(old)Puppy Linux Discussion Forum

Frugal can do everything that a full can, but here's the key, frugal can do so much more that a "full" cannot.

......So it is......!!

The same files/folders make up my full and frugal. Difference is in the way booted. All of main sfs extracted to the save space ... which is a partition. So can either be booted frugally (aufs/overlay layering initrd/init), or directly (full).

Most often booted frugally and no saves/changes made, but when a big update comes along boot full and apply the updates before rebooting frugally again. Combined with Debian updates/repositories ... very stable (albeit older versions of programs which by their nature have been more extensively tested/fixed).

Running as root? On many of the other desktop based choices root is easily accessible, often not even protected ... sudo some-command. Change the Terminal desktop icon or whatever to open a root one, set the filemanager to open as root ... and the rest all runs as user by default.

Small size? Most systems run with GB's of free disk and memory space nowadays.

Functionality? Many devices in peoples pockets are as if not more functional.

.... The appeal of puppy IMO is the crowd and the fun playing around.

belham2 wrote:

Robert123 wrote:

01micko wrote:TBH 'full installs' should be totally abandoned by Puppy (woof-CE).

Totally disagree having the choice is important. What separates Puppy from other distros is the freedom to run as root.

Hi Robert,

As rcrsn51 eloquently put, you're comparing apples and oranges. We all agree with the power of running root. But there are no benefits to mention that a user can describe that are attained from a "full" install versus a "frugal" one when it comes to the world of "puppy". Trying to do so in as exercise in Donald-Trump-like fairyland disbelief, lol, to use an analogy. Frugal can do everything that a full can, but here's the key, frugal can do so much more that a "full" cannot.

In precise 5.7.1 there is a bug limiting the size of the save file or risk corruption of the save file. BK mentions this and I had it happen once.

Also, precise 5.7.1 cannot use save folders as it is not a woof-ce based puppy.

Welcome to fairyland





.

perdido wrote: Also, precise 5.7.1 cannot use save folders as it is not a woof-ce based puppy.

That's the problem. People who have always used full installs to avoid savefiles, don't want to change course and try save folders in new Puppies.

If you boot a frugal install with the "pfix=nocopy" option, you effectively have a full install.

Personally I hate save files and running frugally and the bug Precise has with it really puts me off it. Like I said the freedom to run as root is what makes it different from other distros for me personally not the save file thing and its simple frankly beautiful initiation system - beautifully quick and simple. My point I what the choice when I install Puppy whether to frugal or full install. Why do I dislike save files when it starts filling up and having to increase the size of it - sorry not my cup of tea.

If you like frugal - fair enough your choice - fill your boots.

Hi Robert123.

One could of course ask at first boot for a big pupsave file of say, 1.5 Gb.
Then one could wait a year before having to enlarge it... If ever!

Just a thought!

@Robert123: Do you understand that there is now a thing called a save folder than never fills up (until you run out of hard drive space)? So it works the same as a full install.

If you want to keep using old Puppies, then by all means use a savefile. But the issue here is whether new Puppies should continue support full installs when there is a superior alternative.

Hi rcrsn51.

I disagree with the adjective "superior" in your previous post. A save folder
is an alternative, yes, but not superior, IMO, when it comes to the ease with
which you can make a back-up of a save file and to its portability, of course.

BFN.

What's the difference between backing up a save file to another location versus a save folder? In either case, it's drag-and-drop.

If a savefile is X MB in size but only half-full, you are still backing up X MB. But a save folder is only as big as what it contains.

Agree, it is just as easy to backup a save folder as a save file.

However, the format of the device you are putting the backup on, is a factor, as to what save you are using.


Problem with save folder.
They can only be put on a Linux formatted storage device.

If you have Puppy as a frugal install on a Vfat, ntfs, etc... format, it has to be a save file.

Puppy can be installed to any format as frugal.
So, you have to deal with that, with save options.

A lot of new to Puppy people, put Puppy on USB flash drives.
They come formatted fat32.
A lot of those people, usually, do not understand about formatting.
They just use the USB flash with that format.
Stuck with the 4GB, fat32, file size, max limit.

The things I have always understood about full installs.
They do not use the layered file system.
It is best for people doing software compiling.
Works best on really low RAM computers.
Not sure what low RAM is now for Puppy.
Probably 512MB or less.

But, I do agree, if you can, frugal install is best!!!!!!

For USB installs I prefer to format to ext2 and use a save folder.

rcrsn51 wrote:What's the difference between backing up a save file to another location versus a save folder? In either case, it's drag-and-drop.

If a savefile is X MB in size but only half-full, you are still backing up X MB. But a save folder is only as big as what it contains.

Hello, rcrsn51.

That depends on what tool you use for your back-up.

I don't drag and drop. I use SFR's PackIT, usually in lzop mode - maximum
compression. If I have a 1 Gb save file with nothing much in it, like soon
after I installed a Pup, I may get a ratio of 1/10th or even 1/15th -- since
2fs files and the like are basically uncompressed sfs's.

When the pupsave file gets fuller, one will likely get 50 % compression with
this method -- which is still quite respectable.

BFN.

Could you not do the same thing with a save folder? Tar it into one file, then compress it?

rcrsn51 wrote:Could you not do the same thing with a save folder? Tar it into one file, then compress it?

To each his own, I suppose.

G'day Wildman69,

Quickly tried both your latest efforts.

Isos downloaded, mounted, and files copied to pre-named sub-directories on my Frugals partition (sda7).
Added appropriate new lines to Grub's menu.lst for my Frugals and booted each new Frugal. No problem.

I was surprised that each Pup was visually different in its first-run setting-up - both coming from woof-CE, I was expecting Stretch & Xenial to go through the same views but no, not the same pictures at all.

After creating a save-folder for each, I added my usual array of sfs (on sda7) and have had no problem with any sfs.

I installed a lm-sensors pet so pwidgets can report CPU temperature, etc.

I fixed my Gimp-2.8 problem of jpg files not being found by Gimp, by adding the missing lib files listed in running Gimp from a terminal - different libs needed between the two Pups.

I made a simple svg wallpaper with Trio's wallmaker (sfs) that included the Pup's name so I could easily see which Pup I was running (this also is on top of my pwidgets, but not in such a big font).

Substituted the drive icons for one of Mike Walsh's set, after removing the drive label from the initial set-up (not enough room for both drive name and label on my desktop computer).

Programs whose profiles or configs I run via symlinks to my data partition all look good, as well as my personal preference of browser+email, Seamonkey, which I run directly by a single symlink of its executable from my data partition to /usr/bin. I change the defaultbrowser and defaultemail in /usr/local/bin to seamonkey and 'seamonkey -mail' as well.

For simplicitiy, if not also efficiency, I then add icons to the pinboard/desktop of my frequently used programs.

My compliments to you for both these Pups - and of course, to BK and the woof-CE teams who probably have done all 'the hard metres' that simple users like me don't realise or too often forget about.

David S.

PS: Do I need to re-name your first xenialpup-7.0.6 to non-PAE as well as its different kernel to this later Xenial-7.0.6? Or have I got this back-to-front?

Greetings davids45 ,
Thank you for the feedback. Greatly appreciated.
The 7.0.6 build with the 4.1.30 has the PAE.
HAND

Yes and Many Thanks to The Folks at woof-CE for making it all possible.

G'day Wildman69,

First, I apologise for getting your name wrong in my wallpaper for the Deb Pup - it's now 69 not 68 .

Both Pups displayed a warning from Debian when I installed some old .pets (see screenshot). Ignoring whatever this message meant and proceeding with the installs seemed OK as the .pets are running in both Pups. Is this a woof-CE issue?

I managed to crash the DebPup with Slimjet while over-vigorously playing Geoguessr (somewhere on an interesting trail in a mountainous North Thailand Forest Park) but on re-booting, the recovery process went through without dramas so I think that's a good result for the Pup.

I ran into a 'filter failed' error when trying to install my usb+network connected Epson XP-200 printer in the Deb Pup. I used a .pet of the Epson driver for this (epson_inkjet_printer_escpr-1.4.0.pet) as I can't work out how to set this up as an .sfs.
The same .pet install process was fine in the Xenial-706 Pup where I can print with my printer.
The scanner side of the printer is fine in both Pups as is the inkgui program that checks the ink left.
I've had this 'filter failed' problem before and need to look back at past threads to see what our forum's printer-miracle-worker rcrsn51 did to fix this problem for me. He must tire of us slow-learners.

Anyway, nothing really bad to report about your Pups so far.

Thanks,

David S.

Greetings davids45,
The debian build is something I did for someone else. I am not that fluent in that flavor. Thus I did not know about the reported issues. Apologies for my exuberance. I got carried away.

All I can take credit for is fingering out the woof-CE.
I am currently running my xenial 7.0.6 with the 4.9.13 kernel and the only program I can not get to run is the googleearth 7 sfs; the 6 works fine though. In the long run I can Update my system when I'm ready as I go.
Gotta Love Puppy.

Thank You Mr. Barry Kauler.

I myself would like to see a return to a straight puppy, like 4.3.1; before it got tied to the other distros.
Ahh! The good old days.

About that epson printer fail...
Two things to check

/usr/lib/libjpeg.so.7.0.0 (is it there or just a symlink?)
/usr/lib/libpng12.so.0.44.0 or 0.57.0

These two are used for printing, even though there are other versions of the same file (libjpeg.so.8, and libpng14.so) used for other stuff. I had a heck of a time figuring out this problem, even after reverting bash in my recent slacko5.7 spins.

HTH
8Geee