Optimising Puppy performance

[SilverPuppy]

Well, I guess so be it. I think that those are valid reasons to do as was done, but I think it would have been better to do it in some form that didn't make people like me fear that the future of Puppy was going to look like M$ Lite.

As for minimalism, it was certainly part of the vision that I gathered from some of my early reading on Puppy, but therein is the utter uniqueness of the Puppy vision: maximum usability with minimal overhead and MBs. It is a tall order, but has been executed to perfection in many ways. I just don't see that the bling enhances usability, in fact I think it decreases it slightly for me, but I do see that there was a purpose to it.

As for the laundry list of items that the new Puppy user gets with 4.2, with the exception of being pretty, that was exactly what I meant earlier when I said that it seemed like good things were happening with the core Puppy, and I certainly do appreciate all the hard work that has gone into it in that way. I just look forward to an official package that isn't all blinged up. Has Ttuxxx or whatever his name is been making de-blinged versions with all the latest bugfixes as they come out? If so, I would be interested in investigating 4.2 deblinged for the core improvements.

Now, what's this about Ubuntu compatibility? I've been hearing about it, and I want to understand in what way Puppy would suddenly be compatible with Ubuntu......Linux is Linux; just the package format is different. Is that the compatibility you're referring to? Installing Ubuntu's packages through Puppy Package Manager? Perhaps someone could enlighten me as to what is going to be compatible with Ubuntu.

I do appreciate all the hard work that has gone into 4.2, I just wish it was packaged a little differently, that's all. I hope that in the future these changes can be made in ways that don't offend one user segment in the process of attracting another.

[SilverPuppy]

The point is that it isn't what's in your mind that makes it a hobby distro. BarryK started the Puppy project as a hobby. It is still his hobby. If you want it to be anything else then you'll need to provide it with what underpins the mainstream distros - money, concentrated development effort, focus on security and bug fixing. These are all things Barry has never been too concerned about except as they become a part of his approach to his hobby.

I think you're being a bit inconsistent on this one. On the one hand you say it's just a hobby OS because the developers have received no meaningful compensation for their efforts, but on the other hand you wish for people to take it seriously enough to be in the top 5 distros, which I guess you have now done, congratulations. If you use the definitions you're using to classify Puppy as a hobby OS, then many if not most of the other great open-source tools we use to do work would also be just hobby programs.

I look at it this way: just because you have a hobby which involves Mini Coopers doesn't make them a hobby car. They're a useful, no-nonsense car that is the most practical option for many drivers. If they happen to be your hobby, that doesn't make the product a hobby.

I think that it would be more correct to say that you have a hobby of collaborative software development, not that the product of that effort is a hobby. Puppy is definitely long past a hobby OS at this point: if it were a hobby, it would be something people took out for fun, since that's what hobbies are, but people including myself use Puppy on a daily basis for real-world work. Many people have Puppy now installed as their primary OS, people from senior citizens who have been provided with nearly fool-proof surf and e-mail boxes running Puppy, to myself using it for data recovery, backup, and other vital business functions. I think calling Puppy a "Hobby OS" downplays its true usefulness and value. Puppy has been a fully viable OS for most home and Small Office/Home Office functions for many, many releases now. Don't diminish that in your own mind.

Long live Puppy!

[sikpuppy]

Installing Ubuntu's packages through Puppy Package Manager?

Yes, that works.

What doesn't, and I have no ambition to speak for anyone but myself, is my modest laptop. Not at any great rate of knots anyway.

I understand the approach, because once the backend of the o/s is sorted, it will be fairly simple to install Debian packages, or convert them with minimum effort. This will save the developers time they can spend on making the backend as smooth as possible.

However, since packages for Puppy have had to be, on the whole, compiled specifically for Puppy, they generally are lean mean and fast.

I dunno about uPup. But it's early days yet, so touch (taps head) wood that the end product makes a mockery of my protestations.

[SilverPuppy]

Do you mean that it works now in 4.2, or that it will be made to work in 5? Is that all that is meant by "Ubuntu Compatibility" or are there other aspects to it as well?

[sikpuppy]

You could always read the thread here, and the blog on the puppylinux.* mirrors. That way you will be as informed as any non-developer could want to be.

[WhoDo]

Do you mean that it works now in 4.2, or that it will be made to work in 5? Is that all that is meant by "Ubuntu Compatibility" or are there other aspects to it as well?

Puppy-4.2 doesn't support Ubuntu compatibility specifically, although there may well be some packages that either work natively or have been ported for Puppy.

OTOH, Puppy-5.x codenamed "Jaunty Puppy" is in Alpha (latest is upup-476), and that does have full Ubuntu package compatibility through the Ubuntu repositories; at least it will when finally released. I'm using it right now while testing community developed packages for inclusion in our own repository, and it seems perfectly stable for me right now.

Basically you aren't getting Ubuntu you're getting Puppy, but you can use it the same as Ubuntu only better, faster, leaner. There are plans to make upup2 package compatible with whatever release comes out from Ubuntu. There are already plans for a Karmic Puppy for example. All such Puppies would be a product of BarryK's revolutionary build system called Woof, which allows users to package together a new Debian, Ubuntu, Slackware or Arch compatible version of Puppy almost at will.

As for your earlier question about a version of Puppy-4.2 packaged without the "bling" but including all updates available at the time, you should look at ttuuxxx's Puppies-4.2 variant. Alternatively, you can get the very latest with Puppy-4.2.1 and simply click to remove the "bling". There are "x" points on each part and a menu item under Pwidgets to let you do that. If you want to make that permanent you can use RemaX to remaster without the "bling" yourself. Choices, choices, choices. Only you can makem!

[James C]

As WhoDo said, using the Woof build system Puppy will be able to use the repositories of Ubuntu, Debian, Arch, Slackware and Puppy....depending on the build.

I have a full install of the latest Upup 4.76 and it is solid for an alpha.The package management still needs work, but that's why it's still in alpha.

I also just built my own Spup, using the Slackware repositories.Same thing as Upup, solid.

Lastly, with Remax anyone can add or remove any package they choose.I usually remove the bling, Seamonkey (I use Firepup),and basically any thing I won't use.

Puppy makes it easy to customize it your way.

[WhoDo]

I think you're being a bit inconsistent on this one. On the one hand you say it's just a hobby OS because the developers have received no meaningful compensation for their efforts, but on the other hand you wish for people to take it seriously enough to be in the top 5 distros, which I guess you have now done, congratulations. If you use the definitions you're using to classify Puppy as a hobby OS, then many if not most of the other great open-source tools we use to do work would also be just hobby programs.

And they most certainly are ... hobby tools that is. Check out Sourceforge.net for release dates if you need confirmation. I guess any apparent inconsistency comes from my Australian tendency to support the underdog. Puppy is on the cusp of achieving consistent Top 5 status at the moment, but one bad release or misjudgement of the market and we'll go the way of many others. The competition is tough - Ubuntu, OpenSUSE, Mint, Fedora, Debian, Mandriva and PCLinuxOS stand before us. With the exception of PCLinuxOS, they are all supported by professional development teams and solid funding. PCLinuxOS had a head start being based on Mandrake.

What is truly amazing is that Puppy is right up there on merit, having been started from scratch by Barry as a retirement hobby and now being built by a bunch of amateurs and a couple of part-time professionals on a shoestring just for FUN. So was PCLinuxOS before the blowup, and we had a great affinity between the two communities for that reason. TinyMe was born of respect for Puppy, as Kdulcimer would no doubt confirm.

The hobby part describes WHY people develop for the FOSS community even when they aren't paid to do so. Things like Red Hat Enterprise Linux, Novel Linux (SUSE) or even Ubuntu Linux are not hobby OS projects. The same is true when you look at Crossover Office (a non-free refinement of Wine), OpenOffice.org (SUN sponsored) and a whole host of other stuff that started out being developed as a hobby and whose popularity was leveraged to pay people to develop it further. Puppy isn't yet at that point in its development cycle.

Mandriva thought it was ready for serious status, and made a bad release to prove it wasn't. PCLinuxOS isn't, at least not at the moment. Open Office is (Sun sponsored) but Abiword isn't, etc. etc. Yes, PCLinuxOS is still a hobby OS because if 3-4 key devs get p'd off and leave it falls in a heap unless and until the original creator (in this case Texstar) steps back in to try and keep it alive. I didn't want to see that happen to Puppy. None of us did.

Puppy is definitely long past a hobby OS at this point: if it were a hobby, it would be something people took out for fun, since that's what hobbies are, but people including myself use Puppy on a daily basis for real-world work. Many people have Puppy now installed as their primary OS, people from senior citizens who have been provided with nearly fool-proof surf and e-mail boxes running Puppy, to myself using it for data recovery, backup, and other vital business functions. I think calling Puppy a "Hobby OS" downplays its true usefulness and value. Puppy has been a fully viable OS for most home and Small Office/Home Office functions for many, many releases now. Don't diminish that in your own mind.

There is no questioning the value of Puppy in any iteration consistent with its place in time. Puppy 1.xx was revolutionary (save to CD). Puppy 2.x was also revolutionary (SFS support). Puppy 3.xx was revolutionary (Slackware compatible). Puppy 4.x is largely evolutionary but with a revolutionary flavour (look how much you can pack into 100Mb) and Puppy 5.xx will be revolutionary (Ubuntu, Slackware, Debian or Arch support).

The problem is that any OS, hobby or otherwise, is only as good as its last release. Where is Xandros now? What about Freespire, DSL, Knoppix, Gentoo, Slax, SliTaz, Kanotix, etc. They all held great promise at one time or another and now they are all languishing to a greater or lesser degree. Puppy could have been comfortable on its laurels with Puppy 4.1.2 and it too would be languishing sooner rather than later. What doesn't move on falls behind is the mantra for any Quality system.

The fact is what keeps people using Puppy, and developing for Puppy, is that it is FUN. That's not to say it isn't being used in a myriad of ways for business too, but as soon as it stops being fun the silence around here will be deafening! There are better, more solid choices for a professional desktop OS, but they're pretty boring. For them bling has become the only thing to occasionally relieve the boredom - Compiz, Beryl, yada yada. Most of us have tried some if not all of them. I have long had associations with PCLinuxOS, Ubuntu and now Linux Mint among my preference list for solid, but they are boring rather than fun. Who are the Puppy competitors in the "fun" stakes? ATM those would be TinyCore and Crunchbang, most likely.

That said (and Lord knows I took enough words to say it ), even if Puppy is still technically a hobby OS, I heartily agree that its usefulness is far and away beyond that for sure. The thing is that people need to discover that for themselves. You can't tell them that; they have to find it out or they think its just "fanboi stuff". Getting them to give Puppy a trial is the key. Some will hate it and leave. Most will stay for the sheer FUN of it! JMHO.

[SilverPuppy]

Well, I hear you on the hobby thing, I guess, but I still think that FOSS's "Hobby" status is based on what it's used for primarily, not the development status. But you clearly do value it highly, hobby or not, so I guess there's not much purpose to my hair-splitting. Like I said, it's not a corporate solution, but it sure is a humdinger of a "Friendly Home Computer" OS.

So Woof allows you to build uPup, sPup, etc., but do they come that way, in separate ISOs, or is it one (retro is 2?) ISO that you remaster to switch between backends? It sounds like separate ISOs. Will there continue to be a plain-Jane .PET only Puppy to use in cases (like when I use it for old folks) where there's a pressing reason to eliminate as many potential "cans of worms" as possible? I'd much rather give an old fart a Puppy that can only use the PET/PUP repositories, since they were intended to be compatible with Puppy, and hence don't generally have any compatibility issues. Some old farts are curious enough to dig through repositories, and I'd rather they get me involved if they want to attempt a non-native package. Eliminating the option solves the problem rather nicely. But maybe it will prove to be solid enough that I don't have to worry about it anyway. But so far, just the PET/PUP stuff has been quite adequate for everything I've wanted to do. And they're not too terribly hard to make, and most of the important stuff has already been made into one or the other. Maybe the Puppy 4 line will remain popular for this purpose, who knows.

[WhoDo]

So Woof allows you to build uPup, sPup, etc., but do they come that way, in separate ISOs, or is it one (retro is 2?) ISO that you remaster to switch between backends? It sounds like separate ISOs. Will there continue to be a plain-Jane .PET only Puppy to use in cases (like when I use it for old folks) where there's a pressing reason to eliminate as many potential "cans of worms" as possible?

Yes, Woof builds separate ISO's based on your selection of back-end. Yes, there is a ppup (Puppy puppy?) plain puppy option rebuilt using T2 sources which also underpinned the 4.x Dingo series as well. It is built entirely with .pet packages and no specific compatibility. Personally, I think that one will still be the flagship of the Puppy fleet, and the others after 5.x will be built by enthusiasts rather than as an official community release.

[SilverPuppy]

Personally, I think that one will still be the flagship of the Puppy fleet, and the others after 5.x will be built by enthusiasts rather than as an official community release.

We actually AGREE on something! Astonishing! I heartily agree that it probably will and definitely SHOULD be the flagship of the line. The Puppies with dyed hair will probably just be used by people who already have lots of software packages for a different distro.

So is it something which spins at boot-time, on the server, or boots pPup, applies a package from the repository, and remasters or saves and reboots into the new flavor? I'm not clear on at what point the change takes place. Wouldn't it be best to have all the flavors available for download in a ready-to-use format? Of course, like I said, the people who would use the wild-flavored Pupcicles would probably be converts from another distro, not ex-M$ junkies, so they'd probably feel comfortable with whatever simple reworking was required for their preferred flavor of doglet (chili Puppy, anybody?)

Whoa, I think I just came up with a catchier way to name these than xPup.......let's see.......hmmmm...........well, naming them after weiners would be difficult to do with any coherency.........Coney Puppy......NY Puppy.......Cajun Puppy........ ......well, maybe not, but it made me laugh to think of it...........

Or maybe Bull Puppy, Irish Puppy, Basset Puppy, and Golden Puppy? It might be fun to take notable traits of the distros that Puppy is being made compatible with, finding dogs that share that trait and calling the flavored Puppy that.........

Do I have a real stroke of marketing genius, a weird sense of humor, or both?

[James C]

SilverPuppy,

Using Woof you build the distro on your own computer. Download the Woof tarball and expand it.The tarball contains all of the Woof scripts necessary.

Choose your distro(Ubuntu, Debian,Slackware, Arch, Puppy or T2) and run Barry K's scripts../0 setup, ./1download, ./2build packages and ./3build distro.

Woof downloads the needed packages, builds the new smaller packages for the new pup, and then builds the finished distro. There is a lot of downloading involved.

I agree too that the Puppy based Woof should be the mainstay of the Puppy lineup.

Now I need to figure out which I'm going to build next........

[SilverPuppy]

That's the way it sounded. Will the packages be available as a single Tarball for those who don't have a great internet connection at home to take home from work and play with? Oh wait, people don't ever use corporate computers for personal stuff, do they?

On a side note, here's the objectives Barry set forth early on here http://puppylinux.org/main/index.php?fi ... tarted.htm

Puppy Linux Mission Statement (Barry Kauler):

Puppy will easily install to USB, Zip or hard drive media
Booting from CD, Puppy will load totally into RAM so that the CD drive is then free for other purposes
Puppy will be extremely friendly for Linux newbies
Puppy will boot up and run extraordinarily fast
Puppy will have all the applications needed for daily use
Puppy will just work, no hassles
Puppy will breathe new life into old PCs

Nothing in there about being pretty.....but I hear you from before about some people "needing" that to feel like it's friendly.......but I think you are tired of me harping on that subect........I guess I'd have to say that 4.2 still fits those specs.......arrgh, I hate to have to admit that.. ...but I still don't want any bling on MY Puppy!

[WhoDo]

Personally, I think that one will still be the flagship of the Puppy fleet, and the others after 5.x will be built by enthusiasts rather than as an official community release.

We actually AGREE on something! Astonishing!

Oh no! How did that happen?

So is it something which spins at boot-time, on the server, or boots pPup, applies a package from the repository, and remasters or saves and reboots into the new flavor? I'm not clear on at what point the change takes place.

Each new version is a complete, self-contained ISO built from the scripts provided by Barry and the packages from the relevant repository - Debian, Slack, Ubuntu, etc. Because each is built using the Woof system, it is possible that no two builds are identical as well. It all depends on what the builder wants to achieve. That's one of the reasons why ppup will still be the "standard" version IMHO.

Wouldn't it be best to have all the flavors available for download in a ready-to-use format? Of course, like I said, the people who would use the wild-flavored Pupcicles would probably be converts from another distro, not ex-M$ junkies, so they'd probably feel comfortable with whatever simple reworking was required for their preferred flavor of doglet (chili Puppy, anybody?)

Not really practical, since the repositories are not under our control and the packages are regularly updated in those repositories. Hard as it is on dial up users, there really isn't another way AFAIK. Heck, these days a security update from Micro$oft will go 350Mb, a system update from Ubuntu/Kubuntu/Mint will go 300Mb; that's an average of 3 to 3.5 Puppies per update, so downloading about 80-90Mb to create a new ISO is not so bad.

Do I have a real stroke of marketing genius, a weird sense of humor, or both?

Both ...

[WhoDo]

Puppy Linux Mission Statement (Barry Kauler):

Puppy will easily install to USB, Zip or hard drive media
Booting from CD, Puppy will load totally into RAM so that the CD drive is then free for other purposes
Puppy will be extremely friendly for Linux newbies
Puppy will boot up and run extraordinarily fast
Puppy will have all the applications needed for daily use
Puppy will just work, no hassles
Puppy will breathe new life into old PCs

Nothing in there about being pretty.....but I hear you from before about some people "needing" that to feel like it's friendly.......but I think you are tired of me harping on that subect........I guess I'd have to say that 4.2 still fits those specs.......arrgh, I hate to have to admit that.. ...but I still don't want any bling on MY Puppy!

No-one is going to FORCE you to take the "bling". We are equal opportunity software providers around here! There are so many choices that simply choosing has become the major problem for most puppians!

There is also nothing in the charter about being "small" or "minimalist" either, but that kinda comes with loading into RAM and breathing new life into old PC's.

[DaveS]

We are equal opportunity software providers

I love it............. Australia goes PC. Off to blow my brains out

[sikpuppy]

To misquote Orwell "Some opportunities are more equal than others."

[historymaker118]

I'm sorry. I've been reading my way all the way through this topic and I just cannot believe that there are people out there who make an issue out of a nicer looking Puppy. I have been using Puppy for about 7 months now since my Windows machine nearly died from one too many 'updates' from its mothership and I wanted a small but reliable linux distro to replace it with.
When I first started to use puppy, I almost immediatly wanted to run away. It looked horrible*, like something from the early 90's that had got lost in a time capsual and was put on the internet for a laugh. However after a few tweaks to its looks so I could deal with it, I fell in love. The fast processing, the huge selection of programs and the nice and simple pet packaging system made me stay. When I finally got around to upgrading to puppy 4.1 I was extremely happy with the improved user interface, and after installing and running the pwidgets and icewm, I realised that it could look good and was customisable to a point where I felt that I could proudly show my friends my computer that made XP look outdated. (See pic below). I don't have a fancy machine, just a standard laptop thats about 5 years old. It runs puppy fine, 'bling**' and all.

I understand if you want something that looks like its from the 80's but if you're going to keep complaining that it doesn't look how you want then either do what I did and customise it yourself or find another distro. Its not that hard to do, and if you're as computer savy as you try to make out you are then you should have no problem making it look how you think puppy should. (ie make your own puplet.)
Now please, can we all stop criticising each other and this distro or it could end up killing it altogether. I love this distro and I think that it can only get better, and if gettting better means improving how it looks then I say bring it on! Vistah eat our dust! We're faster, more powerful and can even rival you on looks. Don't mess with this Puppy cause its got Bite!

*Puppy 2.x
** I personally dislike the word 'bling' to describe puppy's eye candy. Bling is horrible gold/diamond/silver jewlrey worn in excess by wanna-be gansters and chavs. Puppy linux's eyecandy does not fit this description. It is simple and elegent yet bold enough to make a statement and look good along side more traditional distros such as Windows, Mac and Ubuntu.

[sikpuppy]

The OP is a troll, plain and simple. Any reply that speaks to the OP speaks to nothing other that the OPs satisfaction they gained a response.

Well done to the OP.

[DaveS]

Dont you just wish Trolls knew about soap?