I can't remember the installation of some Windows NT derivate as I never did use them on my own PC's
.
But I can remember the use of the real Mozilla internet suite on Puppy 1.nn, probably 1.03 (?) and this browser did always be the companion of Puppy all the time with only little interruptions. It was a GREAT progress you can't estimate really well more than 10 y. later... Although we did be desirous to pack Puppy on a credit card CD of 50 MB we did resist to the temptation to change the full Mozilla suite against Opera!
At that time, it was very important to get a Puppy with all! In the first Puppy stable version (and all the precedent ones, I know and did use them daily!) it was not possible to save data or add app's or remaster themself the iso. Step by step only did appear those abilities. The last step, the possibility to load about an unlimited quantity of dotsfs did appear very late!
But, please realist, we have it know! You argumentation is a blind speech... We can load dotsfs, also small dotsfs where needing! We can load them using start scripts at booting time! I am an 70 y. old man but it seems for me, I am younger as young people! They are inhibited: they impose tradition where it is good for her argumentation and break the tradition where not according her feelings... What is that
?
Old Puppyists using the ability of Mozilla/Seamonkey suite to manage all the email transactions and store them (as well as IRC)... they did feel pissed on as new Puppyists did begin to play with the unpleasant idea to live without the real Mozilla/Seamonkey suite because of their private data and habitudes. They were also accustomed to use mainly mplayer and not vlc. etc!
you refer to the tradition in your argumentation... but you don't hesitate a minute to disturb the Puppyists sticking to the old habits of Puppy! Hm, I think it is nonsens...
Yes, it is right, that Lucide did not force to use seamonkey or firefox or opera or chrome or chromium or iron etc... Yes, it is true, that the acceptance did be mixed! Why? Old Puppyists did stay avid to have their Seamonkey (and sometime to test the google browser beginning to be meet on unescapable places (smart phones). New Puppyist did find firefox smart, minimalist did prefer sometimes opera (comming from non free sector of the software), apple friends and google fans derivates from webkitt... This was the problem: Giving freedom, you have to respond to many choices and your depositories have to be acceded clearly and easily. I am not certain, that playing with frontend tools to download both dotpups or dotsfs are the best choice: That tool did be included in versions where the dependencies where not satisfied! You did have no browser... Some variant did not be present, etc. In my eyes, it is nonsens to make dotpups or dotsfs from Seamonkey: If the dependencies are all present, you install from Seamonkey site. The problem is more: nothing to help to add this package of third part correctly into the Puppy system (menu, /usr/local/bin, /root/.config/.../SentTo and OpenWith, /usr/share/applications: This tools doen't exist since today. It has to be used once (if you don't change your view on you system), not for all daily updates of Mozilla, and that is THE problem meet by a great number of Puppyists claiming for actualizations INTO the ISO... You know perfectly that.
The major problem (causing the most deception) is:
Puppy is not modular
but Puppy has no standards! Always a different Puppy disturbing you in your daily work.
I am now in the full install Lubuntu64 minimal (is the only the base: it is not minimal any more
) 16.04 full install because I will use 64 bit, I will use a system not warming my PC (divers linux do that, including a lot of Puppys), with all the app's I will and need (excepted XVidCap, but I have equivalents, only not so good at XVidCap). And it is like a Puppy, including didiwiki, rox, ayttm, mHwaveEdit etc. all real goodies of Puppy, Seamonkey, etc. ... So I can preserve all my old Puppy habits!
I actually can not any more do that with the most real Puppy's and derivates, it is absurd!
But I would prefer a good Puppy and test and experiment with, because that, each new version hopping to meet a good real old Puppy with perfect updated software and libraries (this is the kick!)... Why would I really prefer a real Puppy?
The first Puppy were the pure discretion: Nothing more in the PC after shutdown! No risk of contamination, no risk of spying, etc. It was the probably the most interesting quality of Puppy: secure, discrete, and safe outside the actual session.
Don't forget: The Puppy world is split today:
- the two new ways of BK (forcing to install else if it is not a Quirky but a Puppy)
(if fully installed Puppy/Quirky become simply a directly competitor from
Lubuntu minimal, SliTaz, full installed mode, or NuTyx! Why
?)
- the Puppy's starting from ISO in old Puppy manner, this Xenialpup64 will follow this way and permits the frugal mode missing in two above ways from BK
- the "dog"s. I am happy about the dogs, it is a good way (for me as I have a good RAM 8 GB: I can install with apt-get and remaster and continue to start: I can pack and unpack those big *.sfs... But Ubuntu did claim divers small differences / don't permit divers small operations on the software although the base, the dogs are more only base as you can install more easily directly from ubuntu. And they are "heavy" in size for only a base).
Which place will get in the middle and far future each system in that competition as the Puppy community loose places in the ranking list?
It did re-become that first with the Arch Pup having no save file. A great but loosed progress of Puppy sacrificed only to enter a full hand of personally data and add permanent software (possible today loading dotsfs and naming them in the bootstart file... / remastering the system, it is easy and flexible with the optimized tools...)
I find that dilemma completely absurd!
Kind regards