with great power comes great responsibility
Posted: Wed 09 Jan 2013, 23:26
Who'd be a developer?
I can sympathise with both of you, puppyluver, jpeps.
Jay, I know the amount of time it takes to learn, then develop stuff. It can be detrimental to certain things therefore balance is needed. There is a fine line between "hobby" and "addiction". No need to drum that in I guess!
I started out with eye candy in pwidgets. I wrote some terrible code. Learned from that and now my code isn't so terrible, not saying it's good but it is a lot simpler and doesn't try to exceed my capabilities. That boundary is gradually pushed up. As for eye candy now, I generally steer clear of it in my personal setups. Sure I, supply compiz for slacko (sfs, with bold warnings) and that is directly based on dinky's work, you mention in the OP.
jpeps, I can fully understand your point. Especially since we can't be fully sure what puppy any application was developed on or for. These days, there are many library incompatibilities between versions. While diversity is great it has a price. I just wonder if we could make a new kind of "sandbox" type thing, say a ~32~64M disposable savefile mounted on top of the existing save file, it may well be possible with the layered filesystem, bit beyond me though. Still, that would be useless to the many who prefer "full" installs.
RSH, as for libs and symlinks, don't hold your breath for your wish! It's a complex eco-system that I don't fully understand, but I believe that it's to do with different versions of libs needing some common ground, if that makes sense. Often development of versions proceeds at great speed, take firefox for example and it's libs, nspr, nss etc. Sometimes backward compatibility is preserved, other times not, ffmpeg is a classic example of not!
I agree that it is way too easy for anyone to create a pet. I'm guilty of distributing rubbish pets, no data loss ones that I know of but I do know of better coders than me that have released pets that have wiped entire partitions. We use at own risk.
One criticism I have of Puppy as a learning environment for Linux is the lack of multiuser support. It breeds bad habits, such as hard coding to root. I try to avoid this but sometimes it's not always possible. If not then I comment that code block. That is just a personal opinion, not on Puppy running as root, but as a general learning tool for Linux,
I can sympathise with both of you, puppyluver, jpeps.
Jay, I know the amount of time it takes to learn, then develop stuff. It can be detrimental to certain things therefore balance is needed. There is a fine line between "hobby" and "addiction". No need to drum that in I guess!
I started out with eye candy in pwidgets. I wrote some terrible code. Learned from that and now my code isn't so terrible, not saying it's good but it is a lot simpler and doesn't try to exceed my capabilities. That boundary is gradually pushed up. As for eye candy now, I generally steer clear of it in my personal setups. Sure I, supply compiz for slacko (sfs, with bold warnings) and that is directly based on dinky's work, you mention in the OP.
jpeps, I can fully understand your point. Especially since we can't be fully sure what puppy any application was developed on or for. These days, there are many library incompatibilities between versions. While diversity is great it has a price. I just wonder if we could make a new kind of "sandbox" type thing, say a ~32~64M disposable savefile mounted on top of the existing save file, it may well be possible with the layered filesystem, bit beyond me though. Still, that would be useless to the many who prefer "full" installs.
RSH, as for libs and symlinks, don't hold your breath for your wish! It's a complex eco-system that I don't fully understand, but I believe that it's to do with different versions of libs needing some common ground, if that makes sense. Often development of versions proceeds at great speed, take firefox for example and it's libs, nspr, nss etc. Sometimes backward compatibility is preserved, other times not, ffmpeg is a classic example of not!
I agree that it is way too easy for anyone to create a pet. I'm guilty of distributing rubbish pets, no data loss ones that I know of but I do know of better coders than me that have released pets that have wiped entire partitions. We use at own risk.
One criticism I have of Puppy as a learning environment for Linux is the lack of multiuser support. It breeds bad habits, such as hard coding to root. I try to avoid this but sometimes it's not always possible. If not then I comment that code block. That is just a personal opinion, not on Puppy running as root, but as a general learning tool for Linux,