Conceptual debate: It's Puppy as small as it should?

Booting, installing, newbie
Message
Author
Sirexel
Posts: 23
Joined: Mon 08 Aug 2005, 07:07
Location: Spain

Conceptual debate: It's Puppy as small as it should?

#1 Post by Sirexel »

DISCLAIMER for nervous people:---
1. Paying all my respects to BarryK, a man so generous he gives us the answer: 'make your own Puppy with unleashed'.
2. Not trying to say what Puppy must be.
3. Not willing to listen search in other place.
4. Just as a mental exsercise and at best as a idea for devolper(s).
---

**It's Puppy as small as it should?**

Doubtless for Puppy small is better:
Faster download, faster load, faster run.
Less RAM, less money, more old PC

That is what I have learned in Puppy's Web.

And although other people has pointed it before nobody have answered that plain.

If small is better why there is so much redundancy in Puppy?
'Because I like this flavor for this and that flavor for that' it is a very poor reason when weight (Mb) is so important.
To much pay for flavors. More enought if you can PupGet you flavor.

Even Barebone Puppy seems to have superfluous programs...

It is clear there must to be a balance between weight and power but, It is Puppy on its best solution?

For example:
It's fwvm98 better that JWM?
I use JWM and I don't find any bug.

How much weigth deserves a flavor?

Think in a light airplane that wants to fly to a far island. You need less weight to reach the airport. What really you need to fly in confort and sure and what is just a bad habit from heavy ariplanes?

So, (please don't answer 'make you own Puppy', try to think a little more):
It's all this redundancy needed? Does Puppy really use the smaller yet powerfull aplications available?

Thx
Sirexel :)

Guest

#2 Post by Guest »

I think we all have our own ideas of what should be in and what should be out.I myself have often brought this subject up. As for saving space, with everything being in a compressed state, about 3 to 1, I think alot really has to come out to reduce the overall size of usr_cram.fs. Yes there are quite a few apps that are actually duplicated, functionality wise anyways.
the biggies seem to be
abiword 7906k
dia 2324k
gnumeric 8115k
scribus 6276k
sodipodi 2044k
sylpheed 1096k
samba 2436k

None of the above I would really miss...yeah I know linNeighbourhood needs samba

Now thats a far whack

Bruce B

#3 Post by Bruce B »

Subject of debate: **It's [sic] Puppy as small as it should?**

The mission statement is very clear and consise.

There is nothing in the mission statement that even implies Puppy intends be small as it possibly can be.

There is nothing in the mission statement that says it will try to avoid installing any 'superfluous' applications as you might define them.

There is something in the mission statement that emphases that Puppy will have all the applications needed for daily use. In other words the very mission intends Puppy to be small, fast and application rich.

User avatar
Lobster
Official Crustacean
Posts: 15522
Joined: Wed 04 May 2005, 06:06
Location: Paradox Realm
Contact:

Re: Conceptual debate: It's Puppy as small as it should?

#4 Post by Lobster »

Sirexel wrote: For example:
It's fwvm98 better that JWM?
I use JWM and I don't find any bug.
I have found JWM not work on occasion
I have found ice as reliable (and can look like fvwm) as fvwm
but Barry quite sensibly does not fix what is working, he prioritises

Redundacy is useful as it offers options.
BareBones was pretty pared and you might like to help with the console Puppy
that would be minimised to console only programs - that could be very small . . .

Puppy you see goes with the wind.
Which I make a lot of (pardon me) :oops:

The ideal IMHO is for a console or barebones which we then add to from pupget and dotpup

What say other kennel members?
"Woof woof" perhaps?
Puppy Raspup 8.2Final 8)
Puppy Links Page http://www.smokey01.com/bruceb/puppy.html :D

User avatar
rarsa
Posts: 3053
Joined: Sun 29 May 2005, 20:30
Location: Kitchener, Ontario, Canada
Contact:

#5 Post by rarsa »

As far as I understand, Puppy is Barry's play pen. As such my understanding is that it's not meant to be everything to everyone.

- Maybe for you it's not as small as it should be.
- Maybe for me it's smaller than it should be.
- Maybe Barry thinks it's as small as it should be or maybe he is going back and forth finding the right balance.

'Should' is subjective. It depends what you want to use puppy for.

I am curious: Why do you think puppy should be smaller if it already fits a reasonably old computer base. Or do you want puppy to be an excercise to find out how small can a distro be and still be userfull?

I consider Puppy a learning tool so I think that the options are important for new users, they learn that they have options in Linux, they learn realize about the difference between a monopoly and having alternatives.

So regarding the alternatives: Let's give the new users the benefit of the doubt, most of them are smart enough to not get confused with them. Were you confused? Why do you think other people will be? I've worked with (and trained) many users, from the wiz kids to technophobes. I think Puppy is suitable for both.

Does puppy uses the smaller applications available? I guess not all of them. There are too many applications out there for Barry to know all of them. When you find one that fits puppy I'd encourage you to inform Barry. I'm sure he'll be happy.

Having a mission statement is great as helps keeping the focus of a project. Puppy's mission statement does not include size. Small size has been just a consequence, not a goal.

To close: Should puppy be smaller?

I'd like to respond with tonge twister (for me at least).

"I won't give the answer as I should as you asked not to aswer what the answer is".

Rich
Posts: 278
Joined: Wed 04 May 2005, 19:00
Location: Middlesbrough - UK

#6 Post by Rich »

I'd say that Puppy isn't as small as it COULD be, not SHOULD be.
True there are duplicate packages that do the same job, but just from reading the forums it's clear that everyone has their own preferences, needs etc. so the variety covers a wider range of end users.

There are packages I use every day, and some I'll probably never use - but this isn't reason enough to exclude them from the Puppy CD.

Puppy can, of course, be remastered, cut down and customised to the end users hearts content, or fattened up with extras. it's all down to personal preference. Puppy is a starting block, giving you all you need for daily use. After that it's up to you really.

......where do you want to go today?? :P

Bruce B

#7 Post by Bruce B »

Sirexel, This is a debate? Want someone to debate you? You said among other things one purpose was for mental exsercise [sic[ Okay.

Sirexel makes the assertion "Doubtless for Puppy smaller is better". He supports this assertion with the following arguments:

* Faster download, faster load, faster run.
* Less RAM, less money, more old PC

I contest the premise and his supportive arguments. I debate every supportive argument Sirexel made.

Argument: Faster download

Debated: This is true only in the context that a smaller file is a faster download. It is false from the perspective that a smaller download has any relationship to the quality of the content of the download. A smaller puppy in this context, only means a faster download and that's all it means. It does little to support the 'quality' factor in the assertion of 'doubtless for Puppy smaller is better.


Argument: Faster run

Debated: This is false or at best needs to be qualified. I could delete gnumeric as an example, but it will have null effect on the running speed of Puppy.

Argument: Less RAM

Debated: Puppy loads many of its components in RAM. The more components loaded in RAM, the more RAM will be used. Depending on the configuration and in particular the installation type the amount of components which get loaded in RAM is a variable.

If a user wants to use less RAM this he or she can do this an option 2 install. The components which get installed into RAM are primarily those necessary for the operation of the computer with option 2.

Having major applications like gnumeric doesn't use more RAM with option 2 than if gnumeric was not installed.

Additionally, regardless of Option 1 or Option 2 hard drive install, major applications such audacity, gimp2, and thunderbird can be installed and the amount of RAM used is not more. The reason why is because these applications reside on the hard drive unless configured intentionally otherwise. They are not loaded into RAM except on an as wanted basis. When the application is closed the RAM is released.

Summary, if amount of RAM used by is an important consideration for the user, the problem is already reasonably solved by Barry: Make an option 2 install.

Argument: Less money

Debated: Frankly, when I think of Puppy, considerations of money don't even enter my mind. If money were a consideration, I'd reason along these lines:

I pay a static price for my Internet connection. It doesn't cost me any more to download a 60 mb file than it would a 40 mb file.

The cost of the CD-ROM disk is identical with burning a 60 mb .iso file as it would be a 40 mb .iso file

Argument: More old PC

Debated: I will use my PC as an example. Built by me in 1999. It is an AMD K6-2 500. In 1999 this computer was somewhat low end. Some people would think my PC is a dinosaur. Puppy runs exceptionally well on my machine. It will boot and go to work faster than most high end XP computers built today.

I argue to the effect that Puppy already has excellent backward support spanning several years. It excels over Windows products. XP for example would put an old computer like mine to sleep. Windows 95 wouldn't even support the hardware on today's high end computers.

Summary, Puppy is already doing an excellent job of supporting computers over a span of many years. It ain't broke and doesn't need fixing in this area.

------------------

I've offered you fair debate on your supportive arguments for your premise which was, "Doubtless for Puppy smaller is better"

In my opinion, your arguments do not even come close to supporting your premise.

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

Some parameters

#8 Post by raffy »

Let me add a parameter to the discussion: available memory of 32 MB.

While most PCs will have 64 MB or more of memory, having a Puppypackage of 32 MB or less will allow many users of old PCs to enjoy the speed of Puppy and go though installation without much problem (such as what happens if you don't know how to use swap and the install process assumes that usr_cram.fs is fully loaded to memory).

More that the issue of old PCs, it will allow users of _new_ thin clients with 32-MB resource limit to use the thin client as a PC. (Some resource limits are hard drive, 50 MB [as per Windows client in the works], and 64 MB of flash disk memory [thus, leaving room for saving files]).

By lowering the size of Puppy, it will be able to embrace a very wide spectrum of PCs/thin client devices. And allow us, Puppy advocates, to get the users to actually use Puppy before they set their sights to other places.

OK, "create your own Puppy", but not many people can do that. Someone who has done a smaller Puppy has to make her Puppy available to others, so we can save time.

My opinion is that this debate is useful if it produces a new Puppy within the 32 MB resource limit.

EDIT: Ah, I just remembered that Bruce B is doing that here!
Last edited by raffy on Tue 16 Aug 2005, 05:11, edited 1 time in total.
Puppy user since Oct 2004. Want FreeOffice? [url=http://puppylinux.info/topic/freeoffice-2012-sfs]Get the sfs (English only)[/url].

User avatar
rarsa
Posts: 3053
Joined: Sun 29 May 2005, 20:30
Location: Kitchener, Ontario, Canada
Contact:

#9 Post by rarsa »

My opinion is that this debate is useful if it produces a new Puppy within the 32 MB resource limit.
Only relevant if Puppy's mission was to be small.

It already runs in 32 MB with a swap partition. So it meets it's mission of breathing new life into old PCs. Under those circumnstances I guess It will still be faster than Windows 3.1.

Sirexel? Do you have a computer so old that it cannot run puppy? Do you really need to run puppy there? What about you raffy? Or are you talking hypotetically?

There are distributions that can be installed in 8 MB, they won't have a UI, but they can work as gateways, or web servers, even to browse and IRC in text mode. You can have 16MB PCs running the Opie GUI (I've actually seen one) although its actually meant for handhelds. To the best of my knowledge puppy is not meant to fullfill these roles.

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

MS thin clients

#10 Post by raffy »

Uh, don't know how to answer "hypothetical" :wink:
As to mission, it must be sharing the fun (of using modern software) with as many people as possible.

See this: http://bink.nu/Article3812.bink
(about MS thin client specifications)

Error: So the 50 MB hard drive I read in Newsforge.com must be an error... it is actually 500 MB. Even then, the assumed memory is 64 MB.

As to old PCs with 32 MB memory, yes, there are aplenty, waiting to be resuscitated. These are being shipped in bulk containers to the third world.

EDIT: Got this new info from one manufacturer in Singapore:
Option 4 - Thin Client: 533 MHZ processor, 128 MB RAM. Uses the VIA V 500 motherboard. Supports XDMCP (XWindows) and RDP 4.0 (WinTerminal). Works with Microsoft Windows 2000 Advance Server, Microsoft XP (single user) etc. This unit has a 32 MB Solid State Disk drive with all the software necessary for turning it into a terminal (a server is required). This unit can also be upgraded to RDP 5.2 which adds local sound and true color for WinTerminal functions.
Puppy's mission is to make that a PC, but I guess its one big partner won't allow that to happen. :(
Last edited by raffy on Tue 16 Aug 2005, 05:38, edited 1 time in total.
Puppy user since Oct 2004. Want FreeOffice? [url=http://puppylinux.info/topic/freeoffice-2012-sfs]Get the sfs (English only)[/url].

Bruce B

#11 Post by Bruce B »

Raffy, Sun Aug 14, 2005 5:58 pm, I started publishing test results on running Puppy off hard drive on a 32 MB machine

http://www.murga.org/~puppy/viewtopic.php?t=1737

Mon Aug 15, 2005 5:58 am, precisely 12 hours later Sirexel started this debate. A pure coincidence I'm sure. Nevertheless, it is a matter of record that I stated how impressed I was with Puppy's performance at 32 MB, prior to any knowledge this debate would start. Therefore my opinions are without any possible predudice to this thread becasue they were stated previously.

Other things I didn't mention in my reporting, for example, the Links web browser runs super fast on the 32 MB test machine. I do mean fast.

The most important point I wish to make is that it would not make Puppy run any faster or better on an Option 2 install if the previously mentioned, but unspecified superfluous apps were not included with the distro.

For specific examples, Puppy has a few calculators, remove them, and it will run identically on a 32 mb machine, option 2 install.

Remove Abiword and Gnumeric and Puppy will run the same on a 32 mb machine. The major difference is: a person could not run gnumeric or abiword if it is not installed on the disk, otherwise they could. The ommission of such apps don't represent a major advantage, if any advantage at all, that I can see on these low end machines.

---------------

Raffy, we are both concerned for the 32 MB machines. If I were not concerned, I'd not have taken the trouble to set one up and do the testing and reporting. The results of my testing have removed my concerns. I think if you will read the thread and do some testing, your concerns will be removed also.

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

Expecting something

#12 Post by raffy »

Then are we expecting something, like an option B install, as in Bruce B :wink: (the naming is up to you, of course).

Got your point there. I myself sometimes refer to Puppy's software collection as "complete" for day-to-day needs. However, nudging Technically Gifted (TG) people to further trim the package might be helpful...
Puppy user since Oct 2004. Want FreeOffice? [url=http://puppylinux.info/topic/freeoffice-2012-sfs]Get the sfs (English only)[/url].

User avatar
rarsa
Posts: 3053
Joined: Sun 29 May 2005, 20:30
Location: Kitchener, Ontario, Canada
Contact:

#13 Post by rarsa »

raffy wrote:Puppy's mission is to make that a PC
I have to disagree (not because I want to, but because its against the facts).

Here is the mission statement. Not mine, not yours, but Puppy's.

Cheers. There's puppy for everyone as it is right now.!

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

New category

#14 Post by raffy »

Oh, you're right, of course, but thin clients are new devices that are still being discussed here and there, and in some other places in the forum I may be unaware of.
Puppy user since Oct 2004. Want FreeOffice? [url=http://puppylinux.info/topic/freeoffice-2012-sfs]Get the sfs (English only)[/url].

Guest

#15 Post by Guest »

We already have Chuppy Puppy, Barebone Puppy, Standard Puppy, Xfree86 Puppy, Win98 Puppy, Krazy Puppy (coming) ... have i missed any?

Everyone has different needs and there's nothing wrong with it. There're so many choice with Puppy! I think Sirexel may not mean we should have Standard Puppy changed, but just that he hasn't found the Puppy he wants yet.

Yes, "Someone who has done a smaller Puppy has to make her Puppy available to others, so we can save time."!!

And how's the progress of Console Puppy? I remembered seeing some posts in the forum but can't find them now. I've seen something about Multimedia Puppy here http://www.murga.org/~puppy/viewtopic.php?t=1732 too. Would it be similar to geeXbox? It's a multimedia distro, it looks nice but I can never get it works http://geexbox.org/en/index.html

Hey, it's Puppy, take it easy!

ICPUG
Posts: 1308
Joined: Mon 25 Jul 2005, 00:09
Location: UK

#16 Post by ICPUG »

I would like Sirexel to confirm him/her self that they do not want Standard Puppy to change and really want an additional Puppy. I would be able to accept his comments more easily then.

So far, Sirexel has contributed to 3 threads, that I have seen, and started contentious arguments in all three. He has had polite, and less polite, valid responses to his arguments but still he continues trying to stir things up. Does Sirexel actually USE Puppy or is he here just to set arguments off.

It may be the fact that Sirexel's first language is not English but how Sirexel's comments read to me is that Puppy does not fit Sirexel's mission statement, so it must be changed. In my opinion, such action from a newcomer, as I am also, is disrespectful of the Puppy community.

The guys in that community have done a FABULOUS job in getting the litter of Puppies together.

By all means lets add to the litter but, Sirexel, stop being critical of the basic genetics of Puppy and stop appearing as if you want to kill off our favourite companions.

Better still - stop pleading ignorance of how to do things. Instead of trying to stir things up, sit back, read the threads. Respect these people, make constructive comments, ask questions, learn and experiment. Maybe you can create, or at least encourage the birth of, an additional puppy to the litter that meets your mission statement.

Anyone can criticise. It's the ones who put something back into the community that gain respect.

ICPUG

Sirexel
Posts: 23
Joined: Mon 08 Aug 2005, 07:07
Location: Spain

#17 Post by Sirexel »

From old greece it's known to question all is the best way to the true.

In more plain terms questioning about Puppy is not to destroy it. It is to learn and understand why it is as it is and in the meantime agood feedback to good listeners.

Anyway it seems some more focus it's needed in this point.
I don't like to personalize. This wants to be a conceptual debate so please take this as an example:

I have an old pretty mini laptop:
Thosiba Libretto 110 CT P233MMX, 7.1

User avatar
Lobster
Official Crustacean
Posts: 15522
Joined: Wed 04 May 2005, 06:06
Location: Paradox Realm
Contact:

#18 Post by Lobster »

Barry says:

"One thing to understand is that Puppy is unique. I built Puppy from scratch, file by file, so the architecture is not based on any other distro"

more info here:
http://www.goosee.com/puppy/development ... works.html

Those of us who use Puppy, know one thing: It grows and yet stays frisky. It works. Take Rox. Fast? I should say. Comprehensive? I should cocoa. Fun? Ay Chihuahua! My challange to Puppys is very simple - you know a better OS? Tell me I will start using it . . .

I used XP because it was fun and Iiked it a lot. When the Mac becomes available on any PC I may frisk there . . . but by that time who knows . . .
http://www.wired.com/news/mac/0,2125,68501,00.html

I have Ubuntu on my HD and Puppy permenantly in my CD player.

I have heard rumours that Vista (Longhorny) will run Linux and probably deliberately crash it.
I no longer trust MS - I learnt how to use Windows and they changed it beyond recognition to their benefit not mine. Too many suits. Now they want to lease it and spy on me - to innunduate me with MS Spam or otherwise interfere and . . . basically enough . . . I want something fast and simple and fun

I call it Puppy. Woof woof
Last edited by Lobster on Wed 17 Aug 2005, 14:47, edited 1 time in total.
Puppy Raspup 8.2Final 8)
Puppy Links Page http://www.smokey01.com/bruceb/puppy.html :D

User avatar
Nathan F
Posts: 1764
Joined: Wed 08 Jun 2005, 14:45
Location: Wadsworth, OH (occasionally home)
Contact:

#19 Post by Nathan F »

This is all very educational, and I've taken a lot of good information from it. Yes, Puppy can be many things to many people. Personally to me it is well ahead of it's time. Many of the core principles of how it accomplishes it's goals could be applied to other operating systems and provide great benefits.

I love the idea of rescuing old computers, but to me the exciting thing is how well Puppy can run my NEW hardware. My computer runs at 2.2ghz with 512mb of ram, so much of this doesn't apply to my situation. However, there is a very noticeable speed difference between Puppy and just about anything else. The only two that come close are DSL and Austrumi, and frankly neither one comes with anywhere near as many useful applications. Applications in Puppy are available instantly and respond just as quickly, whereas with another OS they must be loaded from the hard disk. Also, I can start from scratch with a new pup001 file and have a fully configured system in around an hour, with everything just how I want it. It can take hours to install just one application with other linux distros by the time you get all of the dependencies sorted out. Puppy actually comes with more useful day to day applications than many of the large mainstream distros. I used it as is for about a month before I even used pupget, as it did have nearly everything that I needed for daily use.

A console Puppy would be fantastic. A Puppy running a gui on a 32mb computer is also fantastic. Also really cool would be a full server running totally in ram. One could use the ideas that Barry has put into use in Puppy and create an Operating system that does the same trick of running totally in ram but without neccesarily using cut down or lightweight applications, making the ultimate system for newer hardware too. Actually, Puppy is already pretty close to being the ultimate for newer hardware anyway. I believe Puppy to be vital to the future of computing. It just remains for the rest of the world to notice it and apply the ideas.

ICPUG
Posts: 1308
Joined: Mon 25 Jul 2005, 00:09
Location: UK

#20 Post by ICPUG »

Thanks for the response Sirexel.

It helps to personalise and explain motivation sometimes.

It seems to me, but I'm no expert, that you can have what you want. Why not start thinking about which applications you want in your Puppy.

I must admit that a list of apps tied in with DoopDoop's screen here:
http://www.murga.org/%7Epuppy/viewtopic ... 85&start=0
would be really good. We would all have different ideas what the apps would be though.

I, personally, would want the full list of apps under the menus but I can see you would not want that.

With your list of apps, call for volunteers with the knowledge to remaster. The new puppy could be born and tried out.

ICPUG

Post Reply