Criticism of woof-CE and of the people involved in it.

[Karl Godt]

PostPosted: Today, at 00:27 Post subject: Reply with quote
darry1966 wrote:
Ok lets cut to the chase the older Pups namely in this case 5.11 Lucid never included this Icanzahip stuff in ipfinfo and worked without said feature as seen in this scrot. So the question is why is it needed in the new ones?????

You may want to look at line 21 of the /usr/sbin/ipinfo in luci-511 Wink

Ipinfo is actually in all the puppies since 2009, always querying icanhazip for the external IP. However, all the old puppies (till a couple of years back) never offer the option to inactivate this step.
As jamesbond explained above, there is no way to get that info unless you actually connect (not ping) somewhere.

Thank you Mathrothal and MochiMoppel for the clarifications. I shall look at line 21.

Can not confirm that ipinfo script was in Puppy 4.3 in year 2009 . Even lucid-218 as testing iso for lupu-511 did not include ipinfo in northern hemisphere autumn 2010 .

ipinfo should have its own thread here somewhere on murga-linux.com/puppy .

[darry1966]

I can confirm that Icanzahip was in Luci on the line suggested, I changed it to Startpage. Is there any other changes required to change ping setting?

[stemsee]

...because learning from him is to learn by mistakes!

"If it doesn't kill you it makes you stronger!"

[mavrothal]

I can confirm that Icanzahip was in Luci on the line suggested, I changed it to Startpage. Is there any other changes required to change ping setting?

Startpage can not provide this functionality ie inform you of the external IP.
http://www.icanhazip.com is specifically designed to return your external IP on an http request (click on the link and see what your browser will show )
You can also see that unless you use a static IP, this is NOT the IP that your machine has, but an IP from the range your ISP owns...

[eric52]

I misunderstood. This is a legacy of PONG.

[bigpup]

I hope everyone understands, that anytime you access the Internet, you are doing exactly what is done by pinging.
You are just adding to the information, sent and what you are asking to be sent to you.

The ping program will send a 'ping' (actually an ICMP (Internet Control Message Protocol) echo request message) to the named computer. The pinged computer will respond with a reply. The ping program will count the time expired until the reply comes back (if it does). Also, if you enter a domain name (i.e. www.yahoo.com) instead of an IP address, ping will resolve the domain name and display the computer's IP address.

To view a web page from your browser, the following sequence happens:

You either type an address (URL) into your "Address Bar" or click on a hyperlink.
Your browser sends a request to your ISP server asking for the page.
Your ISP server looks in a huge database of internet addresses and finds the exact host server which houses the website in question, then sends that host server a request for the page.
The host server sends the requested page to your ISP server.
Your ISP sends the page to your browser and you see it displayed on your screen.

[anikin]

jamesbond,

Does FatDog have these or similar pinging scripts? If it does, what destinations do they ping and when?

[gcmartin]

A decade and a half, prior to Puppy Linux, this discussion is IDENTICAL! There were some who felt that use on the LAN was detrimental to PC users and security. A decade later, WIfi becomes affordable and same discussion erupts from vocals. Then it seemingly hits Puppy Linux ever so often, now.

Again, I must reiterate that a policy statement need be made OR a blanket Pre-FirstRUN screen is ONE way to minimize this discussion (as I am certain, it wont stop it).

If you've ever been in a corporate security meeting, histeria is there as well over exposure and information sensitivity. This is why they publish policy documents....and its different depending on which company you go to.

No matter how much evidence is provided to show safety, it wont address everyone. But, if there is a clickable Preamble to FirstRUN, it certainly paves the way for every user to have an helpful understanding.

Greatest problem we all face in the ever changing landscape of the technology we use for home benefit.

IMHO, everyone of us should be aware that we exist and use home devices that allow us access to additional information BOTH IN AND OUT OF THE HOME! This is not 1982 when a PC was a single autonomous system which may/may not have a modem. That was the horse&buggy days before we stepped into the jets our PCs are today.

No user, in today's world, should be a network administrator in order to use their system, whether handheld or stationary,

We already have Linux distros and PUPs that can do that if anyone desires. These distros are built and hardened for a specific community of users, many of which are aimed for knowledgeable users.

But to expect that a "General Use" system is to be hardened requiring a masterful or LAN administrator to open it for use may not meet an agenda that would be generally desired.

I didnt come to Puppyland because it cannot see or ping outside of my house. I came expecting that it does this Out-Of-The-Box (OOTB). ... like my MACs...like my other OSes ... like my smartPhones...like my TVs...like my ...

Puppy Linux, to my knowledge in my decade of use, has not demonstrated to have exposed ANY sensitive data outside of my home because of its design(s). No one, as far as I know, has shown a pathway in how PUPPY does things, for a vehicle outside of the home to locate and harvest data from a PUP because of this debated design over the decade.

Unless there surfaces a real threat that has been exposed which has been concretely shown, this discussion, like all similar ones of the decades before, might not bring exposure.

[jamesbond]

jamesbond,

Does FatDog have these or similar pinging scripts? If it does, what destinations do they ping and when?

Haha, I know where you're aiming at
Here's my answer which I think you already guess (I will bold it so it is easy for others to see): No pinging scripts in Fatdog, as far as I can recall.

But before you say "Look, I rest my case - even Mr. Bond does not walk his talk - so why should we listen to his trash talking!", please consider this: A lot of other stuff in Puppy are also missing in Fatdog. No comprehensive FirstRun (in fact, I resisted this for years). No built-in Samba4. Fatdog's on-the-fly SFS loader is much simplified and spartan. Different choices of applications, window managers. Different network manager (wpa-gui). Different OS installers (not PUI). Fatdog runs in frugal only. Initrd is totally re-written; totally different command line parameters. Core applications are re-written too. And many others.

All these lead to this: Fatdog's target audience is different from Puppy. And in fact, if you've been in Fatdog thread long enough, you'll see people complain that Fatdog is not user-friendly; well at least not as friendly as Puppy. Some potential Fatdog users were turned off because of these convenient features that they know and love from Puppy are missing (I'm not talking specifically about the pinging, but Puppy features in general). This is not my guess: there are explicit posts comparing Fatdog to Lupu and the author decided to go with Lupu for that reason.

But I have no problem with that, because, as written in its blurb:

Fatdog64 Linux is a small yet versatile 64-bit multi-user Linux distribution. Originally created as a "fatter" (=more built-in applications) derivative of Puppy Linux, Fatdog has grown to become an independent, mature 64-bit Linux distribution while still keeping true to Puppy Linux spirit: small, fast and efficient.

As you can see, "user-friendly" or "for Windows-refugee" is not mentioned, as Fatdog was never specifically targeted for those. When Fatdog first went 64-bit in 2009, its target system was a high-end enough system that it is unlikely to become the OS of choice for those who are just trying to dip their foot in the Linux waters using secondary or older machines.
___________________________________________

Puppy on the other hand is a completely different beast. Puppy *is* meant to be the OS of choice for "Windows-refugee"; it is targeted towards users who are long-time Windows users but their machines are left behind by newer Windows that they don't have a choice other than to migrate to a different OS. This kind of use case calls for priority in user-friendliness and ease-of-use. As an example, one of Puppy's specialty is is "wizards"; to help beginners and newbies climb comfortably through the steep learning-curve of Unix-like OS. It attempts to help the user as much as possible; trying to avoid situations that a beginner may encounter, but can't solve (e.g: can't connect to the Internet, and suggestion is to "search google" --- well, if you can't connect to the Internet, how can you google???, etc).

I am not Puppy builder. There is a reason for that: other than the fact that I don't have time to juggle too many projects; I also actively avoid to become a Puppy builder for a simple reason: I have a strong bias for Fatdog. If you let me drive Puppy development, it will at the end turn into a Fatdog It would be horrible thing if it ever happens, don't you agree?

That being said, I have a lot of respect for Puppy builders - both independent builders and those who have chosen to pool their efforts at Woof-CE; both full-fledged Puppy builders or people who contribute packages, patches, apps, translations, wallpapers, icons, github gatekeepers, new radical ideas, infrastructure providers (repos, websites, downloads), website admins, etc (you know who you are). They keep Puppy alive, and grow, sometimes taken unexpected path. I don't have to agree with or even like their decisions, but I retain my respect: I was once Puppy user too; and I experience firsthand the diversity of ideas that lays scattered around Puppy root (in fact, Fatdog is but one of the outgrowths).

With that, I can understand the motivation behind the inclusion of the pinging and connection testing etc that goes into Woof-CE; and thus my repeated conclusion - decisions have to be made, and in the end we can't make everybody happy. Some decisions that kirk and I made for Fatdog definitely makes some users unhappy and drives them away.

______________________________________

If you read all my posts in this thread, all I did was to try to explain why certain actions are done they way they are - from my arm's length view of an observer. Not a Puppy builder myself, I can never say it should or should not be done. That's up to the developers, the builders, those who do the actual heavy-lifting, who spend hours debugging and fixing and perfecting and polishing the OS; and it is their choice to either listen to me, to you, to someone else, or to nobody at all.

Let me give you an example. You may or may not be aware of my effort to re-juvenate Woof-CE by creating a new experimental branch called "woof-next" last year. The main radical idea in this branch are two folds:
a) you can build puppy in minutes instead of hours (at that time - the discrepancy in duration has since been reduced thanks to Iguleder's work)
b) it uses the parent distro's native package manager instead of PPM.
==> both addressing the two most commonly aired issue about Woof-CE and Puppy at that time.

I aired the idea, but there were no takers.

So what the heck, I said to myself. I started coding it myself, and when it's usable, I forked off "testing" branch of Woof-CE and created the "woof-next" branch. I brought it up to a working state (=boot to graphical desktop and wired networking), but I stopped there - because I don't want to become a Puppy builder for reasons I already said above. I hoped and expected seasoned and not-so-seasoned Puppy builders to take the torch from me and grow it to the point that it could build *real* Puppy.

It did not happen.

Was I disappointed? Yes.
Was I discouraged? No.
Will I do it again if I feel it is needed? Of course.
So what did I do? I retired the project.
If suddenly people are interested in woof-next, will I resume the project? Well why not.

That is just the nature of community development. Sometimes things don't turn out the way we want. I obviously think my woof-next idea is better than the current way of Puppy development but I'm not doing the thinking for 01micko or iguleder or mavrothal etc - they all have different ideas of what's best for Puppy; based on their view of the world and based on feedback they hear from here. They can think too, and they are allowed to hold a different opinion from mine - and the Puppy they produce reflects their consideration.

If I were you, and I am trying to change direction of Puppy's development, I will attempt to convince these people why I should be heard and why my idea is worth considering. I may even submit patches and codes and apps. But again, at the end of day, despite all my efforts, it could be that they decide to do something against my recommendation or suggestion or requests; because - well, decisions to be made - because I'm not the only one with visions and I'm not the only one affected if Puppy direction changes.

A community development is one of a compromise - and a compromise can go both ways. Don't be discouraged when it seems that your suggestion goes nowhere. Chances are, with a community as diverse as Puppy, there will be one who listens and shares your concern/goals; and will produce a puplet that is close to your needs. I've recommended Puli in my previous post; it looks like it is a very privacy- and security- oriented Puppy that may be suitable for you. Will its features ever go to mainstream Puppy? I doubt it - but it isn't necessary for Puli to be useful.

And, that, my friend, is the beauty of Puppy Linux; and why we want to keep it alive for all to share and enjoy.

[anikin]

... Haha, I know where you're aiming at
Here's my answer which I think you already guess (I will bold it so it is easy for others to see): No pinging scripts in Fatdog, as far as I can recall.

Yup ... that was a little ambush plan of mine

Thanks, jamesbond, very nicely written!

I do really hope that bold part above will not escape the attention of this community!

If you folks don't mind, I'd like to bring you back to my earlier post, that for some reason went unnoticed. Any objections, or maybe alternatives to that proposal?
http://murga-linux.com/puppy/viewtopic. ... 714#874714

[01micko]

Ok, we can put 'pinging issue' (or non-issue, depends on your perspective) to bed once and for all.

Code: Select all

#!/bin/sh

# designed to disable pings if wanted

# first test for /etc/resolv.conf
# this only says that you have a connection to a network.

func_resolv() {
	grep -q 'nameserver' /etc/resolv.conf 2>&1 >/dev/null #noisy if it fails
	ret=$?
	return $ret
}

# second test to ping URL
# this tests internet connectivity and DNS resolution.
func_ping() {
	ping -4 -w10 -q -c1 duckduckgo.com #dies after 10 seconds
	ret=$?
	return $ret
}

# if '.nopings' exists in user's home then we only test for local network
# which may or may not be an active internet connection
if [ -f "$HOME/.nopings" ];then
	func_resolv
	status=$?
	exit $status
else
	func_resolv
	status=$?
	if [ "$status" = '0' ];then
		func_ping
		ping_status=$?
		exit $ping_status
	else
		exit $status
	fi
fi
 
  

Simply test the exit value. If its not zero then no connection.

Call it "con_test" or something and all scripts that check connectivity can call it. A checkbox in firstrun to create '.nopings' could be added.

[jlst]

I think the best way to get it working is a Mailing List, but an active one.

THe GitHub page should contain links to useful information, such as:
1) How to contribute
- guides

2) Versions (needed for the scripts in woof to work properly)
- bash 4
- yad 25
- cdrtools 3.01a30
etc

3) TODO

So everything is clear, and everyone knows what to do

There is something missing, people to send patches, people to comment, people to ..

If you have write access, you read the forums, you understand there is a patch, a solution somewhere... you don't have to wait to apply it, nobody is going to tell you "I need to merge this into woof ce". Unless they explicitely tell you "I don't want this in woof ce, it's mine it's mine", then there should no problem..

[Ibidem]

There are several tests of connection:
(a) is there an interface up? (ifconfig)
(b) is it configured? (ifconfig)
(c) is there a route from the system? (route)
(d) is DNS working? (nslookup/dig)
(e) is there a working route to and from some specific host? (ping)
(f) does regular traffic to and from a specific host work? (wget)

If you want to test whether there's an internet connection, use nslookup.
If you want to test whether a specific destination is up, use ping, wget, or such.

[slavvo67]

My biggest criticism is the criticism. Helpful suggestions would be a more proper title. I think some of the people working on Woof-CE walked away because of the "Criticisms."

[jamesbond]

My biggest criticism is the criticism. Helpful suggestions would be a more proper title. I think some of the people working on Woof-CE walked away because of the "Criticisms."

For helpful suggestions, there is already such a thread, although, the title may be misleading: woof-CE needs you.

The problem is, whatever you do, you can never please everyone. Each of us have our own pet concerns; which we like to be addressed in our *particular* way of thinking, or else ... and that's what this thread for.

The presence of this thread to let everyone know that Woof-CE and the people who are behind are open to all sort of feedbacks. Everyone are encouraged to vent their spleen about Woof-CE here. Of course we are not expecting personal insults or trolling; but any genuine concerns are welcome here. Hopefully conveyed in a civil way.

That being said, whether those concerns will be addressed or not - that totally depends (on many factors). At the end of the day, the "C" in Woof-CE stands for "Community". And that "community" is you. Things will happen if you make things happen.

[slavvo67]

Here here....

We don't chat much but I respect your work James.

Kind regards,

Slavvo67

[Smithy]

No criticism here, just a couple of points.
Is the .flsynclient fixed so that one doesn't get a "dead" tap pad on a lappy with a fresh boot on any Puppy?
Quite embarrasing when one boots up and the prospective newbie has to tab around and hit enter.
Recently seen on the new Slim Slacko with Thunar. Maybe just that one?
Correct Parameter settings: (I think this will get the tap working on boot).

Code: Select all

 LeftEdge                = 1287
    RightEdge               = 5924
    TopEdge                 = 981
    BottomEdge              = 5009
    FingerLow               = 20
    FingerHigh              = 20
    FingerPress             = 255
    MaxTapTime              = 180
    MaxTapMove              = 220
    MaxDoubleTapTime        = 180
    SingleTapTimeout        = 180
    ClickTime               = 100
    FastTaps                = 0
    EmulateMidButtonTime    = 75
    EmulateTwoFingerMinZ    = 280
    EmulateTwoFingerMinW    = 6
    VertScrollDelta         = 100
    HorizScrollDelta        = 116
    VertEdgeScroll          = 1
    HorizEdgeScroll         = 0
    CornerCoasting          = 0
    VertTwoFingerScroll     = 0
    HorizTwoFingerScroll    = 0
    MinSpeed                = 2.25
    MaxSpeed                = 3
    AccelFactor             = 0.003
    TrackstickSpeed         = 40
    EdgeMotionMinZ          = 29
    EdgeMotionMaxZ          = 159
    EdgeMotionMinSpeed      = 1
    EdgeMotionMaxSpeed      = 466
    EdgeMotionUseAlways     = 0
    TouchpadOff             = 0
    LockedDrags             = 0
    LockedDragTimeout       = 5000
    RTCornerButton          = 2
    RBCornerButton          = 3
    LTCornerButton          = 0
    LBCornerButton          = 0
    TapButton1              = 1
    TapButton2              = 3
    TapButton3              = 2
    ClickFinger1            = 1
    ClickFinger2            = 1
    ClickFinger3            = 2
    CircularScrolling       = 0
    CircScrollDelta         = 0.1
    CircScrollTrigger       = 0
    CircularPad             = 0
    PalmDetect              = 0
    PalmMinWidth            = 9
    PalmMinZ                = 199
    CoastingSpeed           = 0
    CoastingFriction        = 50
    PressureMotionMinZ      = 29
    PressureMotionMaxZ      = 159
    PressureMotionMinFactor = 1
    PressureMotionMaxFactor = 1
    GrabEventDevice         = 1
    TapAndDragGesture       = 1
    AreaLeftEdge            = 0
    AreaRightEdge           = 0
    AreaTopEdge             = 0
    AreaBottomEdge          = 0
    HorizHysteresis         = 29
    VertHysteresis          = 29
    ClickPad                = 0

And the hard drive or usb stick "stuck on", should release all drives at boot.
Tahr and a few others with that problem. Pup volume monitor maybe?
Not sure how woof works but some kind of template is in action presumably.

[jlst]

Smithy that file is now in woofce. https://github.com/puppylinux-woof-CE/w ... eaf4ab770d

If this does not cause "side effects", it will stay there..

Puppy is meant to just work out of the box, so basically any ideas/patches are welcome.. if you want some privacy pm me...

[Sailor Enceladus]

No criticism here, just a couple of points.
Is the .flsynclient fixed so that one doesn't get a "dead" tap pad on a lappy with a fresh boot on any Puppy?
Quite embarrasing when one boots up and the prospective newbie has to tab around and hit enter.
Recently seen on the new Slim Slacko with Thunar. Maybe just that one?

Do you mean "dead" as in "tap to click" is off, or as in it doesn't move also? I think all Slackos have "tap to click" off by default (for me anyway), and Tahr (maybe just the older ones?) has it on by default. I personally find tap to click annoying and always turn it off, I guess if you have one of those newer (cheaper) trackpads with no real buttons it might make sense to have it on there (they have fake buttons too right?). The debate about if trackpad "tap to click" should be on could get messy I think.

I'll test the newest X-Slacko Thunar derivative by mistfire but from the ones I've tried, the trackpad worked for me as expected.

[Smithy]

@jist and sailor:
.flsynclient It's been a file that I have had for a long time in root and it has fixed that niggly problem for years.
I recently was helping a friend with his MSI Wind and loaded up the very nice Slim Slacko and that rotten problem occured.
I didn't have the file to throw in root, so we just broke out the bloody beers instead. Problem solved. And then he went back to windows.

Now the MSI Wind is quite an old lappy, so possibly things have moved on with touchpads.
So whether that commit is a sensible idea or not I don't know.

That's the trouble and I empathise with the woof guys, i.e
Unless the manufacturers are going to send any new computer offerings to be evaluated by the Puppy guys, (which is what happens in an alternative universe where Windows is an obscure but cute operating system) it would be quite difficult to hit a fully functioning bullseye with Puppy.

I would think a few people using Puppy may have a shiny newish laptop, so they could report on that aspect, if the file works as a basis that's cool.

Sailor, yes the cursor moves around but no taps available.

It is a fundamental basic, along with not having to select your video and location, time zone with questions, questions.
Straight to the desktop like the slackos used to do, mostly, with a few caveats.
Very cleverly, Micko managed to get the video detected and load up automatically.
Set all that stuff afterwards, no welcome crap (I would prefer a message saying go back to windows you fool), connection options, it's all in the menus or on the taskbar. Network, firewall, audio.
No extra logout/question, do this/question, all these extra clicks are tedious.

And have crept in over time.
Rant over. It's still a fine little operating system.
Oi, this was just about the clicks!