Puppy's big problem with woof and woof CE

[musher0]

Who's paying you to do this, by the way? M$? RedHat? Google?

Those Mssrs are American as you , you understand why actually tensions happens between us?

It is a scandal that you come with those calumny!

I did only ask you why SliTaz with about the same browser in it, the same goodies, as far I know the actual LinuxFromScratch else if it supply not the most newer kernel making perhapts difficulies, is so tiny and new you did explain strong stripped version from Puppy so big!

no need to insult each other:

you can look an say

that
that
that
that

if you see more an technical grounds are transparently,

that ground
that ground
that ground
that ground

really easy

witjhout some calumny or insults!

poor man!

Hey.

You mistake me for an American, when I am Canadian. Similarly, you think that I am the
developer behind DPupBuster-7.9.0.2, when I am only a facilitator.

You suppose that our Puppy devs fatten the Pups on purpose, when they do not.

Dancytron, jamesbond and others have provided you with all the data you'll ever need
to understand this situation. But you do not want to, you doubt our sincerity. You
absolutely want your anorexic Puppy. Who's the poor guy now?

So here's the deal: you attack our reputation, and we attack yours. You attack us and
we pay you back in kind. Fair is fair. Do we have a deal?

Or you just shut up and humbly kneel before superior facts. Puppy is not SliTaz and
never was. Enough of your nonsense. You'll kill Puppy with it, if we let you loose.

So what's the name again? "Aleksje" from SliTaz is paying you to belittle Puppy? I see...
Finally the truth is coming out.

[wiak]

Moved my comment, since more about Midori in DPupBuster, to here:

http://www.murga-linux.com/puppy/viewto ... 76#1019576

wiak

[oui]

So here's the deal: you attack our reputation, and we attack yours. You attack us and
we pay you back in kind. Fair is fair. Do we have a deal?

poor man really! he is not American. he is Canadian! and where is Canada? In China, in Australia, in China?

YOU ...

attack the reputation of Puppy, because

YOU

find that you have the qualification of an developer because you feel yourself able to play with a distro builder with dramatic results:

in the last few hours where I did start this critic on Woof, WoofCE and to be fat, really the few hours

Puppy did loose a other rang at the ranging at distrowatch.com and is now not rang

33

any more

but

rang 34

and it is your fault because you are not able to discern that continue this way is a great error: the world user repulse violently the new products having only an unique advantage:

to make the creators shine

regardless of users' reactions and the negative effects for Puppy.

A good Puppy will never be an elephant because the user is awaiting with the name Puppy a smart distribution

(note: I did answer wiak behind his message here )

[linuxcbon]

Oui, please create a "lighter" puppy and show us how to do, instead of useless blablabla for pages.

[oui]

not needing!

look at this versjon of SliTaz:

http://mirror.slitaz.org/iso/rolling/sl ... -loram.iso

in that iso, aleksej did offer the Puppy guy's being not able to recognize what a distro needs

with gtkonly, justx, base and
non-live (needs the CD-ROM) alternatives (5x). Spare up to 30% of the RAM
size in live mode.

Russian dolls the initrd from SliTaz is splitted,inito 5 steps (it is somewhat like Slitaz from Scratch! but working in automatic!) ; we don't hat equivalent in Puppy, only WoofCE and it builds monsters!

[musher0]

Not Russian dolls. Ukrainian dolls. And Ukraine is in Upper Mongolia. Right next to the
Canada you found in Austria! You should definitely have paid more attention in geography
class in high school, oui!

linuxcbon, où t'as remisé la muselière de oui, encore ?
(Transl. : Where did you say you stored oui's muzzle? )

BFN.

[ITSMERSH]

Just to make a comparison:

Lucid
Abiword 2.8.6 = 5336 Bytes
libabiword = 6482 K

Bionic
Abiword 3.0.1 = 6272 Bytes
libabiword = 7868 K

Also I want to mention:

The term "old computer" is somewhat different in 2019 compared to 2008.

Sorry, but I don't think there's a need for new Puppies around 100 MB - except for some special guys.

Even though I had complained sometimes about woofCE and its developments, I think they did some great stuff in some parts - definitely.

E.g. I was easily able to add mdrv, ndrv and vdrv for a use in Bionic64 (edited the init script and sfs_load for that). I recall trying this already at times when I worked on my Lucid based LazY Puppy.

I had trouble, trouble and trouble - and then I just gave up.

In Bionic64 there was just a single attempt and it worked out of the box!

[musher0]

Don't waste your time, Rainer.
Oui has a teflon coating: no reasonable argument sticks.

[oui]

Sorry, but I don't think there's a need for new Puppies around 100 MB - except for some special guys.

I did use your (different) puplets until 2017..2018. daily

but it doesn' t work any more (HTLM5!)

better a 50 Mb distro with amd64 kernel as an heavy TOPLESS where no youtube!

you are really yourself a very special guy if you feel different

world users did also refuse all your creations... it is a little reason why Puppy were at rang 9 as BK did give it in the hands of some from him known developpers and it is now at rang 34 although a lot of people (perhaps better why a lot of people ) build elephantic (sometimes dynausoristic) versions

der Zweck heiligt die Mittel but the goal can certainly not be to loose so much audience! it would be nonsens ...

[dancytron]

The distro watch ranking is meaningless. It is just a count on the number of hits on the Puppy distrowatch page.

If you care about the rating, then you should promote the Puppy distrowatch page on the search engines (like the some of the other distros do).

Anyway, I'm done. You are just a concern troll.

[musher0]

"The dogs bark, but the caravan goes on." (Proverb in many languages)

[s243a]

The distro watch ranking is meaningless. It is just a count on the number of hits on the Puppy distrowatch page.

If you care about the rating, then you should promote the Puppy distrowatch page on the search engines (like the some of the other distros do).

Anyway, I'm done. You are just a concern troll.

We should also note that there is much more competition now for small live distributions these days. That said, amoungst the smaller-lightweight distributions puppy ranks near the top. AntiX and MX linux are examples of two lighter weight versions of linux that are taking votes away from puppy.

[perdido]

There are people in this forum that undermine real progress in puppy any way they can while seeking attention by riding on the backs of others.

Until that is addressed puppy will continue to decline in popularity.

.

[mistfire]

Hello

I just want to share my opinion.

Here are some factors that makes the puppy bloat.

1. Web Browser
2. Multimedia Player
3. Office suites
4. DRI files
5. Kernel modules
6. Firmware drivers
7. UEFI boot files
8. SFS Compression

TazPuppy is around 100Mb yet with wide hardware support. The small main SFS file size was achieved by using xz compression with 1Mb block size.

Slitaz was 40-50Mb but lack of hardware support by default. You need to download some kernel modules in order to work with computer to computer this will reduce portability.

I made a discussion on X-Slacko Slim on how to reduce the filesize the Puppy.

In order to make Puppy small:
1. Use a lightweight browser but HTML5 and ajax compliant and it can play HTML5 video, audio, and stream
2. A lightweight player that can play commonly used formats such as mpg, mp4, wmv, wma, mp3, avi, wav, aac, mkv, ogg, ogv, oga
3. Use maximum SFS compression settings when creating the main puppy sfs file. (xz compression with 1Mb block size)
4. Remove uneccessary docs and source code headers (those are belong in devx sfs modules)
5. Office suites is optional

For new, unique, and breakthrough features for puppy. Take a look at X-Slacko Slim (the base files which I improved and modified is already provided on the thread).

[oui]

Hi mistfire

Hello

I just want to share my opinion.

Here are some factors that makes the puppy bloat.

1. Web Browser
2. Multimedia Player
3. Office suites
4. DRI files
5. Kernel modules
6. Firmware drivers
7. UEFI boot files
8. SFS Compression

TazPuppy is around 100Mb yet with wide hardware support. The small main SFS file size was achieved by using xz compression with 1Mb block size.

Slitaz was 40-50Mb but lack of hardware support by default. You need to download some kernel modules in order to work with computer to computer this will reduce portability.

I made a discussion on X-Slacko Slim on how to reduce the filesize the Puppy.

In order to make Puppy small:
1. Use a lightweight browser but HTML5 and ajax compliant and it can play HTML5 video, audio, and stream
2. A lightweight player that can play commonly used formats such as mpg, mp4, wmv, wma, mp3, avi, wav, aac, mkv, ogg, ogv, oga
3. Use maximum SFS compression settings when creating the main puppy sfs file. (xz compression with 1Mb block size)
4. Remove uneccessary docs and source code headers (those are belong in devx sfs modules)
5. Office suites is optional

For new, unique, and breakthrough features for puppy. Take a look at X-Slacko Slim (the base files which I improved and modified is already provided on the thread).

Yes, you are right, above factors are determinant for a small distribution!

But, actually, it is not really the matter:

E.g., including the devx, josejp2424's latest DPup, DPupBuster, is ~ 375 Mb.
Without the devx: 273 Mb.

E.g., the new DPupBuster does NOT have: abiword, gnumeric,
claws-mail, hex-chat. What else could be chopped off? mpv?

This product of WoofCE is also only a one-bone where the big pre installed bone is the browser and it's libraries of course, but the browser is the very light browser Midori!

Nothing else excepted the usual tools and the very light weight little app's like mTpaint etc. (also being in the base of SliTaz, you can look in our Tazpup where you are the main actor!)

To build a small distro, a very important question is that of the choice of libraries (often very big dependencies): all GTK OR all QT (*1 ! And a distro builder is generally not trained to do that...

Other packages have to become extra packages...

(*1 probably the QT version will become 50 .. 60 Mb biger than the GTK version

[musher0]

oui.

For the record, Midori being a "very light" browser is an illusion. It requires LLVM and the
libgtkwebkit (99Mb's combined). Believe me if you will, but it is true.

Go double-check. Your hopes up in smoke, eh?

[oui]

oui.

For the record, Midori being a "very light" browser is an illusion. It requires LLVM and the
libgtkwebkit (99Mb's combined). Believe me if you will, but it is true.

Go double-check. Your hopes up in smoke, eh?

is that your first official critic against the choices taken in the last new dpup and installing midori 7 (and without solution to see youtube)?

I did look in my try in Upup64: Seamonkey has exactly 100 Mb UNPACKED, no external files (but no dictionaries, only links to hunspell, where they are really needing for text processing etc.), no limits concerning HTML5 or youtube etc, and offers the classic HTML4 editor with spell check, and the full email client, being, on top, needing in Midori to be really equivalent .

bad deal really as Midori 4 do the same (all the SliTaz distro is, of course squashed, only 50 Mb light, with Midori in it), and, if the developers are fit, THAT midori 4 can handel HTML5 and youtube, you have seen my print screen (today a lot of Puppy's have not the same luck...)

are you becoming an opponent to your new lovely distro buster?

[wiak]

Come on guys. Even pretty old computers come with a few GB of storage space. The amount of space (40MB or 400MB) a distribution occupies on that is really irrelevant (and more and more so nowadays). What remains relevant in how much RAM the distributions uses, where such RAM remains quite limited on older but still useful computers (say 1 or 2 GB RAM machines). And the other important issue is browser speed (page rendering and so on).

So, important tests are:

1. How fast does the browser render web pages.

2. How much RAM does the browser occupy before loading any pages.

But most important of all really:

3. How many tabs containing high-load pages (such as gmail pages) can a browser open before it crashing owing to physical RAM running out (note that this is likely more a problem of heavy web pages than the browsers themselves - if webpage eats memory I guess there is not a lot the browser can do about it ).

There is probably one very good reason for a small distribution to be particularly nice: it can all be loaded in limited RAM with still enough RAM left to do useful work. And even old systems work fast when programs_and_OS are already in RAM (new systems can have very fast external SSD drives anyway, so not so important to load into RAM anyway). Slitaz is great for that (it uses lots of RAM actually but that's cos all of it is, by default anyway, loaded into RAM even on quite low RAM systems). On systems with more RAM, bigger distros (like Pup or the Dogs) can also be competely loaded into RAM and still usable (though browser heavy web pages do quickly use up a lot of RAM per tab opened).

So, for me, the point/use of Slitaz and any tiny assembled distro is that it will run very fast on low RAM limited systems when a bigger distro would need slow access to external drives all the time (including often a lot of swap space usage - i.e. swapping pages in and out between RAM and external storage).

So, nice if WOOF-CE also included as tiny a Puppy as possible - I don't think that can be achieved with Pups build from straight Debian or Ubuntu repositories though - too many dependencies (including big libs) - too big compiles - too many included docs. For small systems, Slitaz currently unmatched, but persistence/save capability of Slitaz is very limited. Tazpup addresses that lack by using Puppy boot/save mechanisms, but at increase of size cost. I imagine Tazpup could be slimmed down since some Slitaz functionality not needed since has Pup alternatives. But since it uses components from current pup maybe some libs or other pup-borrowed components are bigger than they need to be? - I don't know. I can't see that Tazpup iso size needs to end up twice the size of its underlying Slitaz tho, well, except I guess Tazpup is currently providing Xorg? and full, not busybox, bash shell?

wiak

[oui]

all precedent reasonings of wiak are true.

but a detail has a highly importance: how much web indirections can create the opening from only one unique web page (news paper etc. frequently a terrible number you see if the browser is build in with a strong close of that and you or the webmaster or the author crew of the browser demand your approvals for each indirection. this correspond often with the usual pre settings for Konqueror, but of course, puppyists don't really often meet konqueror in the praxis)... this depends also dramatically from use or not from somewhat like an adblockler and how strong you did have to set it on to permit to see all your prefered pages without restrictions as the redirections are, it so, the payment that the page owner require from you to supply the service financed by publicity...

what is the result?

the hidden ~/.cache subdir in your "home" grows and grows and grows!

today I did enter the web at 19 h 30. the laptop was shutdown. I did start live full in RAM with bionicpup64 version 7.9.8. and as I never use some save file or dir, no /root/.cache present at starting point (I did check it!)

following printscreen has the date today 23.37. And we did have lunch an hour between this time! The at starting point (of the browsing activity) created .cache did grow until

126 MB!

I did look into the subdir: the big content was a second hidden subdir named "mozilla" (not /root/.mozilla but /root/.cache/mozilla !)

I did look into an available full installation (as I did rapport often from SliTaz in the last hours, a full install from SliTaz: The full install did need, all included 3,3 Gb, but the /user/tux/.cache/mozilla alone

1 Gb ! (so that the real net size of the full installation was under 2,3 Gb!)

This is in my eyes a MAJOR LIMITATION for PC's working in RAM-mode only!

The function using ~.cache is highly problematic!

Is that function needing? What does it concrete FOR the user?

(Note: they are more subdir in ~.cache of the full install. for ex. fontconfig, menus, midori, mozilla, openbox, webkitgtk and readme saying ~/.cache/ - User cache directory XDG variable: XDG_CACHE_HOME. But the content of all other is low. Of course, I am not really an user of midori, In the other case, it would perhaps be different!)

[wiak]

I'm not on Linux just now, oui, but I suspect, when system is RAM-only, that cache size will shrink and grow automatically depending on how much physical RAM system actually needs. In general cache usage tends not to be problematic for that kind of reason. In practical terms, I mean that Slitaz will not crash or slow down because of that cache growing too big.

I could well be wrong.

wiak