Posted: Sat 07 May 2011, 21:17
[ - comment deleted - but eyes kept on a "certain individual" ]
READ-ONLY Archive
https://oldforum.puppylinux.com/
Yes that is very true. But we talk about how hardware and software work together and them don't care about how annoying I am and I did follow advice of people that don't cause problem so the software should have behaved as they are used to unless I failed to follow their advice that is.puppyite wrote:nooby
Looks like you cause problems in every thread you post in.
No, that indicates NOTHING. Each user can have his own sign.nooby wrote: So the Terminal only name that user root. But as I remember it did change the $ sign to the Hash # sign indicating me was in root really!
It may not be possible to log in as root that way.nooby wrote: Bernie what I can think you are right about is if one stop the boot and go into prompt and tell the OS that one want to boot and log in as root then maybe it will not set the menu.lst as read only but to give permissions to write to it.
But not even the Dev of AntiX suggested I should do such thing and is that even possible in the three or four OS that I did test it on?
That's one way. My fee is $2,000 for the first day's work plus $500 for each additional day. If I don't have a solution in ten days, I will refund half your money. The bank commissioner in Nigeria, Mr. Barrister Thomas, will accept my fee and send you a receipt.nooby wrote: You only want to show me that you can do it with an identical set up as I have if I pay you? Was that correct way of reading your text?
What I said was:nooby wrote: When I read you first time I thought you wrote that you have done recently enough to remember how you did it or that you can do it now using same set up as I have.
How do you know that that is so if you never have done the same set up? Theory is one thing and practice can be a totally other thing.
Let's get a bit more specific about your system. You said Archiso. Which version are you using?My menu.lst is on an ntfs partition and I have no trouble editing it and saving it in any distro I use -- Puppy, Mepis, DSL, PCLOS or Knoppix. I haven’t seen any files on any distro I’ve used that block root access. I doubt that can be done successfully. Root can always reach a file one way or the other.
Uhhh. No.Bernie_by_the_Sea wrote:Puppy works fine on a brand new top-of-the-line computer. Ubuntu can be run from a CD or USB. A live CD is the only way I've ever looked at Ubuntu. I looked at it about three hours total in six years starting with 5.10. It's remained consistently crap over the years.l2ulinux wrote:Puppy Linux is a distribution to use on older computers, or to run from a CD or USB.
Puppy is usually about 120MB which is still small. Traditionally in Linux boot time is totally unimportant. Linux is known for running for years without a reboot. The command uptime is built into the Linux kernel to allow bragging about how long Linux has gone without a reboot. Today a friend of mine told me his Red Hat system has now been up 750 days. Linux is all about stability, not boot up speed.l2ulinux wrote:The whole system is usually about 85MB, which is small for an operating system. As a result, Puppy Linux usually boots quickly..
Ubuntu is far inferior to Windows and it’s an inferior distro in Linux. It’s designed for newbies and generally avoided by Linux old timers. Automatic updates? I've used the same version of XP for eight years without a single "update" automatic or otherwise.l2ulinux wrote:Ubuntu is an operating system that is intended to compete on a level playing field with the Windows operating system, offering software alternatives in every arena of normal computer use: OpenOffice for office applications, Firefox for Internet browsing, Rhythmbox for music, and Totem Movie Player for video. When users need new software, Ubuntu provides Synaptic Package Manager to easily install new software, and Ubuntu takes care of automatic updates to your system, just like Windows. .
Actually Puppy compares well with any operating system and it’s certainly far superior to Ubuntu. Puppy was never intended to be used only on old hardware.l2ulinux wrote:After the kernel, their similarity ends. Puppy is much more bare-bones, intended for a different audience than Ubuntu. Puppy was made for slimmer, older hardware, while Ubuntu is made for the newest hardware on the market. That's not to say Ubuntu won't work well on a 3-year-old computer. It will, but it's made for direct competition with the newest operating systems, while Puppy is really not .
Ubuntu is certainly not the most commonly used Linux distro. Distrowatch ranks by measuring one and only one thing-- the number of hits on its own web pages. It's totally meaningless as far as determining the number of users. A person might check out a half dozen small systems on Distrowatch but that doesn’t mean he chose Puppy or anything else just because he looked at its page. Most Linux users never look at or have never heard of Distrowatch.l2ulinux wrote:However, Ubuntu, the most commonly used Linux distro, according to Distrowatch.com, will seem easier to use for most new users. Its appearance and graphical interface is more similar in function and style to a Windows operating system than Puppy's. Most new users will gravitate to Ubuntu, given this choice, unless older hardware dictates a slimmer operating system, in which case Puppy Linux would be a great choice.
Newbies interested in a Windows lookalike are attracted to Ubuntu. Those with more sense are attracted to more traditional Linux distros... or to nontraditional Puppy.
Not exactly. I used Debian on and off for six years. I used Ubuntu about three hours. That's how I think those two compare. Now I've used Puppy about three months and it's become my everyday workhorse. I go to XP or Knoppix only when I need to do certain things quickly.sheepy wrote: Insulting Ubuntu is like insulting Debian, which is one of the first distributions in Linux. Puppy was made around 10 years after Debian.
This is true of about every Linux distro. So?sheepy wrote:You can change everything in Ubuntu the same way you can with Puppy.
I should have read that with more curious eyes. I think the reason we are so disagreeing lies there in that text.My menu.lst is on an ntfs partition and I have no trouble editing it and saving it in any distro I use -- Puppy, Mepis, DSL, PCLOS or Knoppix. I haven’t seen any files on any distro I’ve used that block root access. I doubt that can be done successfully. Root can always reach a file one way or the other.
Yes, but you act as though Ubuntu lacks power or something. You said it was inferior in the Linux world. It's very simple to change the environment and make it just as lightweight as Puppy. The buntu family has more compatibility than any other distro.Bernie_by_the_Sea wrote:Not exactly. I used Debian on and off for six years. I used Ubuntu about three hours. That's how I think those two compare. Now I've used Puppy about three months and it's become my everyday workhorse. I go to XP or Knoppix only when I need to do certain things quickly.sheepy wrote: Insulting Ubuntu is like insulting Debian, which is one of the first distributions in Linux. Puppy was made around 10 years after Debian.
Nowadays Ubuntu is almost universally recommended by Linux reviewers as the best distro for newcomers to Linux and for "Windows refugees." I think that's wrong but that's how it is.
This is true of about every Linux distro. So?sheepy wrote:You can change everything in Ubuntu the same way you can with Puppy.
Being a newcomer to this forum you might not realize that I'm really not a fan of Puppy. I like using it myself but I would never recommend it to anyone else. On the extremely rare occasions when I have suggested a Linux distro, either for Linux beginners or old hands, I named only Knoppix -- which by the way -- is a just a junior Debian. I also use Mepis and DSL that are Debian-based. I know Debian which makes its derivatives easier for me to use productively right off the bat.
There is no right or wrong distro but there are right and wrong fits for both users and hardware. Some go together smoothly but some don't. Ubuntu generally goes well with Linux newcomers and current hardware while Puppy usually goes well with either hobbyist tinkerers or those who have ancient hardware.
Yes, but you act as though Ubuntu lacks power or something. You said it was inferior in the Linux world. It's very simple to change the environment and make it just as lightweight as Puppy. The buntu family has more compatibility than any other distro.Bernie_by_the_Sea wrote:Not exactly. I used Debian on and off for six years. I used Ubuntu about three hours. That's how I think those two compare. Now I've used Puppy about three months and it's become my everyday workhorse. I go to XP or Knoppix only when I need to do certain things quickly.sheepy wrote: Insulting Ubuntu is like insulting Debian, which is one of the first distributions in Linux. Puppy was made around 10 years after Debian.
Nowadays Ubuntu is almost universally recommended by Linux reviewers as the best distro for newcomers to Linux and for "Windows refugees." I think that's wrong but that's how it is.
This is true of about every Linux distro. So?sheepy wrote:You can change everything in Ubuntu the same way you can with Puppy.
Being a newcomer to this forum you might not realize that I'm really not a fan of Puppy. I like using it myself but I would never recommend it to anyone else. On the extremely rare occasions when I have suggested a Linux distro, either for Linux beginners or old hands, I named only Knoppix -- which by the way -- is a just a junior Debian. I also use Mepis and DSL that are Debian-based. I know Debian which makes its derivatives easier for me to use productively right off the bat.
There is no right or wrong distro but there are right and wrong fits for both users and hardware. Some go together smoothly but some don't. Ubuntu generally goes well with Linux newcomers and current hardware while Puppy usually goes well with either hobbyist tinkerers or those who have ancient hardware.
My systems are scattered all over the place on 7 or 8 different partitions but two of them, both older versions of Knoppix are on that same ntsf partition as the menu.lst.nooby wrote: Your menu.lst is on the ntfs but we have to establish where is the OS that you boot up on? The same ntfs partition or another linux partition like ext2 or ext3 or Reiferts or something else?
Yes, but you would feel better knowing that you had paid to have it done right.nooby wrote: Sure I could move both menu.lst and gldr to (hd0,1) then most likely I could do as you would be able to do if I pay you
Since I'm on dialup I have a friend with a fast connection download larger things to a flash drive for me. It may be a couple of days before I can pick it up but I'll get it.nooby wrote: Archiso is this one by Godane
http://godane.wordpress.com/2011/01/05/ ... 4-release/
Since you're Scandinavian you must know the Tale of Yggdrasil whose Root reaches through all time and space. Ubuntu is a tiny twig on that tree but everything is possible for Root.nooby wrote: I will test it using Knoppix Adriane maybe that one are like puppy an exception to the norm too. Slitaz as I remember did not even allow me to ever see the (hd0,2) at all. But maybe I have to give it another try now when I know how sure you are that everything is possible if one are the dreaded root guy.
I said nothing about any lack of power. All Linux kernels have essentially the same power. I said nothing about lightweight. Lightweight is usually a disadvantage.sheepy wrote: Yes, but you act as though Ubuntu lacks power or something. You said it was inferior in the Linux world. It's very simple to change the environment and make it just as lightweight as Puppy. The buntu family has more compatibility than any other distro.
Debian now comes on five or six DVD's. How many DVD's does it take to hold Ubuntu? Name one specific task Ubuntu can do that Knoppix can't do... or that Puppy can't do.sheepy wrote: In my opinion, Ubuntu is for those who need to get things done that would otherwise have to be one with Windoze. Most other distros lack apps for specific tasks that not everyone would have to do. That's where Ubuntu comes in.
Bernie_by_the_Sea wrote:I said nothing about any lack of power. All Linux kernels have essentially the same power. I said nothing about lightweight. Lightweight is usually a disadvantage.sheepy wrote: Yes, but you act as though Ubuntu lacks power or something. You said it was inferior in the Linux world. It's very simple to change the environment and make it just as lightweight as Puppy. The buntu family has more compatibility than any other distro.
It is not correct that Ubuntu has more compatibility than any other distro.
Debian now comes on five or six DVD's. How many DVD's does it take to hold Ubuntu? Name one specific task Ubuntu can do that Knoppix can't do... or that Puppy can't do.sheepy wrote: In my opinion, Ubuntu is for those who need to get things done that would otherwise have to be one with Windoze. Most other distros lack apps for specific tasks that not everyone would have to do. That's where Ubuntu comes in.
There is no Linux distro that can do everything Windows can do. The drivers and apps just don't exist.
Well, I don't do games. I dislike Wine strongly and only use it for four minor programs in a sandbox-like compartment. I certainly don't do Direct-X which is one of the most dangerous components of Windows. So I have no personal experience with any of these.sheepy wrote: Try running compiz effects in Puppy.
Try running a heavily DirectX-dependent 3D game in Wine on Knoppix or Puppy. Chances are, it will work half as often as it will in Ubuntu. I have gotten Aion, Shaiya, Talisman, both Left 4 Dead's, Black Ops, (I hate that game, btw) and Star Wars: Force Unleashed to all work flawlessly under Wine in Ubuntu. I've only had one or two 3D games fail to run under Wine in Ubuntu, while other distros never even have one work.
Wary most likely try to be for older computers.from the link in the first post.
Puppy Disctinctives
*
Puppy Linux is a distribution to use on older computers, or to run from a CD or USB. The whole system is usually about 85MB, which is small for an operating system. As a result, Puppy Linux usually boots quickly. Many users choose Puppy Linux for this speed and for the tools that come standard on a Puppy system image that can be burned and booted from CD. Puppy is a good choice for older hardware, too. Because it's so small, you can easily install it onto an older hard drive. It takes up less space and operates smoothly.
the compiz_xfce4-4.6.2-Lucid.pet works fine on my lupu525, spinning cube,wobbly windows etc....sheepy wrote:
Try running compiz effects in Puppy.
Try running a heavily DirectX-dependent 3D game in Wine on Knoppix or Puppy. Chances are, it will work half as often as it will in Ubuntu. I have gotten Aion, Shaiya, Talisman, both Left 4 Dead's, Black Ops, (I hate that game, btw) and Star Wars: Force Unleashed to all work flawlessly under Wine in Ubuntu. I've only had one or two 3D games fail to run under Wine in Ubuntu, while other distros never even have one work.
Good that Puppy is being compared.Ubuntu gets cursed for changing its default desktop from Gnome to Unity and many users threaten to jump ship. Yet, this week, Puppy announces that the maintainer of Puppy Lucid gets to take a break and that will end the Ubuntu connection. It will be up to the next maintainer to select a package base for Puppy 5.3. Where is the outrage for this announcement?
Yes, Ubuntu made a major change for Natty. I tried it and still use Lucid. I also used Puppy in the past, keeping it for a liveCD distro. But, every time I download the latest version of Puppy, it is very different from the last version. Puppy gets a pass on criticism for its many changes. Why?
I guess it is because Puppy has such a small following and Ubuntu has become the Linux version of MIcrosoft. It made the mistake of being successful.
Paul