:
I can read. In case you didn't notice:There is nothing in the title or in your posts that answers my question. You linked the save file issue with the modular topic, not me - and I don't see why.

Obviously you can NOT read!

If you would be able to read -or better saying, to understand sense of what currently reading-, you would have noticed the following:

The link to the save file to sfs convertion thread (posted here) was not included because of it would be a main part of this here thread. It was a reply to nooby's question and I've stated:

Quote:
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 you would be able to read -or better saying, to understand sense of what to read at these two linked posts-, you would have noticed the following:

I did presented this as an existing idea, which I would like to give away, to be developed by a developer, who would be able to turn this into a really useful solution. Not as a replacement for the complete or even parts of the save file functions.

Quote:
... ... ... - and I don't see why.

To not to be offend, I will assume (as a positive to you): you must have been blind, that moment!

Quote:
For me this issue doesn't even belong here, but somehow it must be important for the creators of a "strictly modular" system, otherwise they wouldn't take so much care to avoid the current solution and you wouldn't have mentioned it in your very first sentence.

This first sentence was (markup added by me):
Me 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.

This is just the intro sentence and it is also just the truth. I don't use a save file at all. That's what I wanted to be made clear at first. To let the people know, that I'm able to use much more applications with the smallest Operating Systems (in Size) compared to any other Puppy Linux OS.

And again: those two links where just included to give nooby a reply how I do solve what he needs to be saved usually into a save file. I have also mentioned the option of doing a remaster.

Quote:
If I want such settings to be permanently in the OS, I'm just doing a remaster.

Why don't you complain about that?

Enough. I don't want to re-quote all of my postings and statements. Please, please: go away and stay away using save file and PET installs.

Thanks.

Sorry to all other people over here. The mean part follows right now!

Me wrote:
To compare: the above 15 MB added files are compressed to 1366 KB when creating a .tar.gz archive of the directory containing those 15 MB of files added to the OS.

This is a very good example for the differences of compressed and uncompressed sizes related to the previous question by MochiMoppel:
Quote:
What would be the benefit of scraping 30MB off a 160MB distro?


15 MB (uncompressed) * 1024 = 15,360 KB (uncompressed)

15,360 KB (uncompressed) : 1366 KB (compressed) = 11.244 (Factor)

---

30 MB (compressed) * 1024 = 30,720 KB (compressed)

30,720 KB (compressed) * 11.244 (Factor) = 345,415.68 KB (uncompressed)

345, 415.68 KB (uncompressed) : 1024 = 337,32 MB (uncompressed)

---

So, a 30 MB compressed file could even result (possibly) in 337 MB uncompressed files!

_________________
LazY Puppy
RSH's DNA
SARA B.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message 
mavrothal


Joined: 24 Aug 2009
Posts: 1602

PostPosted: Tue 05 Nov 2013, 02:07    Post subject:  

RSH wrote:

Why doesn't all this obviously good stuff/ideas have found its way into Puppy Linux and/or any Puppy Linux Derivative?


There are hundreds of Linux/GNU distros out there developed by smart and capable persons, because each one covers a slightly different niche.
Does not make any sense to try to turn distro A to distro B. Just use distro B "as is" or as "base" for your system if it is closer to your ideas. Otherwise you are in for a lot of frustration and rediscovering.
But then again, that's all the fun Razz

_________________
Kids all over the world go around with an XO laptop. They deserve one puppy (or many) too Very Happy
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message 
RSH


Joined: 05 Sep 2011
Posts: 2420
Location: Germany

PostPosted: Tue 05 Nov 2013, 03:10    Post subject:  

Hi.

For the misunderstandings that have come up here, I should have posted Information -now available at the second post- maybe much earlier.

So, just repeating: I have updated the second post of this here thread/topic.

Now hopefully anyone further interested and maybe here involved, will get a more "whole picture" of it.

Of course, anyone now will be able to check this out, using HIS FAVORITE PUPPY!

RSH

_________________
LazY Puppy
RSH's DNA
SARA B.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message 
MochiMoppel


Joined: 26 Jan 2011
Posts: 367
Location: Japan

PostPosted: Tue 05 Nov 2013, 05:20    Post subject:  

RSH wrote:
Me 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.

This is just the intro sentence and it is also just the truth. I don't use a save file at all.
That wouldn't be of any interest if you wouldn't continue
RSH wrote:
..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

Never explained "problems" with the save file are clearly one cause for you to vote for a modular Puppy. You praise Lazy as a modular system. Lazy makes it hard to create a save file. My only question: why? I don't know how much you are involved in Lazy and if you are the right person to give an answer. If not, just say so. Your personal tricks to save your settings are irrelevant, as are mine ( I also don't use save files ), but I'm genuinely interested to know how the creators of Lazy expect a normal user to do it. If it's a good solution, I will adopt it.
Quote:
Please, please: go away and stay away using save file and PET installs.
You should try harder to be respectful. I'm not a mosquito. I came here not for fun or to harass people but to get answers. Didn't work out.

Quote:
Sorry to all other people over here. The mean part follows right now
Can't hardly get any meaner...
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message 
mikeb


Joined: 23 Nov 2006
Posts: 8217

PostPosted: Tue 05 Nov 2013, 07:36    Post subject:  

Quote:
Why doesn't all this obviously good stuff/ideas have found its way into Puppy Linux and/or any Puppy Linux Derivative?

Well some do ... the file structure / layering of the puppy we know now follows the slax way , its just how its implemented that differs.
On the other hand see what's happening in this thread.... not exactly productive when good ideas are getting lost but this is pretty typical and note very little activity in this forum alone reaches the main puppy releases.
Quote:

Aufs will do this, but I hardly think it`s very efficient.

I suspect this notion comes from unionfs which slowed down considerably with only a few layers. I regularly have 20 to 40 sfs loaded by default and get no appreciable performance hit on pentium 3 machines which noticed the drag of the standard drive icons in puppy. I noticed mention of some problems with recent kernels and aufs ... not sure of the current situation as 2.6.33 is the newest I normally use.
I also have sfs as small as 200-300k in the set...one per app usually.
Quote:
This question has been bugging me for quite some time. I do not want/need this layer. I see it as redundant, as all my puppies run in pupmode=5 - no save file. Is there a way to remove it ... editing this part of init?

Drifting away here...but you have to have some form of read/write layer for the system to work. Not having a save file layer on the other hand I find beneficial.

mike
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message 
mikeb


Joined: 23 Nov 2006
Posts: 8217

PostPosted: Tue 05 Nov 2013, 07:37    Post subject:  

edit mail failure...
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message 
oldyeller


Joined: 15 Nov 2011
Posts: 779
Location: Mishawaka IN

PostPosted: Tue 05 Nov 2013, 10:29    Post subject:  

This all sounds good, but how does one go about doing this type of system? How would you link to a Appdir or load more than 6 SFS?

If you load by the menu when needing a program, does it unload when it is closed? Are the SFS done automatically for loading and unloading and no need for SFS-load on the fly?

I know that seaside has done stuff with SFS files before.

How does a Appdir work? Do you have scripts to open the apps that are in it? And does the same principle work for a Dir with SFS?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message 
Display posts from previous:   Sort by:   
Page 3 of 11 [165 Posts]   Goto page: Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, ..., 9, 10, 11 Next
Post new topic   Reply to topic View previous topic :: View next topic
 Forum index » Advanced Topics » Puppy Derivatives
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: 0.1575s ][ Queries: 13 (0.0194s) ][ GZIP on ]