for a brave new puppy

[learnhow2code]

JaDy wrote:

Good Puppy
I like Puppy Linux. It's tiny, fast and good. The tiny part is obvious. For fast, well, I viewed a video on a DVD using Puppy and got ten FPS. On the same computer using Win98, that video got five FPS. So, Puppy Linux is twice as fast as Win98. By "good" I mean that it has the toys and tools needed, and the ability to install optional toys and tools. But "good" also means that it's bug-free -- well, almost, but it's getting there. I want to feel safe giving a Puppy Linux CD to my sister; I don't want her crying to me. I want to recommend Puppy Linux to my friends; I don't want to make enemies nor soil my reputation. And, I want to use and depend on Puppy Linux for myself. So, I offer the following manifesto. I apologize in advance. Wrote fast. Goofs happen. Tell me.

One Serious Puppy
For Puppy Linux to be recognized by the open-source community, it needs to get serious. Why recognition? We instinctively know why, but we don't spell it out and accept the requirements. We've talked about these things, directly and indirectly, on the forum. We know that more users means more testing which means a healthy Puppy. We know that more developers means more ideas which means smaller, faster, better. We know that more critics means more visibility which means we stay honest, with ourselves and others -- a faithful Puppy. And all that means recognition by the open-source community. And that means open source, reproducibility, releases, packages, etc.

Open Source
Puppy Linux needs a full source repository. Needn't be a change management system, although that would be ideal. At least, all the source needed to reproduce Puppy Linux must be available in a single archive file.

Reproducibility
Puppy Linux needs its own development system. Using another distribution, like Slackware or whatever, is fine for the bootstrap period. But at some point we need to be able to assemble (read compile) all the components from the source archive to build a Puppy release.

Releases
Puppy Linux needs certain releases: a stable release known to have the least possible faults; a candidate release for general user testing; a development release for new things. The stable release should include the CD-live version, the source archive, the unleashed packages, and the DotPup packages. The candidate release should include all the same, but changed periodically as problems are resolved. The development release should include all the same, but in experimental stages.

Packages
The CD-live stable release should contain the minimum packages needed to satisfy the goals of Puppy Linux: tiny, fast, good. It needn't contain development packages, however these must be available as unleashed packages. We all want more toys and tools for Puppy Linux, so we need development packages. We cannot depend on other distributions for the writing of programs for Puppy -- we must be able to do development within Puppy.

Exceptions
Sometimes we want or need something that isn't open-source, such as Java, Acrobat, Opera, etc. Oh well. But at least the Puppy Linux source archive can contain packages to make it as easy as possible to fetch such things. And yes, for those packages which are open-source, I expect the source archive to contain those sources, and not just links to where the source can be found. Sure, that means the source archive will be large (although it can be in several pieces). To assure the maximum stability of the stable release, we must have the actual source used to build the stable release and not trust nor depend on the originators.

Development
Certainly, users should be able, using their stable release, to fetch DotPup, PupGet, etc. packages from the candidate release, the development release and foreign sources as well as from the stable release. In this way they have a stable platform from which to enhance, expand and develop new toys and tools for Puppy Linux.

Patches
Nobody's perfect. Every Puppy has its spots. New things make old dogs sick. Okay, enough. Point is: A stable Puppy Linux may need be fixed (sorry). So, Puppy Linux needs patch management. Whenever a problem in a stable Puppy is found and fixed, we really must offer a DotPup to the users. And provide notification of available DotPup fixes. Waiting for the next release just won't do. And, a fix description on the forum is inadequate. Once a fix is stabilized, a DotPup package should be posted on the WiKi.

Conclusion
I like Puppy Linux. It's tiny, fast and good. I've tried many Linux distributions and spent a great deal of time with Slackware, Slax and Amigo. They just didn't cut it. All were too big, too slow and/or too buggy. Puppy Linux is my last hope for a Linux that's useful on both old and new computer hardware. Really, it's amazing. This Puppy can do wonderful tricks. This Puppy can learn new tricks.

from http://murga-linux.com/puppy/viewtopic.php?t=203

[s243a]

Reproducibility
Puppy Linux needs its own development system. Using another distribution, like Slackware or whatever, is fine for the bootstrap period. But at some point we need to be able to assemble (read compile) all the components from the source archive to build a Puppy release.

Have a look at T2 based pups such as Quirky and April. They are built entirely from source.

I like that puppy has variants based on other distributions as this adds compatibility. However, should distros in general start to go in the wrong direction we will still have quicky/april.

I don't have time to comment on the rest of the post this morning. I will note though that I'm not much of a manifesto person. I'm more of a live and let live person and I view puppy as a do-acracy. Perhaps I would the use the word guidelines goals or philosophy rather than manifesto but would we all agree on these principles?

Even increasing the popularity could be a goal that could be challenged since too many users relative to developers means that developers might get bogged down too much with support issues, and too many developers could mean too many politics surrounding development.

Don't get me wrong, more developers and users is good but it is not all sunshine and rainbows.

[learnhow2code]

Have a look at T2 based pups such as Quirky and April. They are built entirely from source.

oh i used older ones than that. personally im fine using a kernel from something like debian.

I like that puppy has variants based on other distributions as this adds compatibility. However, should distros in general start to go in the wrong direction we will still have quicky/april.

this too.

I'm not much of a manifesto person. I'm more of a live and let live person and I view puppy as a do-acracy. Perhaps I would the use the word guidelines goals or philosophy rather than manifesto but would we all agree on these principles?

certainly not-- the reply from barry to the above post says that these things were planned for upcoming pups as early as 2005-- whether this post shaped puppy or not, i thought it might be interesting to take a look at some of these "manifestos" or guidelines, if only to get a feel for what "idealism in puppy" looks like over the years.

people still post things like this, and i think theyre fine. ive been reading the suggestions subforum, getting a look at what people have suggested over the years. if i find something almost as good as the post we are talking about, the idea is to put it here.

the reason there are so many pups is that puppy encourages people to do their own thing. i think thats great-- manifestos are good for inspiration, sometimes they have good ideas-- a lot of them are obvious, but some are pretty well said.

[Sailor Enceladus]

JaDy wrote:

...

Conclusion
I like Puppy Linux. It's tiny, fast and good. I've tried many Linux distributions and spent a great deal of time with Slackware, Slax and Amigo. They just didn't cut it. All were too big, too slow and/or too buggy. Puppy Linux is my last hope for a Linux that's useful on both old and new computer hardware. Really, it's amazing. This Puppy can do wonderful tricks. This Puppy can learn new tricks.

This was the best paragraph, in my opinion.