Puppy Linux Discussion Forum

Lobster · Posted: Fri 18 Nov 2005, 03:52 Post subject: Puppy in the wikipedia

Ever used wikipedia?
Well a lot of people do.

I think I got these details right:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_Linux_distributions
not sure of date started . . .

However not sure of the technical details in the later tables - maybe someone will add - just press edit . . . no need to register

This is not right - Puppy is not based on slack . . .

aahhaaa · Posted: Fri 18 Nov 2005, 08:45 Post subject:

I've seen that Slackware attribution somewhere else- think it was distrowatch...

Pizzasgood · Posted: Fri 18 Nov 2005, 16:07 Post subject:

I don't know the total history of Puppy, but from my knowledge it was compiled on Mandrake until recently, then moved to Vector. As such, there are some programs simply taken from them. Most of the scripts and backend was written from scratch by Barry, though, so it's really not "based" on anything. I do remember reading somewhere that slackware was a good distro to snag packages from to use in Puppy, but I don't remember anyone claiming it was based on it.

J_Rey · Posted: Fri 02 Dec 2005, 00:36 Post subject:

OK, Barry did create Puppy Linux from scratch but he "borrowed" from other people's work.

From http://www.pupweb.org/puppy/development/compilekernel.htm:
"Up to and including Puppy version 1.0.2, I was compiling applications in Mandrake 9.2 and the kernel in Slackware 9.1. With Puppy 1.0.3 I have migrated to Vector Linux 5.0STD, for compiling both applications and kernel."

Now we can compile w/o either....

Ian · Posted: Fri 02 Dec 2005, 12:27 Post subject:

I'm not being nasty here but Linux distros are all based on 'borrowed' stuff, the kernel from Linus, a lot of the tools from the GNU team and various other stuff from all over. This is what the spirit of the Free Software community is all about, sharing code.

Anyone who wants to take the time to compile a kernel and collect the tools to suit their requirements can build their own version of Linux, this is what Barry has done and it is no trivial thing, just try it yourself sometime.

Unix is what all Linux distros are based on, not the code but the concept and in actual fact it all started with minix.

If most people who wish to write articles on a subject did some in depth research into the subject it would go a long way to help creating articles that are not misleading or riddled with halfbaked conceptions of the subject.

Then again I suppose if it were not for such articles all the people here who are discussing this subject would not be having this bonding session so I suppose " Roll on more articles ! ".

The history of Linux is a matter of public record.

I'm finished. Smile

raffy · Joined: 25 May 2005 Posts: 4636 Location: Manila

Yes, Ian, thanks for pointing that out.

I guess when people talk of "distro", they refer to how the packaging of the "borrowed stuff" was done. So in this sense, Barry did an original approach, whereas others, like DSL, used Knoppix's way in creating a live CD.

So for example, when we talk about the packaging and use of usr_cram.fs and similar files, it is entirely Barry's method, but the tool for making usr_cram.fs is itself borrowed (the squash file system?). And another such FS, the compiling suite, was borrowed from Vector and partly from Mandrake (if I remember right). [Vector is Slackware-based and Mandrake took off from the works of Red Hat.]

Now, if that article has to be corrected, perhaps this portion has to be deleted: