Puppy 2.15CE Standard Edition - Trim the Fat!

A home for all kinds of Puppy related projects
Message
Author
User avatar
WhoDo
Posts: 4428
Joined: Wed 12 Jul 2006, 01:58
Location: Lake Macquarie NSW Australia

Puppy 2.15CE Standard Edition - Trim the Fat!

#1 Post by WhoDo »

When you guys and gals have had sufficient time to play with Puppy 2.15CE Standard Edition, please take the time to suggests ways it can be reduced in size.

The Alpha is currently 135Mb. It needs to be down below 99Mb by the Beta release in under 2 weeks from now. Eventually I'd like to see it cut back to 86Mb, the equivalent of 2.14Final. Your advice and help would be welcomed.

Cheers

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

#2 Post by rarsa »

Well, There is good and bad fat.

The Good fat:
The zdrv file will be very difficult to trim without loosing what has been gained by including all those drivers. Although when packaging the drivers all the extra "stuff" should be left out.

Think of it as your Omega-3. Reduce it at your own peril.

The Bad fat
Whatever goes into the sfs file.

Here it is tricky part. I'd recommend people to have a look at what may have the bigest impact. Removing 20 dupplicate applications that take 1 MB in total may take a lot of time, make some people happy but won't trim fat.

Most fat in the sfs is concentrated in very few files. So I think that the challenge is: [How can those files be trimmed even more?

Here are some ideas:
- Is there something there that can be moved to the zdrv file? (e.g. Xorg)
- Is there a smaller application with similar functionality but smaller? (let the browser wars begin). Remember the "big" application can always be a PET file.
- Are there heavy documentation, examples, themes, libraries or other extras in those packages that can be separated into an optional package?

Remember it does not have to be all or nothing. Think out of the box.

Think of it as a very large and juicy steak with potatos. You may start with a half portion, but you can always go for seconds if need be.
[url]http://rarsa.blogspot.com[/url] Covering my eclectic thoughts
[url]http://www.kwlug.org/blog/48[/url] Covering my Linux How-to

Billcnz
Posts: 215
Joined: Fri 30 Jun 2006, 23:07
Location: Wellington New Zealand

#3 Post by Billcnz »

I think it's mainly a matter of making a final choice on themes and browser / email client. If we include flash-9 I think around 90 Mb would be a realistic target. An extra themes package could be made available for those who want to change it.

I installed the latest Thunderbird 1.5.0.9 with an outlook 2003 Blue theme as the menu bar was a bit dark to read the black text. Note: for Thunderbird to cooperate nicely with the defaultbrowser this needs to be added to the prefs.js in the sub directory under ~.thunderbird:

Code: Select all

user_pref("network.protocol-handler.app.ftp", "/usr/local/bin/defaultbrowser");
user_pref("network.protocol-handler.app.http", "/usr/local/bin/defaultbrowser");
user_pref("network.protocol-handler.app.https", "/usr/local/bin/defaultbrowser");
(found by searching forum)

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

#4 Post by Nathan F »

A similar setup must also be done to Firefox to allow it to pass links using the mailto: protocal to "defaultemail". Don't forget these little touches.

Nathan
Bring on the locusts ...

User avatar
WhoDo
Posts: 4428
Joined: Wed 12 Jul 2006, 01:58
Location: Lake Macquarie NSW Australia

#5 Post by WhoDo »

Nathan F wrote:A similar setup must also be done to Firefox to allow it to pass links using the mailto: protocal to "defaultemail". Don't forget these little touches.
Don't forget? Heck, this is the first I heard about them! :D

I will include in the next release. Thanks for the heads up, guys. :wink:

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

#6 Post by Nathan F »

Well what would be nice is if MOzilla developers would include in the preferences dialog a setting for what programs are to be used for these network protocols, but the fact is they don't. Instead they assume you are running a desktop environment like KDE, Gnome, MacOSX, or Windows that can sort it all out. So people who are using a lightwieght X11 desktop are left having to change the program's behavior to get full functionality.

Nathan
Bring on the locusts ...

User avatar
WhoDo
Posts: 4428
Joined: Wed 12 Jul 2006, 01:58
Location: Lake Macquarie NSW Australia

#7 Post by WhoDo »

Nathan F wrote:So people who are using a lightwieght X11 desktop are left having to change the program's behavior to get full functionality.
Bloody programmers! Never think about end users! :P

I have included both patches in prefs.js for Thunderbird and Firefox. Thanks again, guys.

Cheers

designengineer
Posts: 84
Joined: Wed 18 Oct 2006, 13:13

#8 Post by designengineer »

I would like to see a version handled like version 2.11 was done. That version had two different iso files: one was a smaller version and the other was a larger version with more drivers. My Toshiba laptop booted right up with 2.11. I managed to get 2.14 running, but I spent an entire weekend doing it. I have plenty of hard drive space, so a larger variety of drivers would not hurt a thing. Just my two cents worth.

designengineer
Posts: 84
Joined: Wed 18 Oct 2006, 13:13

#9 Post by designengineer »

Sorry, duplicate post. Delete please

User avatar
Pizzasgood
Posts: 6183
Joined: Wed 04 May 2005, 20:28
Location: Knoxville, TN, USA

#10 Post by Pizzasgood »

I haven't tried it yet, so I'll just give you general ideas:

One way to find big things is with Gdmap. Look in the rootfs-complete directory of Unleashed, or in /initrd/ro_2 when running (non full-install). You can see which files and directories are big, and how they compare to others. It's visual, which is much nicer than numbers. You can click in directories to enter them, and there's an "up" button, just like in a file manager.

Also, it helps if all binary files have been stripped. Many packages have already been stripped by their creators, but if you make something yourself, it may not be. Say the binary "the_large_one" has not been stripped. You'd run this command to do it:
strip the_large_one
That chops out a bunch of debugging stuff we don't need. Sometimes it makes kilobytes of difference, sometimes megabytes of difference.

Extra images, audio files, or documents can also go, such as any "example" images that come with a graphics program. If they must stay, their quality could be lessened unless they are very important. Also, themes sometimes have many images that are unused. Sometimes IceWM themes come with "building block" images, like blank buttons. Mplayer themes have a splash screen for the video window, which is often quite large and can be replaced (not removed) with a smaller one (yes I know 2.15 doesn't include it, this is an example).

Some apps let you have compressed themes, like XMMS, but I don't know if that would have any benefit inside the already compressed pup_xxx.sfs file.
[size=75]Between depriving a man of one hour from his life and depriving him of his life there exists only a difference of degree. --Muad'Dib[/size]
[img]http://www.browserloadofcoolness.com/sig.png[/img]

User avatar
drongo
Posts: 374
Joined: Sat 10 Dec 2005, 23:35
Location: UK

#11 Post by drongo »

Would it be possible to drop Firefox/Opera/Seamonkey completely and just have HV3 as the default browser? (I know it is not fully featured but it is good to start with and may be enough for some.)

Then put a big button on the desktop called something like "Download favourite bloated browser/e-mail client". This produces a menu from which the selected browser/e-mail combo is automagically downloaded? (Plus plugins, natch.)

Or is that a step too far?

You can't please everyone and Firefox and Opera are both big so why not give us a goodish browser which is simple to upgrade?

And if you kill the "What's the best browser?" debate stone dead we can all start disagreeing about something else.

User avatar
mysticmarks
Posts: 159
Joined: Tue 27 Feb 2007, 01:56
Location: California
Contact:

suggestions...

#12 Post by mysticmarks »

Hi,
First post here. I really like puppy, thanks Barry and others. Thoughts after experience. As a office user every day.
I need to be able to do:
powerpoints, words, and excel files.
browsing is great now,
flash is a must,
unfortunately java is there too.
icons in 2.XX(really, how much prettier do they need to get?)
drop the wall paper with the sky eagle, and the digital pup head; extra space; just keep the new puppy style in 2.14 and the real dog with beige tone. (I'll do some mock ups of high quality/low size if it will help)
i KNOW how hard it is to get a all in one program in linux, but it would be great to get down to one or two options for most programs(i.e.-calcs,etc)
MUST have a wifi program that works better, i have 2 laptops, 2 desktops, all with wireless, none of which any pupy prog will setup(although 2.14 did see one on a desktop machine, but wouldnt do anything else with it.) the default wireless program used in ubuntu is very good. Im not sure how large it is, but it does very well.
CODECS, are they all in here? or at least a pup pack away?
more to come.
Puppy rocks!

ps- powerpoints are a must! students anyway...

User avatar
WhoDo
Posts: 4428
Joined: Wed 12 Jul 2006, 01:58
Location: Lake Macquarie NSW Australia

#13 Post by WhoDo »

drongo wrote:Would it be possible to drop Firefox/Opera/Seamonkey completely and just have HV3 as the default browser? ...[snip]...

You can't please everyone and Firefox and Opera are both big so why not give us a goodish browser which is simple to upgrade?

And if you kill the "What's the best browser?" debate stone dead we can all start disagreeing about something else.
:D If we get what I'm hoping for in terms of plugin .sfs packages, that would certainly be possible - even desirable.

Unfortunately "best", like beauty, is "in the eye of the beholder". The plugin solution removes that as an issue. If we can't do that, then I'll just go for what the majority have asked for. At the moment that's Firefox/Thunderbird.

Thanks for your input. It is much appreciated.

Cheers

User avatar
Pizzasgood
Posts: 6183
Joined: Wed 04 May 2005, 20:28
Location: Knoxville, TN, USA

#14 Post by Pizzasgood »

*disclaimer: I'm not arguing to keep extra calculators, just using them as an example
Rarsa wrote:Here it is tricky part. I'd recommend people to have a look at what may have the bigest impact. Removing 20 dupplicate applications that take 1 MB in total may take a lot of time, make some people happy but won't trim fat.
mysticmarks wrote:i KNOW how hard it is to get a all in one program in linux, but it would be great to get down to one or two options for most programs(i.e.-calcs,etc)
The calculators illustrate Rarsa's point perfectly. Things like them are so small that they don't touch the size. You might say, "many drops add up". Well, these are small drops. If you took all the unnecessary small things out of Puppy, the size decrease would be very little, and you would have removed 20+ small things that might come in handy sometime. It's not that each app is small, it's that when you pile them all together, the whole lump is small. The apps themselves are minuscule.


That said, there's no hurt in eliminating redundancies. Just don't become obsessed by the small things until the big ones have been dealt with. Stop the bleeding in your severed foot before you worry about the splinter in your finger. :wink:
[size=75]Between depriving a man of one hour from his life and depriving him of his life there exists only a difference of degree. --Muad'Dib[/size]
[img]http://www.browserloadofcoolness.com/sig.png[/img]

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

#15 Post by Lobster »

The argument for removing not used or duplicate programs is to do with clarity on the menu rather than saving space. A small program that takes up menu and "mind space" is much bigger then just its tiny size. Clutter is just that.

2.15 Alpha has already removed the calculator excesses . . . I do seem to remember there is a dotpup for a whole calculator collection . . .

Is Puppy an Operating System
or an operating system with integrated software?

Most desktop Linux distros (from the end users perspective) are little more than a different arrangement and collection of software.

The question is then which is faster, more reliable and easier to use. It is good to keep that in mind.
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:

#16 Post by rarsa »

My comment was intended to bring focus to the thread (and admitedly, bump it up). I'm sorry it had the oposite efect.

May I suggest returning this thread to the original purpose? What can be trimmed that will have an impact? Specific things.
[url]http://rarsa.blogspot.com[/url] Covering my eclectic thoughts
[url]http://www.kwlug.org/blog/48[/url] Covering my Linux How-to

TheSquire
Posts: 5
Joined: Thu 18 Jan 2007, 00:58

No X at All?

#17 Post by TheSquire »

The official 2.15 release might not be the best place for it, but I would really appreciate a modern Puppy with no X at all. No X and no graphical apps. What I'm after is a fast, lightweight console only OS, easy to install to hard disk, with enough drivers to support the kinds of hardware I'm using. Could we generate a version <50 MB installed?

[The best I've done so far is trim Puppy 2.13 down to ~109 MB installed... but this includes Xorg and Dillo. If I remove more, I break things. :( ]

It would be a little like SLAX 5.1.8 Frodo - except it would be Puppy! And modern! With drivers for USB-Serial adapters and such.

If such a No-X base for Puppy were implemented, I could imagine a console-based technique for adding X. Perhaps a nifty script thingie using wget to fetch the needed file(s).

[I'm a Linux noob or else I'd apply myself to generating the Puppy variant I've described. Maybe as my 1337-ness increases...]

Anyway, thanks so much to the Puppy community for a great distro. Keep up the great work!

xandas
Posts: 41
Joined: Fri 23 Jun 2006, 11:26

#18 Post by xandas »

I downloaded 2.14. All right. But, it doesn't recognizes our Sound Blaster cards.
And it was impossible to get working the voip phones we use daily.
So, the trimming of Alsa and so on was -at least for me- a bad choice, that forbid me the use of 2.14.
Does not seems coherent to stretch the code when the old machines are left out Puppy. The newer ones does not need so stretching, at all !!!.
By example, I navigate several hours each day. In the alternative to change the
browser plenty of features I use, (which simpify greatly my browsing life ), simply to get the goal of five megas more small the obliged solution is to change to a older Puppy version.

My proposal is to make a small Puppy version, full of libraries and drivers, with a menu to install those programs we need. Some people will install graphic programs, other music developement ones, some others offfice suite, so I propose to include a menu that allow to install the personal programs each guy needs, letting a lot of other programs out. And remaster the CD.
Without compel by force the guys to use programs they doesn't likes.
The freedom of choice is a flag between who censure M$ practices.

Do not forget that all must be simple to let the not-initiated people not need to compile anything or follow the smart guidances that a lot of generous guys post in the forum, but that doesn't help to spread Puppy, and Linux, among the masses (not technically minded people).

I propose that certain features must be included: it is awfull when navigating the browser doesn't shows the pages "comme il faut" or ask for a inexistent plug-in or doesn't show the stream of videos that apperars into the newspapers frequently., or reboot in other version to see a powerpoint file that a friend attach to its mail.
Or when browsing off-line the browser shows the code instead the formatted page, as usually happen with small navigators.

As my girlfriend told me, small not always be the best.
Xan

User avatar
Springer
Posts: 52
Joined: Tue 22 Aug 2006, 16:25
Location: Austin, TX

#19 Post by Springer »

Good ways to trim fat out of the Standard Edition (V): General theme - avoid needless duplication. A few suggestions:

ONE X server. Do we *really* need two, especially in Standard?

ONE Window Manager. We DON'T need more than one of these!

ONE Very Good default theme/background/icon set.

ONE Calculator (with a STRONG preference for one that can use algebraic OR RPN entry. Right now, for all the calculators we have, there's still not one that does RPN (HP-style, the standard in business and finance (because of the HP-12C), and also favored by many of us engineers.)

ONE Text Editor. I know they're small, but do we really need FOUR text editors? Pick one and make it the default. SIMPLIFY!

If the new PETget system really allows single-click installs (haven't tried it myself, yet), then adding pieces is no problem for the people that need something different.

The beauty of Puppy is it's simplicity and size with very rich functionality. It's niether the smallest distro, nor the most complete (nor should it try yo be either), it's simply the best bang-for-the-byte that produces a system that JUST WORKS.

User avatar
Pizzasgood
Posts: 6183
Joined: Wed 04 May 2005, 20:28
Location: Knoxville, TN, USA

#20 Post by Pizzasgood »

Actually, better to have two text editors: one for in X, and one for the commandline. Ever try fixing a script with just cat, echo, grep, and sed? I can tell you now I'd have trouble. Think how a new user would feel! Give them good old MP, with it's familiar interface.

Themes can stand to be chopped down a little more, to maybe two or three. Only go to one if space is very tight. Eliminate the similar ones first (multiple XP, multiple Velvet, etc.)

I didn't look at the backgrounds, but only a couple are needed. 3 tops.

The reason I don't advocate a single theme/wallpaper is that this is the standard version, not a barebones. Just because there's a big version doesn't mean the standard can be stripped naked. Having a few themes (only a few mind you) really helps in the user-appreciation department. It gives an illusion of space, like the ISO is really packed with stuff, even though they only take a couple hundred kb. The trick is to limit yourself to just several themes, or the size starts to get too big. Two or three distinctly different themes are plenty.

As for X servers, the setup for Xorg has improved a lot since we first got it. But unless the vast majority of hardware works with it, it still might be good to include Xvesa. Hardware is one of my weak points, so I don't know how well it's support is. I do know that that's the reason Barry has kept Xvesa so long.

Now, for JWM, I don't really see any good reason to keep it, other than for choice's sake. It wouldn't even be needed as backup, because IceWM is so sturdy. It really is minuscule though, so it doesn't hurt any.

Hmm... I'm thinking back to the old days when we used FVWM95 and JWM was the "cool new second WM" that you could convert to out of the box. Choice factor again. It made Puppy that much cooler to ship with a second windowmanager for an imperceivable size increase.

Actually, the JWM configuration utility is bigger than JWM. :lol:

But yeah, the standard Puppy hasn't had a second WM since Barry dropped FVWM, so it's not like we'd be breaking tradition by not having JWM included as a second choice.
[size=75]Between depriving a man of one hour from his life and depriving him of his life there exists only a difference of degree. --Muad'Dib[/size]
[img]http://www.browserloadofcoolness.com/sig.png[/img]

Post Reply