Puppy 5.1 to 6

News, happenings
Message
Author
User avatar
Lobster
Official Crustacean
Posts: 15522
Joined: Wed 04 May 2005, 06:06
Location: Paradox Realm
Contact:

#106 Post by Lobster »

Development meeting
http://puppylinux.org/wikka/meeting30May2010/

Forum thread
http://www.murga-linux.com/puppy/viewto ... 098#421098

Agenda

Meets and greets
Reports from active Puppys
Developer Discussion
Any other business
Set next meeting
Close and thanks
Puppy Raspup 8.2Final 8)
Puppy Links Page http://www.smokey01.com/bruceb/puppy.html :D

User avatar
James C
Posts: 6618
Joined: Thu 26 Mar 2009, 05:12
Location: Kentucky

#107 Post by James C »

01micko wrote:
Man, we commend the work you've done around here, plenty of it :wink: . Why don't you follow woof? You can of course as you know, build a Tpup, all native Puppy, weighing in at around 100MB. Without ridiculous Gnome dependencies. :) . I'm not too sure Barry is interested in his "Very Wary " effort, using the 2.6.30.5 kernel from 431 and Xorg 7.3.

Cheers
I just happened to be running Ttuuxxx's Tpup 001 tonight.Still have it installed on my test box and other than Abiword not wanting to play nicely it would be a pretty solid starting point.Other than the 2.3.31.5 kernel it's pretty much "regular" Puppy. :)

There are lots of interesting possibilities in the ever-expanding Puppy universe. :lol:

User avatar
01micko
Posts: 8741
Joined: Sat 11 Oct 2008, 13:39
Location: qld
Contact:

#108 Post by 01micko »

I'm not too sure Barry is interested in his "Very Wary " effort, using the 2.6.30.5 kernel from 431 and Xorg 7.3.
Um, I should re-phrase that. I meant that IMO Barry is doing very-wary as more of an afterthought for those with older gear. We all know his main focus is Quirky.

There, that's better!

Cheers
Puppy Linux Blog - contact me for access

User avatar
jemimah
Posts: 4307
Joined: Wed 26 Aug 2009, 19:56
Location: Tampa, FL
Contact:

#109 Post by jemimah »

01micko wrote: What we need is more developers... are we going to attract them without a bone?
What definitely won't attract new developers is infighting within the community. It seems rather unlikely that we can get everybody together and all agree on a single vision for Puppy. And that's ok - having multiple puplets that implement different ideas is better than one compromise-puplet that doesn't do anything particularly well.

What attracted me to Puppy is the open, collaborative, community where I get to do my own thing and follow my own ideas. If I had to implement other people's ideas, I'd quickly get bored and leave.

The idea that some puplets are "official" and some are not seems like it's going to cause problems. Perhaps there's a better way to denote puplet quality and level of support that's not guaranteed to alienate people.

User avatar
ttuuxxx
Posts: 11171
Joined: Sat 05 May 2007, 10:00
Location: Ontario Canada,Sydney Australia
Contact:

#110 Post by ttuuxxx »

jemimah wrote:
What definitely won't attract new developers is infighting within the community. It seems rather unlikely that we can get everybody together and all agree on a single vision for Puppy.
The Community editions went pretty good, only a couple of fights, but the end results were excellent.
All we need to do is have a rough outline what the release goals are, etc and start there, maybe even have Barry lend a hand if we get stuck along the way, I'm talking about 100% from scratch. To my knowledge Barry is the only one ever to do it that way, well of course we'll reuse the puppy scripts etc, but all the apps/libs etc should be compiled.
ttuuxxx
http://audio.online-convert.com/ <-- excellent site
http://samples.mplayerhq.hu/A-codecs/ <-- Codec Test Files
http://html5games.com/ <-- excellent HTML5 games :)

User avatar
dejan555
Posts: 2798
Joined: Sun 30 Nov 2008, 11:57
Location: Montenegro
Contact:

#111 Post by dejan555 »

Yay pupians on IRC :P

Well, since there are now many ways to build puppy and Barry started naming projects differently as he did with Quirky maybe we should have official "puppy linux" versions to be "puppy puppy" builds meaning building puppy from own packages and have other upup/dpup/whatever builds as separate projects and not jumping from repo to repo on every different release. That way we're not making progress because of simple reason that is confirmed with 5.0 - different base causes different hardware support and different bugs.

And the reason we're doing it is we simply don't have enough packages in puppy's own repo and they don't get updated and recompiled to match newer kernels and software versions. I mean look - pidgin 2.4 is still in official repo that doesn't work for anyone most of the people joining IRC for support first ask about pidgin not working with their MSN accounts and ayttm crashing on MSN too :roll:
puppy.b0x.me stuff mirrored [url=https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B_Mb589v0iCXNnhSZWRwd3R2UWs]HERE[/url] or [url=http://archive.org/details/Puppy_Linux_puppy.b0x.me_mirror]HERE[/url]

shariebeth
Posts: 242
Joined: Tue 26 Jan 2010, 19:37
Location: Florida

#112 Post by shariebeth »

jemimah wrote:What definitely won't attract new developers is infighting within the community.
Agreed.
It seems rather unlikely that we can get everybody together and all agree on a single vision for Puppy. And that's ok - having multiple puplets that implement different ideas is better than one compromise-puplet that doesn't do anything particularly well.
Agreed again.
What attracted me to Puppy is the open, collaborative, community where I get to do my own thing and follow my own ideas. If I had to implement other people's ideas, I'd quickly get bored and leave.
Nobody wants you to do either. There is a difference between organizing and making sure all of the needs of puppy users are met, than trying to force you to do what you don't want to do.
The idea that some puplets are "official" and some are not seems like it's going to cause problems. Perhaps there's a better way to denote puplet quality and level of support that's not guaranteed to alienate people
This is EXACTLY what is needed!

Lobster wrote:Ttuuxxx I am happy to report that the IRC (click on desktop chat)
is now capable of supporting meetings after its recent expulsion
of those suffering from voluntary tourette syndrome
The most you might find is a lost troll
or crazy cructacean . . .

Maybe something can be arranged in a few weeks time :)
*sighs* You still don't get it, do you. :?



Are concerned Puppy citizens welcome/allowed to this meeting? Or just selectively so? I for one am thrilled to see this, not that most of you care ;)

User avatar
jemimah
Posts: 4307
Joined: Wed 26 Aug 2009, 19:56
Location: Tampa, FL
Contact:

#113 Post by jemimah »

ttuuxxx wrote: The Community editions went pretty good, only a couple of fights, but the end results were excellent.
All we need to do is have a rough outline what the release goals are, etc and start there, maybe even have Barry lend a hand if we get stuck along the way, I'm talking about 100% from scratch. To my knowledge Barry is the only one ever to do it that way, well of course we'll reuse the puppy scripts etc, but all the apps/libs etc should be compiled.
ttuuxxx
I admit, part of the appeal of Puppy for me is the handcrafted, built from scratch concept, and woof is huge step away from that. My guess is though - that trying to do community edition skipping woof entirely could be extremely divisive. Maybe not.

Personally though, the project sounds fun to me, and I'd like to help.

I wonder if it would take too long though - if we can't generate good momentum soon enough or fast enough it's difficult to keep things moving.

big_bass
Posts: 1740
Joined: Mon 13 Aug 2007, 12:21

#114 Post by big_bass »

I think most will agree that there is a need for teamwork

most of the troubles though are due to "trying to be the one to rule the planet and not just being yourself "


seeing strengths in other people is a good thing
while some people see it as threat

knowing where you shine and other people shine
create overlapping skills that complement each other

mostly the drive you have dictates what you have interest in

if you have interest in art work desktops icons themes and such thats your strong point
not saying that you can't do other things you will
only be happy doing what your good at though
that's just my thoughts on that not a rule

and this same idea goes for programmers ,techs,etc...


when you focus on what you are good at
good things follow


new friendships are made old friendships are healed

life continues happily on its way

Joe

User avatar
Lobster
Official Crustacean
Posts: 15522
Joined: Wed 04 May 2005, 06:06
Location: Paradox Realm
Contact:

#115 Post by Lobster »

Guys
there will be a meetings on Sunday on the open chat forum
http://puppylinux.org/wikka/meeting30May2010

Everyone is welcome,
though our primary interest is providing a meeting
for developer exchange.

If need be (Ttuuxxx has expressed an interest)
private chats just for developers can be arranged
though that can easily happen through pm, email,
Barrys blog, Jemimahs Puppee forum and so on

Suggested 'Reports from active Puppys'
can take the form of a brief intro
and Q & A
on for example
Puppy 5, 5.1, Slaxer_Pup, Quirky, Puplet creators
. . . depends who turns up

8)
Last edited by Lobster on Wed 26 May 2010, 05:16, edited 1 time in total.
Puppy Raspup 8.2Final 8)
Puppy Links Page http://www.smokey01.com/bruceb/puppy.html :D

User avatar
tubeguy
Posts: 1320
Joined: Sat 29 Aug 2009, 01:04
Location: Park Ridge IL USA
Contact:

#116 Post by tubeguy »

Lobster wrote:Everyone is welcome,
though our primary interest is providing a meeting
for developer exchange.
Looking forward to lurking. I'm no dev but I'm a good fly on the wall. ;-)
[b]Tahr Pup 6 on desktop, Lucid 3HD on lappie[/b]

scsijon
Posts: 1596
Joined: Thu 24 May 2007, 03:59
Location: the australian mallee
Contact:

Puppy 6 proposal

#117 Post by scsijon »

I hope to "attend" if I may.

I'd also like to expand and put my idea forward again that it's time the puppy system grew up and had two component stages.

Puppy 6 may be that time!

The first stage is the core, that part of puppy that should be a "bare-bones of bare-bones". Consisting of the system and basic utilities only, covered under the menu as filesystem, utility, and above, but not including any applications other than a tiny (basic non-invasive) browser. It should be java aware by default. All configuration components should be working towards being interfaced via the browser, then many help directions and messages can be available. I believe there is even a text type browser out there somewhere, that can be used for the pre-x stages.

The second stage consists of applications and packages of applications. The only requirement is that they must be inclusive. In other words, would have no component that is reliant on another package or set of packages. I would only put a restriction on this group of a requirement of having an individual .pet for each application in their .sts package set. This is so those that only want one application can have access to it.

I think you would find that many groups would willing to work to this matrix, as they wouldn't have to supply the core level part, only what is required to meet their version.

i'll add more later (washing for the line calls :-) )

scsijon

Jim1911
Posts: 2460
Joined: Mon 19 May 2008, 20:39
Location: Texas, USA

Re: Puppy 6 proposal

#118 Post by Jim1911 »

scsijon wrote:The first stage is the core, that part of puppy that should be a "bare-bones of bare-bones". Consisting of the system and basic utilities only, covered under the menu as filesystem, utility, and above, but not including any applications other than a tiny (basic non-invasive) browser. It should be java aware by default. All configuration components should be working towards being interfaced via the browser, then many help directions and messages can be available. I believe there is even a text type browser out there somewhere, that can be used for the pre-x stages.
Barry's woof is already the core. From there, the possibilities are endless.

shariebeth
Posts: 242
Joined: Tue 26 Jan 2010, 19:37
Location: Florida

Re: Puppy 6 proposal

#119 Post by shariebeth »

scsijon wrote:I hope to "attend" if I may.

I'd also like to expand and put my idea forward again that it's time the puppy system grew up and had two component stages.

Puppy 6 may be that time!

The first stage is the core, that part of puppy that should be a "bare-bones of bare-bones". Consisting of the system and basic utilities only, covered under the menu as filesystem, utility, and above, but not including any applications other than a tiny (basic non-invasive) browser. It should be java aware by default. All configuration components should be working towards being interfaced via the browser, then many help directions and messages can be available. I believe there is even a text type browser out there somewhere, that can be used for the pre-x stages.

The second stage consists of applications and packages of applications. The only requirement is that they must be inclusive. In other words, would have no component that is reliant on another package or set of packages. I would only put a restriction on this group of a requirement of having an individual .pet for each application in their .sts package set. This is so those that only want one application can have access to it.

I think you would find that many groups would willing to work to this matrix, as they wouldn't have to supply the core level part, only what is required to meet their version.

i'll add more later (washing for the line calls :-) )

scsijon
Ehhhm sounds like Arch Linux ;)

scsijon
Posts: 1596
Joined: Thu 24 May 2007, 03:59
Location: the australian mallee
Contact:

#120 Post by scsijon »

Arch Linux?

will have a look at it, i'm ex-suse myself

scsijon

User avatar
WhoDo
Posts: 4428
Joined: Wed 12 Jul 2006, 01:58
Location: Lake Macquarie NSW Australia

Re: Puppy 6 proposal

#121 Post by WhoDo »

shariebeth wrote:Ehhhm sounds like Arch Linux ;)
Or Choicepup or Slax. All have gone that core + applications choice route.

I think Lucid Puppy is pretty much able to be built that way too. It's only a matter of the included options. Playdayz left the main browser out to give users a choice and there's no reason why Quickpet can't be expanded to give function to scsijon's idea.

The point is that there are already a number of options to explore, including one or two in the Puppy fold. No need to reinvent the wheel, eh? :wink:
[i]Actions speak louder than words ... and they usually work when words don't![/i]
SIP:whodo@proxy01.sipphone.com; whodo@realsip.com

User avatar
8-bit
Posts: 3406
Joined: Wed 04 Apr 2007, 03:37
Location: Oregon

#122 Post by 8-bit »

sharibeth,
I agree to a point.
Make a bare-bones Puppy, but then install all the applications from PET packages and from there, make the final ISO.
That way, the ISO/ Puppy would come with it's normal applications, but they could be uninstalled with Puppy Package manager and replaced with ones of ones choosing.
Of course some applications rely on others being there for dependencies. So it would be possible to break Puppy.

Mind you, it is just a thought.

shariebeth
Posts: 242
Joined: Tue 26 Jan 2010, 19:37
Location: Florida

#123 Post by shariebeth »

It seems to me that it is better to clean up what we already have and make sure somebody is around to support it and fix it consistently and reliably than keep adding new versions to the mix that are half baked.
At least at this point. Right now there is chaos, devs disappear for any number of reasons, and users are having to hop from puppy to puppy trying to find one that works. Not the best scenario.

Better to have a few well working, well labeled, well documented, and well supported Puppies (that the public is getting immediate access to) than 50 problems that nobody is around or able to support or fix.

And THAT is what should be discussed and settled at the meetings Sunday.

Note: as raffy said early, the "givens" in this post are pretty much the same. This is not directed at the creative devs doing their thing.

User avatar
Béèm
Posts: 11763
Joined: Wed 22 Nov 2006, 00:47
Location: Brussels IBM Thinkpad R40, 256MB, 20GB, WiFi ipw2100. Frugal Lin'N'Win

#124 Post by Béèm »

Lobster wrote:# Extremely friendly for Linux newbies.
# Will just work, no hassles.


These two are about usability
and I feel Micks (01micko) efforts with Quickpet
in Lucid illustrate this well
I can see this developing well into 5.1
and hopefully beyond

Both my sisters are forced into using Puppy
but find it awkward and geeky.
They would rather be using Windows.

How can we make it more usable
for our demanding potential end users?
And in fact all is there already, but scattered.
- the 440CE with it's control center
- the stardust, now DuDe, development
- Lucid has an interesting development with the quickpet.
- dpup 486 b4 was going into a good direction.
- dejans555's kdpup (based on dpup 486 b4). Yes it's huge, but it has it all. Pupy app's and KDE ones. Also, for me, the best implementation to configure and maintain the system as you want in a user-friendly way. I think Windows users will feel very comfortable with it.

I didn't test all puppies/derivatives, so there may be other ones.

Also I want to repeat what has been said already before by people. Make first the existing ones perfect. Get rid of all the bugs. This isn't case yet. I see the same bugs reported over and over again when a new release is out. And then only start with a new one.

Also I fear incompatibility between debian, ubuntu, etc.. applications. Not all users realize that an app compiled in one has problems/doesn't run in other environments.
Time savers:
Find packages in a snap and install using Puppy Package Manager (Menu).
[url=http://puppylinux.org/wikka/HomePage]Consult Wikka[/url]
Use peppyy's [url=http://wellminded.com/puppy/pupsearch.html]puppysearch[/url]

User avatar
jemimah
Posts: 4307
Joined: Wed 26 Aug 2009, 19:56
Location: Tampa, FL
Contact:

#125 Post by jemimah »

If a dev takes the time to make it completely stable, the most vocal users complain that the software is out of date, the libraries are old, progress isn't being made fast enough, and declare the puplet is "rotten to the core," and falling on Distrowatch. It doesn't run on the latest hardware, or have the latest whiz-bang features, and we're just plain bored with it - let's move on to the bleeding edge.

The devs lose either way, but ultimately stability comes from as much from the dedication and quality of the beta testers as the developers.

It's a lot to ask of any individual developer to know about all the bug fixes, and new features that come out in the entire puppy community. Developing a puplet, and staying current with events in the forums, and knowing what the other developers are up to is a full time job - and most of us already have a full time job. Testers can help a lot just by helping the devs stay informed of progress and bug fixes on other puplets.

Devs are just users will skills. We build the puplets that we want to create, add the features we're interested in, and support them until it's just too much of a drain on personal resources, or it gets too boring to go on. Asking more than that is counter productive.

If we can get a few people together that want to work on the same project, manage to avoid toxic personality conflicts, and agree on a single vision, it's possible to make progress faster and work more effectively. But that's a big if.

Post Reply