Modular Puppy --great thread, plus some thoughts
Posted: Sun 10 Nov 2013, 21:23
Hi RSH, mikeb, sunburnt & All,
Informative and IMHO important thread. I am happy to observe a spirit of inquiry and co-operation and hope it carries forward when it become necessary to create, in Barry K's absence, the next Pup.
And a special thanks to RSH for the links on the second post of this thread.
It is not my purpose to derail this thread, so if the following appears to be outside of RSH's interest please feel free to disregard it. However, I believe it is relevant both to question of modularity and the broader issue of design gcmartin raised.
I recall reading somewhere that RSH discovered RoxApps while creating his Puplet and realized their general utility for inclusion in other Pups. In a similar vein, I stumbled across what playdaz had referred to as Program Folders –he's since decided he didn't like that name, but I can't think of anything better-- and realized their general utility as alternatives to pets and SFSes. A Program Folder is an application together with all necessary libs and config files etc. contained in a folder EXTERNAL to Puppy: it can be anywhere, on any medium –CD/DVD's might have to be RW or Multiboot-- your computer has access to, linked to your operating system only by a couple kilobyte script which calls the application's executable. What can be more modular than that?
My experiments revealed that Program Folders more frugally --by as much as 45%-- utilize a computer's resources with the exception of storage. http://murga-linux.com/puppy/viewtopic.php?t=84457 than either pets or SFSes. I appreciate that each time I post something about Program Folders I arouse suspicions concerning pathological preoccupation or trolling. But with the cost (on ebay) for an 8 gb USB-Keys, a 100 gb IDE hard drive and a comparable “small
Informative and IMHO important thread. I am happy to observe a spirit of inquiry and co-operation and hope it carries forward when it become necessary to create, in Barry K's absence, the next Pup.
And a special thanks to RSH for the links on the second post of this thread.
It is not my purpose to derail this thread, so if the following appears to be outside of RSH's interest please feel free to disregard it. However, I believe it is relevant both to question of modularity and the broader issue of design gcmartin raised.
I recall reading somewhere that RSH discovered RoxApps while creating his Puplet and realized their general utility for inclusion in other Pups. In a similar vein, I stumbled across what playdaz had referred to as Program Folders –he's since decided he didn't like that name, but I can't think of anything better-- and realized their general utility as alternatives to pets and SFSes. A Program Folder is an application together with all necessary libs and config files etc. contained in a folder EXTERNAL to Puppy: it can be anywhere, on any medium –CD/DVD's might have to be RW or Multiboot-- your computer has access to, linked to your operating system only by a couple kilobyte script which calls the application's executable. What can be more modular than that?
My experiments revealed that Program Folders more frugally --by as much as 45%-- utilize a computer's resources with the exception of storage. http://murga-linux.com/puppy/viewtopic.php?t=84457 than either pets or SFSes. I appreciate that each time I post something about Program Folders I arouse suspicions concerning pathological preoccupation or trolling. But with the cost (on ebay) for an 8 gb USB-Keys, a 100 gb IDE hard drive and a comparable “small