Puppy Linux Discussion Forum Forum Index Puppy Linux Discussion Forum
Puppy HOME page : puppylinux.com
"THE" alternative forum : puppylinux.info
 
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   RegisterRegister 
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

The time now is Sat 22 Nov 2014, 01:25
All times are UTC - 4
 Forum index » Advanced Topics » Cutting edge
A custom File & Folder selector.
Moderators: Flash, Ian, JohnMurga
Post_new_topic   Reply_to_topic View_previous_topic :: View_next_topic
Page 7 of 7 Posts_count   Goto page: Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7
Author Message
mikeb


Joined: 23 Nov 2006
Posts: 8621

PostPosted: Fri 11 Oct 2013, 14:07    Post_subject:  

Quote:
My "recurring" Puppy bafoo today was adding an SFS and having to rebuild my desktop.


Was not aware of this 'feature' but I wrote my own sfs on the fly loader.
I modded my pups so the main sfs is at the bottom of the stack so any added sfs are layered on top..... no need for any hacks then...perhaps its those that are causing the problem...I noticed such scripts were painfully large.

Ubuntu..my objection would be the inclusion of the kitchen sink with every addional app. Every possible option is enabled... this might be fine for a several gig full install but does not provide for a sleek mini portable distro.... pups seem very large compared to what I am used to and slower for it...and ubuntuness must be a major factor. Its probably why 1-2gig save files are common too.

I would suggest be a real distro and build all the binaries specifically and optimised for the intended purpose....the kernel is so why not the rest.
Once a compiling base is established its not a major job and would help considerably when it comes to compatability. Core libs could still be versioned to match such as a ubuntu release for those who want to use their packages.
Bear in mind some core binaries are nothing like the versions of the 'matching' ubuntu release anyway.... more pic'n'mix than the adverts claim.
Other thoughts are have such as puppy configure apps such as browsers with settings optimised for low profile sizes. (actually why is this not done anyway) DSL had this approach which made sense.

Another point is that by the time all the wrinkles have been ironed out from using some elses release that someone else has moved on to the next version.

As for up to date this seems a little at odds with us older hardware bunnies.... or perhaps the question is what are they keeping up to date with?..all I found with some 3 kernels stuff I tried was a whole new bag of problems with no apparent gain...intel video...linux finally catches up with the stuff...thats the only benefit that comes to mind.... but that same improvement seems to all to easily break other video hardware. But the perhaps the monolithic xorg is not such a good idea generally...one cards fix is anothers problem...I am digressing Very Happy

should the topic title change ..... ha ha

regards

Mike

what am I working on..... forgot to answer... random small projects in this context .... in this instant a sulking printer...we fall out now and then.
Back to top
View user's profile Send_private_message 
sunburnt


Joined: 08 Jun 2005
Posts: 5042
Location: Arizona, U.S.A.

PostPosted: Fri 11 Oct 2013, 23:55    Post_subject:  

Lots of other folks seem to favor the "build it all from scratch" approach also ( PFS ).
I understand the need for a tool chain, but compiling is not for average users.
I struggle getting binary built apps. to work properly, and failures for compile attempts.

Both have one big problem... Lists of needed files. And compiling needs instructions.

To control "getting the kitchen sink", add the packages and then remove libs. not in ldd list.
In general I think of SFS or RoxApp type packages, so the app. isn`t part of the main FS.
Any other deps. usually seem to be not so optional in that the app. is hobbled without them.

Up to date`s mostly apps., basic hardware hasn`t changed much since USB-3, new graphics.

Mixing Puppy built files and Ubuntu ones is nutty. It`s all Ubuntu files, or compile them all.
An all Ubuntu base would be okay to complie on, just so the tool chain is complete.
If a builder just downloads the binary files and adds scripts, then new releases should work.
Tweeking`s always needed for any custom setup. And PuppyFromScratch needs it too.

Following the "Puppy Future" threads, the PFS guys seem most down on continuing Puppy.
The normal users ( average guys ) seem more gung ho on keeping it going. Pretty normal...
If Barry creates an Ubuntu builder that normal users can operate, then Puppy may survive.
Few "old school" devs. are left here, so PFS doesn`t seem like a realistic possibility at all.

I asked if any variant builders were left that intend to continue. No answers yet...
If one or two would maintain a base Puppy O.S., and then a support group of app. builders.
Without an O.S. maintainer there is no Puppy, unless Barry makes an easy to use builder.

We`re just chatting up a storm here, and it mirrors a lot of the other thread conversations.
But it`s good to talk 1 on 1 without 10 conversations going at once. I like it.!

Your friend. Terry B.
Back to top
View user's profile Send_private_message 
mikeb


Joined: 23 Nov 2006
Posts: 8621

PostPosted: Sat 12 Oct 2013, 04:53    Post_subject:  

Quote:
I understand the need for a tool chain, but compiling is not for average users.

ok a slight misunderstanding there. I was not proposing the gentoo approach. I was suggesting those who profess to be 'devs' actually building the software rather than plagarising someone elses work. Optimisation...compiling mplayer without encoding stuff and uneeded junk like sambaclient produces a 35% smaller binary (its pretty static in this case) and a 40% drop in dependancies with no real loss of functionality as a player....its more than just leaving out bits from debs.

One funny one was I saved arouns 5% of the sfs size by restripping all the libraries in puppy 4.12 (normal strip no options) so there is the aspect of better 'quality control' when the job is done 'in house'

Another aspect...puppy is well known for its ability to work with wifi when the big boys fail... thats because that part of puppy IS built here and the builder makes sure it works by working closely with users....thats what I want to see more of because it can only produce a better puppy.

mike
Back to top
View user's profile Send_private_message 
sunburnt


Joined: 08 Jun 2005
Posts: 5042
Location: Arizona, U.S.A.

PostPosted: Sat 12 Oct 2013, 14:00    Post_subject:  

I know of that which you speak. I figured you ment mostly apps. except where the "fixes" are needed.
I`d think Puppy`s good WiFi is the result of scripts that make the standard services work like they should.
A good O.S. is choosing the best files and then good setup, config. scripts, and other files so it`ll work.
For most utilities and services there are few choices. Computers, they just do what they`re told to do.

This binary vs compile perspective... Files are files, just so they work, who cares where they come from.?
plagiarising Ubuntu... Isn`t that what most of the Linux distros out there do.? Razz And for a good reason...
I`m not down on compiling, especially in the core O.S. But making apps. should be easy for most users.

That`s why I appealed in several threads for app. dep. lists. These are the king pin of app. building.
There`s dep. files, but unless you have file to pkg. ( urls ) then file lists ( ldd ) don`t help.
Source is a bit different, the pkgs. are just the utility, service, or app. No extra crap Ubuntu decided to add.

Mplayer Wink A terrible or excellent example I`m sure you`ll agree. I think Xine`s better, need to try VLC.
Mplayer is definitely a shining example of "needs to be fixed in so many ways". Custom setup is the norm.
Most apps. aren`t this messy. The important and messy apps. ( only a few...) can be made by "experts".

The virtual apps. I`m tinkering with have URL files, and allow script to fix anything ( del. crap. from pkgs. ).
The Xfe virtApp I made had /etc/xferc, the script simplifies by moving the file to /usr/share/xfe and del. /etc

From what I understand, Gentoo hasn`t worked out so well. I always opt. for a "middle of the road" approach.
Compile the critical stuff of course. And probably messy stuff also. But choosing an easy route isn`t bad.
.
Back to top
View user's profile Send_private_message 
mikeb


Joined: 23 Nov 2006
Posts: 8621

PostPosted: Sat 12 Oct 2013, 14:59    Post_subject:  

The good wifi does have working scripts but its also a pile of firmware included and tweaked and extra drivers built as users request them... tempestous seems to be the bunny that makes most of this happen. Without the latter any distro is dead in the water regardless of how good the wifi setup is.

Ubuntu..erm who builds their files... themselves nowadays I believe....and those builders decide what is enabled...usually everything possible just for the one in several million user who might possibly need it and forced versioning which I assume is part of their release cycling...but their target market is not quite the same. Its the same with windows...for corporate clients all that surplus 'bloat' suddenly has a purpose (ok one that could be argued with) but a stipped XP works perfectly well for joe public.

I dont want my apps dragging in needless dependencies making them larger and slower and necessitate many extra redundant libraries.

I care about where my files com from cos I want them to work and not drag in more than really needed. Filtering a built package will not alter the dependency needs.

Mplayer..I'd say typical example ... a rough estimate would be 90% of binaries/apps/libraries from ubuntu/deb could be built needing less dependencies.
Note the attempts here to build a slimmer vlc. Xine uses ffmpeg... that can be trimmed too. I seem to compile more and more and this is usually the reason.... but seems a bit rough when really I am the user not the 'dev'. 'I wrote some scripts and borrowed some files' seem the qualification to be a distro maker..... bit like the showroom salesman claiming to be the car manufacturer.

Today we are sculpting with blender.... the first program for me that needed a tutorial in order to save a file Very Happy

regards

Mike
Back to top
View user's profile Send_private_message 
sunburnt


Joined: 08 Jun 2005
Posts: 5042
Location: Arizona, U.S.A.

PostPosted: Sat 12 Oct 2013, 15:27    Post_subject:  

Again... I hear what you say, and you`re right of course. A truly tuned system would be entirely LFS.

With this in mind, Puppy really would need a legion of very capable devs. Not gonna happen.
So there must be some middle ground somewhere. # Any ideas what that could be.?

Perhaps compile scripts for the really dicey apps., and binary scripts for the nice ones...
The amount of work for all the apps. out there is over whelming. Not to mention the O.S.


Hummm. Blender, sounds like my use of OpenShot. A pro quality editor, very unintuitive.
.
Back to top
View user's profile Send_private_message 
mikeb


Joined: 23 Nov 2006
Posts: 8621

PostPosted: Sat 12 Oct 2013, 16:15    Post_subject:  

Hmm ok.... well perhaps when you use the term 'backporting' for me its building an app to run on as meny versions as possible.
eg my rebuild of mplayer circa 2009...a pretty useful version....will run on puppy 2.0 and anything newer. So take a messy app and make a tidy version that runs on anything... that in itself reduces the workload as only one build would be needed. A stock of allrounders if you will.

Building the core libraries makes sense for stability plus of course it automatically would mean that part of an apps dependency tree would already be streamlined..... the common apps doo tend to pull in a similar fileset after all..

pulling in some other distros builds as desired ...I do it all the time ... but have puppy friendly builds of the hairier commonly wanted stuff. At the end of the day if someone wants kde or gnome or related software its going to be messy regardless.... some people want to use their sports car as a pick up truck...so be it

In fact that paints a picture of puppy at an earlier state of its life..

ok late evening calls

regards

Mike
Back to top
View user's profile Send_private_message 
Display_posts:   Sort by:   
Page 7 of 7 Posts_count   Goto page: Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7
Post_new_topic   Reply_to_topic View_previous_topic :: View_next_topic
 Forum index » Advanced Topics » Cutting edge
Jump to:  

Rules_post_cannot
Rules_reply_cannot
Rules_edit_cannot
Rules_delete_cannot
Rules_vote_cannot
You cannot attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
[ Time: 0.0793s ][ Queries: 12 (0.0055s) ][ GZIP on ]