(old)Puppy Linux Discussion Forum

Scooby wrote:

BarryK wrote:...

I read your reply and that of your pack as well

A message

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5x_-IoeSB-A

rcrsn51 wrote:That's not for you to say. Anyone reading his post would view it as disrespectful, especially considering the facts of the situation.

I'm sorry, I still can't interpret it as "disrespectful". What facts of the situation were you referring to? Maybe that would help me see your point.

rcrsn51 wrote:How else should he take it? Consider simargl's record for taking things personally.

I personally haven't "seen" simargl taking things personally.
On the contrary, I have seen him coping very well with some angry puppy-advocate-users that almost felt it was blasphemy not to include most Puppy's GTK small-set-of-tools in simargl's ArchPup. From a regular user point of view, there is no harm done by simargl and his projects based on Woof. Again, on the opposite: simargl projects have have been tagged by some of us as our best puppies ever.
This means that simargl did a pretty nice job and as a side effect he did help some of the puppy community to enjoy puppy even more than we already did.

rcrsn51 wrote:Any maybe you would all be happier working from its new forum.

Now, is that really necessary?
I know I wish it wouldn't be necessary at all.

Well...this is Puppy Linux discussion forum. See the page main label.

Here is how Puppy Linux creator, Barry Kauler, posted about it in his blog:

I was reading recently about how the Arch Linux guys run a very "tight ship" on their forum. In contrast, the Puppy Forum is a "free for all", and distros only vaguely Puppy-like have threads.

I hope that the discussion would continue around Puppy Linux in this forum also.

I think that the work by Simargl is remarkable and admirable, but the forum is not quite the right one.

I am not going to post more about this. I just hope happy ending...and soon.

pemasu wrote:I hope that the discussion would continue around Puppy Linux in this forum also.

AlphaOS is based on Woof, right? I would say that that makes it is a Puppy flavor although it "does not look" like a Puppy.

pemasu wrote:I think that the work by Simargl is remarkable and admirable, but the forum is not quite the right one.

Then I am afraid I miss the meaning in BarryK's blog entry where it says that the Puppy Forum is free for all.
If it is free for all I don't know why some want simargl and his projects to leave.

Barry K. is one and only wizard in Puppy linux world, if you don't believe me - take a look at init script inside initrd.gz, I can just
imagine time needed to write all of that and to offer user so many choices (pupmodes). Scooby's post was just a joke, a bit harsh maybe.

Anyway this thread is turning into something it shouldn't, so please let's stick to the subject.

john3voltas wrote:AlphaOS is based on Woof, right? I would say that that makes it is a Puppy flavor although it "does not look" like a Puppy.

Simargl should answer that question.

rcrsn51 wrote:

john3voltas wrote:AlphaOS is based on Woof, right? I would say that that makes it is a Puppy flavor although it "does not look" like a Puppy.

Simargl should answer that question.

It uses parts of woof root filesystem, but it's not built using woof, Barry said it's Puppy fork and I think he is right.

As ex-Arch user I thought it is good to centralize system settings in one file /etc/rc.conf.

That file defines what system services should run on start up, loading of kernel modules, hardware clock type, internet connections...

Support for loading 20 additional sfs files, and 3 main modules
DISTRO_PUPPYSFS
DISTRO_ADRVSFS
DISTRO_BDRVSFS

For starting window manager used in environment variable defined under /etc/profile.d, not file /etc/windowmanager.

Okay, so be it: it's a fork.
Now what? Does this mean that AlphaOS has to leave Murga?
I honestly don't think that's fair. Besides I don't think simargl did anything wrong.
Scooby might have sounded a bit harsh on his comment but I am quite sure that he didn't mean any harm. IMO with his words he was just pushing BarryK forward but I am not his lawyer.
I just think that these incidents shouldn't be used as excuse to push simargl and his work out of murga. But who am I, right?
Cheers

In this discussion, there was an expressed feeling that the [pre]AlphaOS was unwelcome in this forum (among other feelings, that is).

Why, then, create your own forum and the issue is there no more.
(This isn't the same as saying that the feeling is valid.)

Simargl has done that, so using the new forum is the next good thing to do.

pemasu wrote:I think that the work by Simargl is remarkable and admirable, but the forum is not quite the right one.

I am not going to post more about this. I just hope happy ending...and soon.

Hehe, what's up pemasu? Sorry, ending will not happen very soon, happy or the other one

I don't know why you mention my leave - I'm not threat to anyone...

I dont see the problem with AlphaOS and simargls works etc...

As long as it is made clear that despite using *some* of the Puppy Linux boot stuff, AlphaOS is NOT a proper puppy linux, and that it is a fork of puppy linux cos it is built using a different method, has a different setup etc, then i dont see the problem..

I do of course see why many long time users have been upset by some of the rude comments made by stifiling and some others about Puppy, Slacko, Barry and some other puppy devs, but I hope we're over this hump, and I am sure things will settle down.

Variety is the spice of life, so keep up with AlphaOS, it can compliment Puppy, and while not truly part of the Puppy family of releases, it's a good mix between Puppy and Arch. I think I would prefer to use AlphaOS rather than actual Arch Linux, for example.

It is of course the done thing to give a fork its own space, but IMVHO this forum could be that place, as long as it is clear that AlphaOS is a fork - we dont want users posting issues with AlphaOS to puppy threads and vice versa - that wont help the devs of either...

BTW.. In general, this forum has no place for rude or impolite behaviour and that extends to slagging off peoples' work, and spamming their threads with inflammatory guff about your own stuff, calling people names, denigrating their efforts, etc, etc!! Should these niceties be ignored, then by all means, leave the forum, whoever you are - you will not be missed (that is not aimed at anyone in particular, just making the point - if you don't have anything nice to say - leave the bloody forum!!).

EDIT: While I am here, I would like to know if VLC-GTK works in Arch or AlphaOS....?

sc0ttman wrote:some of the rude comments made by stifiling

what rude comment did i make?

stifiling wrote:

sc0ttman wrote:some of the rude comments made by stifiling

what rude comment did i make?

first, I will repeat myself - I am not re-igniting anything, I think we are 'over the hump' (we got past our disagreements).. But since you ask..

http://murga-linux.com/puppy/viewtopic. ... 382#692382

stifiling wrote:*A little rude. Decided to delete.*

But good to see you're learning:
http://murga-linux.com/puppy/viewtopic. ... 208#692208

stifiling wrote:So I would like to apologize to 'Barry' for accusing you of deliberately, or blatantly, or going out of your way to ignore the ArchPup threads.

Since you do have Arch Linux in Woof, that should have been 'obvious' that you had at least woofed it once to be sure it was working, otherwise it wouldn't have been there. I was overlooking that fact. So it was a misunderstanding and I should have thought about it more before I posted what I posted.

When you have such a high level of respect for someone, and you feel like you've been 'purposely' dissed by them....it makes you ask questions. But like I said, I see now that that was not the case.

Once again...my apologies.

Good luck with all your dev efforts, your work is great

oh when i was saying rude things to '01micko'.

for a second i thought i was being accused of saying rude things about 'Puppy Linux'.

stifiling wrote:oh when i was saying rude things to '01micko'.

for a second i thought i was being accused of saying rude things about 'Puppy Linux'.

Even if you did, Puppy Linux is an OS, it has no feelings - you can say rude things about it - but they should be constuctive or people dont listen (as we all know)...

For example "puppy is terrible and ugly" is much worse than "puppy 5.x is terrible and ugly, cos I hate JWM menus, but I installed XFCE from (url) and it's now better because X, Y, Z".. and so on...

Anyway, back on topic - good luck with AlphaOS etc.

You really didn't have a reason to say my name. You created one. My name doesn't fit in that spot in your post. You made it fit. Like a square in a circle, it just don't fit right. Unless you KICK it in.

I think you owe me an apology. for accusing me of doing something i didn't do.

I wasn't rude to Puppy Linux or any of it's Developers.
I made a rude comment regarding someone's 'character' not their developing skills.
Furthermore...i decided to delete the rude post.

I guess because of the explosion in the last thread....I'm guilty of doing something. when i haven't done anything, except asked Barry a question.

I think you owe me an apology sc0ttman....

Please provide user manual for alphaOS including command line operation. How to install software etc. Will Pacman work?

sc0ttman wrote:I dont see the problem with AlphaOS and simargls works etc...

Neither do I.

sc0ttman wrote:As long as it is made clear that despite using *some* of the Puppy Linux boot stuff, AlphaOS is NOT a proper puppy linux, and that it is a fork of puppy linux cos it is built using a different method, has a different setup etc, then i dont see the problem..

Sorry to say but I am not exactly sure about this paragraph.
Please, don't take my words wrong but what exactly is Puppy? Where is it's official definition? Is it this one?
http://puppylinux.org/main/Overview%20a ... tarted.htm
Because if it is, there is not much on that list that AlphaOS isn't right now.
I mean, usually official Puppies do bring some stuff that is not in AlphaOS but we're talking about some CLI tools that now have GTKDialog GUIs.
It shouldn't take an enormous amount of space to include them in an additional SFS should we need them.
But I do get your point: AlphaOS looks different, is setup different and is organized different than most Puppies so I guess it should have it's own murga thread so that questions about it don't go clogging the rest of the forum where discussion is usually about official puppies.

sc0ttman wrote:I do of course see why many long time users have been upset by some of the rude comments...

Yes, there have been some very negative remarks and comments, some even in this thread by the form of link to youtube videos.
I am not saying that people should be silenced and I don't want to reignite anything but we should always voice ourselves in polite manners.
If simargl, scooby or myself for that matter had ever referred to BarryK or Puppy in those manners we would have been immediately kicked out of here.
Never mind, hope it's all in the past now.
Cheers

Version 2.0.0 available

see screenshot in first post, and change log here http://alphaos.freeforums.org/version-2-0-0-t16.html

just waiting for the iso to become available

out of interest there is another puppy with gtk3 from jan 2012

214X-GTK3-alpha10.1.iso