Puppy Linux Discussion Forum

[Sirexel]

DISCLAIMER for nervous people:---
1. Paying all my respects to BarryK, a man so generous he gives us the answer: 'make your own Puppy with unleashed'.
2. Not trying to say what Puppy must be.
3. Not willing to listen search in other place.
4. Just as a mental exsercise and at best as a idea for devolper(s).
---

**It's Puppy as small as it should?**

Doubtless for Puppy small is better:
Faster download, faster load, faster run.
Less RAM, less money, more old PC

That is what I have learned in Puppy's Web.

And although other people has pointed it before nobody have answered that plain.

If small is better why there is so much redundancy in Puppy?
'Because I like this flavor for this and that flavor for that' it is a very poor reason when weight (Mb) is so important.
To much pay for flavors. More enought if you can PupGet you flavor.

Even Barebone Puppy seems to have superfluous programs...

It is clear there must to be a balance between weight and power but, It is Puppy on its best solution?

For example:
It's fwvm98 better that JWM?
I use JWM and I don't find any bug.

How much weigth deserves a flavor?

Think in a light airplane that wants to fly to a far island. You need less weight to reach the airport. What really you need to fly in confort and sure and what is just a bad habit from heavy ariplanes?

So, (please don't answer 'make you own Puppy', try to think a little more):
It's all this redundancy needed? Does Puppy really use the smaller yet powerfull aplications available?

Thx
Sirexel

[Guest]

I think we all have our own ideas of what should be in and what should be out.I myself have often brought this subject up. As for saving space, with everything being in a compressed state, about 3 to 1, I think alot really has to come out to reduce the overall size of usr_cram.fs. Yes there are quite a few apps that are actually duplicated, functionality wise anyways.
the biggies seem to be
abiword 7906k
dia 2324k
gnumeric 8115k
scribus 6276k
sodipodi 2044k
sylpheed 1096k
samba 2436k

None of the above I would really miss...yeah I know linNeighbourhood needs samba

Now thats a far whack

[Bruce B]

Subject of debate: **It's [sic] Puppy as small as it should?**

The mission statement is very clear and consise.

There is nothing in the mission statement that even implies Puppy intends be small as it possibly can be.

There is nothing in the mission statement that says it will try to avoid installing any 'superfluous' applications as you might define them.

There is something in the mission statement that emphases that Puppy will have all the applications needed for daily use. In other words the very mission intends Puppy to be small, fast and application rich.

[Lobster]

[rarsa]

As far as I understand, Puppy is Barry's play pen. As such my understanding is that it's not meant to be everything to everyone.

- Maybe for you it's not as small as it should be.
- Maybe for me it's smaller than it should be.
- Maybe Barry thinks it's as small as it should be or maybe he is going back and forth finding the right balance.

'Should' is subjective. It depends what you want to use puppy for.

I am curious: Why do you think puppy should be smaller if it already fits a reasonably old computer base. Or do you want puppy to be an excercise to find out how small can a distro be and still be userfull?

I consider Puppy a learning tool so I think that the options are important for new users, they learn that they have options in Linux, they learn realize about the difference between a monopoly and having alternatives.

So regarding the alternatives: Let's give the new users the benefit of the doubt, most of them are smart enough to not get confused with them. Were you confused? Why do you think other people will be? I've worked with (and trained) many users, from the wiz kids to technophobes. I think Puppy is suitable for both.

Does puppy uses the smaller applications available? I guess not all of them. There are too many applications out there for Barry to know all of them. When you find one that fits puppy I'd encourage you to inform Barry. I'm sure he'll be happy.

Having a mission statement is great as helps keeping the focus of a project. Puppy's mission statement does not include size. Small size has been just a consequence, not a goal.

To close: Should puppy be smaller?

I'd like to respond with tonge twister (for me at least).

"I won't give the answer as I should as you asked not to aswer what the answer is".

[Rich]

I'd say that Puppy isn't as small as it COULD be, not SHOULD be.
True there are duplicate packages that do the same job, but just from reading the forums it's clear that everyone has their own preferences, needs etc. so the variety covers a wider range of end users.

There are packages I use every day, and some I'll probably never use - but this isn't reason enough to exclude them from the Puppy CD.

Puppy can, of course, be remastered, cut down and customised to the end users hearts content, or fattened up with extras. it's all down to personal preference. Puppy is a starting block, giving you all you need for daily use. After that it's up to you really.

......where do you want to go today??

[Bruce B]

Sirexel, This is a debate? Want someone to debate you? You said among other things one purpose was for mental exsercise [sic[ Okay.

Sirexel makes the assertion "Doubtless for Puppy smaller is better". He supports this assertion with the following arguments:

* Faster download, faster load, faster run.
* Less RAM, less money, more old PC

I contest the premise and his supportive arguments. I debate every supportive argument Sirexel made.

Argument: Faster download

Debated: This is true only in the context that a smaller file is a faster download. It is false from the perspective that a smaller download has any relationship to the quality of the content of the download. A smaller puppy in this context, only means a faster download and that's all it means. It does little to support the 'quality' factor in the assertion of 'doubtless for Puppy smaller is better.


Argument: Faster run

Debated: This is false or at best needs to be qualified. I could delete gnumeric as an example, but it will have null effect on the running speed of Puppy.

Argument: Less RAM

Debated: Puppy loads many of its components in RAM. The more components loaded in RAM, the more RAM will be used. Depending on the configuration and in particular the installation type the amount of components which get loaded in RAM is a variable.

If a user wants to use less RAM this he or she can do this an option 2 install. The components which get installed into RAM are primarily those necessary for the operation of the computer with option 2.

Having major applications like gnumeric doesn't use more RAM with option 2 than if gnumeric was not installed.

Additionally, regardless of Option 1 or Option 2 hard drive install, major applications such audacity, gimp2, and thunderbird can be installed and the amount of RAM used is not more. The reason why is because these applications reside on the hard drive unless configured intentionally otherwise. They are not loaded into RAM except on an as wanted basis. When the application is closed the RAM is released.

Summary, if amount of RAM used by is an important consideration for the user, the problem is already reasonably solved by Barry: Make an option 2 install.

Argument: Less money

Debated: Frankly, when I think of Puppy, considerations of money don't even enter my mind. If money were a consideration, I'd reason along these lines:

I pay a static price for my Internet connection. It doesn't cost me any more to download a 60 mb file than it would a 40 mb file.

The cost of the CD-ROM disk is identical with burning a 60 mb .iso file as it would be a 40 mb .iso file

Argument: More old PC

Debated: I will use my PC as an example. Built by me in 1999. It is an AMD K6-2 500. In 1999 this computer was somewhat low end. Some people would think my PC is a dinosaur. Puppy runs exceptionally well on my machine. It will boot and go to work faster than most high end XP computers built today.

I argue to the effect that Puppy already has excellent backward support spanning several years. It excels over Windows products. XP for example would put an old computer like mine to sleep. Windows 95 wouldn't even support the hardware on today's high end computers.

Summary, Puppy is already doing an excellent job of supporting computers over a span of many years. It ain't broke and doesn't need fixing in this area.

------------------

I've offered you fair debate on your supportive arguments for your premise which was, "Doubtless for Puppy smaller is better"

In my opinion, your arguments do not even come close to supporting your premise.

[raffy]

Let me add a parameter to the discussion: available memory of 32 MB.

While most PCs will have 64 MB or more of memory, having a Puppypackage of 32 MB or less will allow many users of old PCs to enjoy the speed of Puppy and go though installation without much problem (such as what happens if you don't know how to use swap and the install process assumes that usr_cram.fs is fully loaded to memory).

More that the issue of old PCs, it will allow users of _new_ thin clients with 32-MB resource limit to use the thin client as a PC. (Some resource limits are hard drive, 50 MB [as per Windows client in the works], and 64 MB of flash disk memory [thus, leaving room for saving files]).

By lowering the size of Puppy, it will be able to embrace a very wide spectrum of PCs/thin client devices. And allow us, Puppy advocates, to get the users to actually use Puppy before they set their sights to other places.

OK, "create your own Puppy", but not many people can do that. Someone who has done a smaller Puppy has to make her Puppy available to others, so we can save time.

My opinion is that this debate is useful if it produces a new Puppy within the 32 MB resource limit.

EDIT: Ah, I just remembered that Bruce B is doing that here!

[rarsa]

[raffy]

Uh, don't know how to answer "hypothetical"
As to mission, it must be sharing the fun (of using modern software) with as many people as possible.

See this: http://bink.nu/Article3812.bink
(about MS thin client specifications)

Error: So the 50 MB hard drive I read in Newsforge.com must be an error... it is actually 500 MB. Even then, the assumed memory is 64 MB.

As to old PCs with 32 MB memory, yes, there are aplenty, waiting to be resuscitated. These are being shipped in bulk containers to the third world.

EDIT: Got this new info from one manufacturer in Singapore:

[Bruce B]

Raffy, Sun Aug 14, 2005 5:58 pm, I started publishing test results on running Puppy off hard drive on a 32 MB machine

http://www.murga.org/~puppy/viewtopic.php?t=1737

Mon Aug 15, 2005 5:58 am, precisely 12 hours later Sirexel started this debate. A pure coincidence I'm sure. Nevertheless, it is a matter of record that I stated how impressed I was with Puppy's performance at 32 MB, prior to any knowledge this debate would start. Therefore my opinions are without any possible predudice to this thread becasue they were stated previously.

Other things I didn't mention in my reporting, for example, the Links web browser runs super fast on the 32 MB test machine. I do mean fast.

The most important point I wish to make is that it would not make Puppy run any faster or better on an Option 2 install if the previously mentioned, but unspecified superfluous apps were not included with the distro.

For specific examples, Puppy has a few calculators, remove them, and it will run identically on a 32 mb machine, option 2 install.

Remove Abiword and Gnumeric and Puppy will run the same on a 32 mb machine. The major difference is: a person could not run gnumeric or abiword if it is not installed on the disk, otherwise they could. The ommission of such apps don't represent a major advantage, if any advantage at all, that I can see on these low end machines.

---------------

Raffy, we are both concerned for the 32 MB machines. If I were not concerned, I'd not have taken the trouble to set one up and do the testing and reporting. The results of my testing have removed my concerns. I think if you will read the thread and do some testing, your concerns will be removed also.

[raffy]

Then are we expecting something, like an option B install, as in Bruce B (the naming is up to you, of course).

Got your point there. I myself sometimes refer to Puppy's software collection as "complete" for day-to-day needs. However, nudging Technically Gifted (TG) people to further trim the package might be helpful...

[rarsa]

[raffy]

Oh, you're right, of course, but thin clients are new devices that are still being discussed here and there, and in some other places in the forum I may be unaware of.

[Guest]

We already have Chuppy Puppy, Barebone Puppy, Standard Puppy, Xfree86 Puppy, Win98 Puppy, Krazy Puppy (coming) ... have i missed any?

Everyone has different needs and there's nothing wrong with it. There're so many choice with Puppy! I think Sirexel may not mean we should have Standard Puppy changed, but just that he hasn't found the Puppy he wants yet.

Yes, "Someone who has done a smaller Puppy has to make her Puppy available to others, so we can save time."!!

And how's the progress of Console Puppy? I remembered seeing some posts in the forum but can't find them now. I've seen something about Multimedia Puppy here http://www.murga.org/~puppy/viewtopic.php?t=1732 too. Would it be similar to geeXbox? It's a multimedia distro, it looks nice but I can never get it works http://geexbox.org/en/index.html

Hey, it's Puppy, take it easy!