please don't develop with Ubuntu 18.10

[oui]

COSMIC CUTTLEFISH

it is NOT a LTS!!! see the https://wiki.ubuntu.com/CosmicCuttlefish/ReleaseNotes

don't repeat the EXTREMELY DECEVANT choices of predecessors in Puppy pushing short time releases like unicorn or artful!!!

it would be a great error for our movement!

real Puppy's dpup for DEBIAN are yet missing! (it is perhaps the result of the extreme high quality of our hosted DebianDOGS. Puppy developers know how difficult it is to make better Thank you for your engagement in our community, DOG developers! And thank you for your high quality software! But after years hosting, no way to make the definition more common? Ok, I see, also Quirky goes separates ways! Why Dog's not )

both 32 and 64 bits (32 bit, a few less but 64 bit!)...

although you can work LIVE TIME with them with the Binaries from the DEBIAN shop cheap DVD sets (13 DVD's / Jessie or 14 DVD's / Stretch)

between start in Debian SID an plublishing of the last DVD sets (8.10 for Jessie THIS YEAR!!!) your development profit of a EXTREMELY long time!

[fredx181]

Hi oui,

Please don't create topic in this section about other than offering a "Project"

Comparing apples (e.g. Dogs) with oranges (e.g. Puppies) makes no sense, they are just different, that's all IMHO.

The Artful or Cosmic releases are a good preparation for the next LTS, I think testing is always useful for that (Ubuntu does the same, so why not for Puppy, also (as you know) Debian has a "testing" release, it's very important that new software is tested a lot before releasing "stable").

Fred

[oui]

Hi Fred

The Artful or Cosmic releases are a good preparation for the next LTS, I think testing is always useful for that (Ubuntu does the same, so why not for Puppy, also (as you know) Debian has a "testing" release, it's very important

I agree with an important restriction:

Using Debian as well as Ubuntu permit you to "about" forget the OS: The distributor, Debian or Ubuntu will organize the UPGRADES so, you have about nothing to do yourself and have very low risk don't to have the possibility to continue your daily work or business!

not so with Puppy!

ok, so, perhaps, if you really use nothing more than the core scope of applications AND an speak / use an European tongue...

not so if you speak or communicate or learn the language of

1 milliard Chinese people
1,5 milliard Indian people
a lot of countries using a form of Arabic writing (you can also count them in milliard)

you have to install, reinstall and it is really difficult

not so if you love and make yourself arts: pictures, photos, sounds, videos!

best example: the reinstallation of a pulse audio can be an horror vision in Puppy!

not so if you prefer to use some real Linux development goodies on full as well as in frugal installations. also development in extended kind so, so textual and book writing and design development with TEX, LATEX, music descriptions languages, etc.

the result:

Jessie, one of the best Debian generations really, all is functionally, working best in Xorg, in Cups (forgotten the terror months where Xorg did change, Cups did change), able for 32 as for 64 bit is under represented in our Puppy's.

we have some very good of them under Dog's. But it exist a deeper difference between Puppy's and Dog's as between Debian and Ubuntu . the compatibiliy is very thin only...

we have to much Unicorn's, Unicorn this, Unicorn that but no Ubuntu depositories any more for them.

a lot of puppyists have invested a lot of time in that release, and can't continue / repare dommages in her software (surfing / printing / security) with that release!

we have no official support any more for Artful

etc.

I warn for this reason against U18.10... A bad version for puppyist excepted if they only want test very superficially or only play with new Operation System's!

Kind regards

[mikeslr]

I agree with Fred. From a developer's standpoint, working with one of Ubuntu's 'Short-term releases' provides the opportunity to see what Ubuntu is testing for its Long-Term-Release before you have to commit to any changes they may incorporate in that.

The real problem with basing Puppies on them is that the benefits of 'binary-compatibility' are lost as soon as Ubuntu says it's reached 'End of Life'. Ubuntu means it. It doesn't allow Short-Term variations to die from substitution by a newer variant and, thus, disuse. It closes the repos associated with the Short-term release --killing the variant.

Upup Raring was a fine and solid Puppy. But when Ubuntu Raring Ringtail reposes closed, keeping even Upup Raring's security up-to-date fell entirely on the time, interest and availability of our few Devs.

Beyond the interests of developers, Puppies based on Ubuntu's Short-term-releases also provides users the opportunity to experience 'living on the wild-side'. Some may be happy knowing its a brief affair rather than a long-term commitment. After all, Frugal Puppies can run from a Folder: no need to abandon your Long-Term-System. 'Spice of Life and Such'. But I think everyone would be best served if, when a Puppy based on a 'Short-term-Ubuntu' is published, it comes with a clear disclaimer such as:

"XXX Puppy is binary-compatible with XXX-Ubuntu. XXX-Ubuntu is scheduled for End-of-Life on DATE-SPECIFIED. Beyond that date, support by Ubuntu for XXX-Ubuntu is questionable and support for XXX-Puppy will be at the discretion of its developer or such other Puppy Fan who may choose to provide it. Testers, however, are welcome.

[ITSMERSH]

Just curious...

If Ubuntu drops a version and closes repository, there's still the mirrors, no?

I can recall downloading programs for Lucid Puppy from a mirror of the Ubuntu Lucid repository in the beginning of 2018.

[nosystemdthanks]

fwiw, 18.10 looks like a particularly bad release among the others. 18.04 is a better choice.

ubuntu (xubuntu actually) is the last distro that i relied on before ditching windows for the last time. in other words, its the one that had all the features i needed to put windows behind for good. but that was more than 10 years ago.

since then, ive noticed that ubuntu provides a terrible upgrade path. really below average. debian was solid by comparson (until debian 8.) it may have nothing to do with this subforum, but ouis advice is good advice.

you may wish he had worded it differently, but skipping 18.10 is a good idea. whether you want to generalise that to avoid non-lts distros or not, someone was just saying on the ubuntu forums-- lts is a better choice, the non-lts distros do not dist-upgrade gracefully.

its your decision but at least this will help you consider the options. this has nothing to do with specifically "dogs" or "pups" either. because ubuntu is used as a base for multiple versions of puppy.

[rockedge]

it is difficult to get a package like zoneminder with added features like live streams running through darknet-yolo and opencv, to run cleanly if not at all, in puppy linux regardless of the version. It is tricky to compile or install components and the decision has to be made as to which OS variation will be solid enough for long enough to make it worth the effort.

The slightest changes in kernel or the base operating system can propel a solid reliable network recorder / camera security system with object recognition into total chaos.

artful was an OS that showed how hard it was going to be to advance zoneminder development and showed clearly what was working very well in Xenial was not going to in ubuntu 17.10 and reduced the system into one giant bug after another.
So as a developer the choice needed to be made and it is the Bionic LTS and I would like to see the bionic series 32 and 64 bit be so refined that when someone wants a zoneminder camera system to run solid and for a long time without having to constantly repair it or fiddle with it they can.

It just takes too much time and effort to modify some thing that works one day and the next it is abandoned and considered obsolete and depreciated. We end up with half finished buggy OS's with a cute name.

Chasing a dragon so to say

[nosystemdthanks]

It just takes too much time and effort to modify some thing that works one day and the next it is abandoned and considered obsolete and depreciated. We end up with half finished buggy OS's with a cute name.

it just goes to show you that making one good decision ahead of time can make everything easier for user and developer alike-- as opposed to pretending it doesnt matter at all, and every decision can be made entirely independently of the others.

i am fond of saying that it is all one giant distro, but thats in one context-- because a solid reliable base is still the best place to start, generally speaking.

[8Geee]

Though a bit outta my league, I must say that the CPU/MPU debacles have gone a long way in destabilizing the kernel, and by derivitive the OS's we use. It boggles my mind that supported kernels have been modded twice a week for about 6 months straight. This is a nightmare for FOSS, and Linux OS's.

JMHO
8Geee

[nosystemdthanks]

the CPU/MPU debacles have gone a long way in destabilizing the kernel

counterpoint: intel-based architecture is becoming unstable, and the kernel is doing its best to compensate. dont worry until linus hands the wheel over to gkh. then worry.