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 20 Dec 2014, 10:25
All times are UTC - 4
 Forum index » Taking the Puppy out for a walk » Suggestions
The world has changed
Moderators: Flash, Ian, JohnMurga
Post new topic   Reply to topic View previous topic :: View next topic
Page 3 of 8 [112 Posts]   Goto page: Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 Next
Author Message
jpeps

Joined: 31 May 2008
Posts: 3220

PostPosted: Mon 19 Aug 2013, 11:52    Post subject: Re: response
Subject description: response
 

Volhout wrote:


About Slacko, and "what to remove"...... actually I just last night used the "remove buildin packages" tool and was looking what I could do to ThinSlacko to make it smaller.... I removed something 20+ items from the menu's. Things like "ftp server, 2 editors (geany, and abiword are enough), file difference checkers, some process viewers, download complete websites, pzchmview, etc.. all these tools that are for programmers. Nice tool by the way, it also removes the menu items.


Removing programs probably will have no advantage, since most take up very little disk space. Some programs, like ftp, will be very useful later on when you learn how to use it. A different approach: included programs have been carefully screened before being included. Try a few out, it's what makes puppy interesting. The advantage of inclusion by the developer is that they work, and are well tested and integrated. That's why puppy is SOOOOO much superior to something like TinyCore.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message 
sunburnt


Joined: 08 Jun 2005
Posts: 5043
Location: Arizona, U.S.A.

PostPosted: Mon 19 Aug 2013, 14:07    Post subject:  

I agree in the fat Puppy idea... Lots of work by the builder making sure everything functions.
This is best suited to builder groups, though some folks may have the process streamlined.

And rather than worrying about upgrading apps., just make a new fat Puppy instead.

# Puppy always was a case of trading up to a newer one.

Adding apps. is good in the Debian, Ubuntu, Slack versions with their good parentage.

# I`m a fan of RoxApps, easy to add and remove, and they don`t scatter files everywhere.


# Having so many Puppy parents is problematic. One parent has obvious advantages.

I`ve suggested add-on app. packs ( groups of like apps.), media, office, games, web, etc.


# Note: For new Puppy releases remember to post app. list and the download size.!
.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message 
jamesbond

Joined: 26 Feb 2007
Posts: 2232
Location: The Blue Marble

PostPosted: Mon 19 Aug 2013, 14:19    Post subject:  

sunburnt wrote:
# I`m a fan of RoxApps, easy to add and remove, and they don`t scatter files everywhere.

Then you may be interested in this:
- Nix OS
- Nix Package Manager, which apparently has been adopted as "The" GNU Package Manager (GNU Guix).
Interesting concept, although too much for my taste Smile

_________________
Fatdog64, Slacko and Puppeee user. Puppy user since 2.13.
Contributed Fatdog64 packages thread
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message 
Karl Godt


Joined: 20 Jun 2010
Posts: 3982
Location: Kiel,Germany

PostPosted: Mon 19 Aug 2013, 15:07    Post subject:  

I have a bit difficult to understand the term ROX-APPS . ROX-Filer and some applications are located in /usr/local/apps .
I have started to configure apps with --prefix=/usr/APPTYPE like /usr/gtk , /usr/multimedia and /usr/SDL , to have a better overview when things exhibit problems .
That needs to set LD_LIBRARY_PATH and /etc/ld.so.conf accordingly .

BTW , the world has changed ? : confused :
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website 
6502coder

Joined: 23 Mar 2009
Posts: 113
Location: Western United States

PostPosted: Mon 19 Aug 2013, 16:00    Post subject:  

Q5sys is absolutely dead on in emphasizing that for certain purposes, such as running a business, Puppy is simply not a good idea. But it seems some people are bent on criticizing a pickup truck for being a lousy limousine...

As for Q5sys's reference to "Psych 101", when I said I didn't understand why people get so obsessed with promoting Puppy, I was just trying to make a point. I understand perfectly well what's going on. It's what leads to cliques in high school and fights at sporting events, and aren't we all the worse off for it? People ought to have the courage of their own convictions.

It saddens me to see so much time wasted arguing about something that is just a mirage anyway. The idea of a standard fat Puppy distro is surely an exercise in futility, quite apart from being a contradition in terms (since Puppy's whole point is to be lean). How can there be a standard fat Puppy when there's no such thing as a standard fat Puppy USER?

You can load a distro up with 2GB of the most popular, most widely-used Linux apps out there, and won't there still be plenty of users complaining that THEIR favorite app isn't included, or who cannot accept a "standard" app that was included? Even something as fundamental as an office productivity suite is rife with controversy. Anyone who thinks that Libre Office (for example) is universally acceptable is simply uninformed.

If the notion of a standard fat Puppy really is valid, and if there really is a crying need for it, then I expect that one will emerge; vacuums do tend to get filled. But I'm not holding my breath.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message 
sunburnt


Joined: 08 Jun 2005
Posts: 5043
Location: Arizona, U.S.A.

PostPosted: Mon 19 Aug 2013, 17:30    Post subject:  

Karl; http://puppylinux.org/wikka/RoxApplicationDirectory
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message 
starhawk

Joined: 22 Nov 2010
Posts: 3208
Location: Everybody knows this is nowhere...

PostPosted: Mon 19 Aug 2013, 17:47    Post subject:  

6502coder wrote:
standard fat Puppy USER


5'3 ~220lbs (~100kg for non US folks) here... that makes me a fat Puppy user, right? Not sure about the "standard" bit tho...

Razz Wink Razz

_________________

Back to top
View user's profile Send private message 
ardvark


Joined: 01 Jul 2013
Posts: 1165
Location: USA

PostPosted: Mon 19 Aug 2013, 18:10    Post subject:  

starhawk wrote:

5'3 ~220lbs (~100kg for non US folks) here... that makes me a fat Puppy user, right?

Razz Wink Razz


Laughing
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message 
01micko


Joined: 11 Oct 2008
Posts: 7841
Location: qld

PostPosted: Mon 19 Aug 2013, 19:19    Post subject:  

ardvark wrote:
starhawk wrote:

5'3 ~220lbs (~100kg for non US folks) here... that makes me a fat Puppy user, right?

Razz Wink Razz


Laughing


Time to give up that soda!

volhout wrote:
And then ... completely off-topic ..... I look at Slacko 533 (not thinslack) and Slacko 56 and there is 50Mbyte size difference (1.5x size). But they offer very much alike functionality. Is this difference in the kernel part ?

I don't think it's all that much off topic. The biggest factor here is that newer kernels require the mesa package, ~30M, plus the kernel is a bit bigger with more drivers included ootb, programs all grow including backend libraries, and stuff like ffmpeg, abiword, mplayer and whatever browser.

Puppy is very extensible with sfs files, and it's quite easy to make your own from a .pet (search the forum) or other distro's packages or even combine sfs files. With a bit of minor editing you can easily have libreoffice (or your preferred office suite) open programs with one click and also make them the defaults.

Puppy will never please everyone, that's not what it's for anyway. I like it because of it's speed, even on old clunkers. However my main 3 machines could hardly be classified as "old" in puppy terms. They are all 64 bit capable and could easily run most distros. However, I find my self using puppy near all the time on 2 of them, the other is my homework box, puppy only gets tested on that one.

As for PHATSlacko, there may be another version soon; the part I like about it is Samba out of the box. Very handy.

But as for an official "FAT" version? No. Barry would never agree to it.. it is his baby after all. I'm of the opinion it's not needed.

And until rox-filer and jwm don't work any more with new libraries, that will be the default interface.

_________________
Woof Mailing List | keep the faith Cool |
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website 
Q5sys


Joined: 11 Dec 2008
Posts: 1074

PostPosted: Mon 19 Aug 2013, 19:28    Post subject:  

Volhout wrote:
Hi Q5sys,

First of all, I don't want to offend anyone, and especially not 01Micko, since I highly appreciate his work, and I am using Slacko every day on my netbook. And Lucid is also based on his work.

I myself use Lucid 528 on the desktop PC's in my office and run my business with it. And I am happy with it. And yes, I ran into a few hurdles, and thanks to the responce I got on this forum, it is running fine for more than 3 years now.

I didnt think you were intentionally trying to offend, just wanted to point it out in case you didnt realize it. I've praised 01Micko's work here for a while. I hope he stays around and continues to do great things for this community.


Volhout wrote:
So I believe in Puppy.

Glad to hear it! Smile

Volhout wrote:
Stellarium is used as an example for a program that will never show up in a distro since it is not a primary function for a PC, but it is a great program for entertainment (power up your laptop when you are sitting on the deck and are looking at the sky in the night after a good BBQ, drinking one beer too many) and it has critical Qt dependencies. Things that are not in all puppies.

My personal opinion is that QT is a the way of the future and we need to start including it by default. But there are plenty of people that feel that gtk still has life left in it. Historically puppy has been GTK based, so there's a bit of resistance. I always pack QT up in an SFS and load it automatically.

Volhout wrote:
I have used FATslacko, Phatslacko, and have downloaded Lighthouse Mariner to try soon. And they are a lot closer to what I have in mind. But they are not official puppies. No-one can find them, unless they look at the right page at the forum. I vote to make one of these fat ones an official release, sanctioned by Barry, listed on distrowatch, etc. And THAT is the point.

That's where individuals need to push the non official releases if they want them to gain use. Barry has decided not to embrace the larger sizes as official, until he changes his mind... Its up to the community to push the non official versions.


Volhout wrote:
So in fact, I think in many things we do agree. Only your position is that it should not be Puppy, since puppy is such a great toy for developers. Don't burden it with the load to also be a product for the mob. I agree, you do have a point in that.

Thats 100% in the wrong direction. I dont agree with that at all. I dont think Puppy is just a Dev Toy. But I dont think that Puppy should just become 'yet another' Linux distro by being loaded with tons of applications that rarely get used. I think we instead should make those as SFS packages which a user can load if and when they need. Leave the Bloat out, focus on the gold.


Volhout wrote:
One thing I do think however, is that "dumming down" a product does pay off. Allowing me (and you) to tinker around, but at the same time have something that is "iPhone-simple (or Android-simple)" is valuable. Just few icons on the desktop, or menu, but keep the terminal. And the "home" folder should contain only "documents" and "music" and "pictures". Much more confusing now.

To quote Einstein, "Things should be made as simple as possible but no simplier." Yes I realize that's a horrible paraphrase. His point was dont dumb things down to where they loose their essence. Dont simply something so much that it becomes less useful. In our exact situation, I dont think we should dumb the experience down that much, becuase it means that we dont have to learn anything. I think a good Idiotocracy movie refence would fit here.

Volhout wrote:
About Slacko, and "what to remove"...... actually I just last night used the "remove buildin packages" tool and was looking what I could do to ThinSlacko to make it smaller.... I removed something 20+ items from the menu's. Things like "ftp server, 2 editors (geany, and abiword are enough), file difference checkers, some process viewers, download complete websites, pzchmview, etc.. all these tools that are for programmers. Nice tool by the way, it also removes the menu items.
Some items are also double. There are 2 programs that take a snapshort from the screen. Just pick one.... 2 programs that inform you how much disk space there is left, 2 scientific calculators, a lot of network tools that I never used. So even in thinslacko there is meat to cut (for me at least).

Ok Now I'm confused. First you were talking about adding in more applications, now you're talking about taking them out? Also keep in mind that sometimes there are multiple menu entries becuase a program can do more than on thin. Example: MtPaint. it can take screenshots but it can also be an graphic editor. So its one program with two entries. Even if you'd go and remove almost everything, you're not saving that much space. And here we get into the debate of what should stay and what should go. For 'you' an FTP server is dumb to have, but for another user it may be very useful. I dont know if we've had a community wide discussion about default apps in a while... but most of the things are there for a good reason. Personally I think dialup can go; except for the fact that I know that there are people here that need dialup networking still. If you want a custom designed release that has your software and nothing more... contact a dev and offer them some beer money to remaster a CD for you. Razz



6502coder wrote:
Q5sys is absolutely dead on in emphasizing that for certain purposes, such as running a business, Puppy is simply not a good idea. But it seems some people are bent on criticizing a pickup truck for being a lousy limousine...

Perfect analogy!

6502coder wrote:
As for Q5sys's reference to "Psych 101", when I said I didn't understand why people get so obsessed with promoting Puppy, I was just trying to make a point. I understand perfectly well what's going on. It's what leads to cliques in high school and fights at sporting events, and aren't we all the worse off for it? People ought to have the courage of their own convictions.

I figured it was a rhetorical question, I just felt like answering it anyway for those who might have thought 'well yea thats a good question'.

6502coder wrote:
It saddens me to see so much time wasted arguing about something that is just a mirage anyway. The idea of a standard fat Puppy distro is surely an exercise in futility, quite apart from being a contradition in terms (since Puppy's whole point is to be lean). How can there be a standard fat Puppy when there's no such thing as a standard fat Puppy USER?

You can load a distro up with 2GB of the most popular, most widely-used Linux apps out there, and won't there still be plenty of users complaining that THEIR favorite app isn't included, or who cannot accept a "standard" app that was included? Even something as fundamental as an office productivity suite is rife with controversy. Anyone who thinks that Libre Office (for example) is universally acceptable is simply uninformed.

If the notion of a standard fat Puppy really is valid, and if there really is a crying need for it, then I expect that one will emerge; vacuums do tend to get filled. But I'm not holding my breath.

Agreed

_________________



Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website 
Volhout


Joined: 28 Dec 2008
Posts: 418

PostPosted: Tue 20 Aug 2013, 02:54    Post subject:  

Q5sys wrote:
Quote:
Would you mind making a list of the applications in Slacko 5.6 that you feel need "to go"? Id be interested to hear your opinions.


Volhout wrote:
Quote:

About Slacko, and "what to remove"...... actually I just last night used the "remove buildin packages" tool and was looking what I could do to ThinSlacko to make it smaller.... I removed something 20+ items from the menu's. Things like "ftp server, 2 editors (geany, and abiword are enough), file difference checkers, some process viewers, download complete websites, pzchmview, etc.. all these tools that are for programmers. Nice tool by the way, it also removes the menu items.
Some items are also double. There are 2 programs that take a snapshort from the screen. Just pick one.... 2 programs that inform you how much disk space there is left, 2 scientific calculators, a lot of network tools that I never used. So even in thinslacko there is meat to cut (for me at least).


Q5sys wrote:
Quote:

Ok Now I'm confused. First you were talking about adding in more applications, now you're talking about taking them out?


Don't be confused....I may have been confused in interpreting "need to go" as "need to remove" in stead of "need to add".

Maybe there are others that want to dive into this topic a little more, but for me 01Micko's explanation that Barry will never sanction a FAT puppy. That closes the door. And for me that closes the discussion, as if Barry said it himself.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message 
stu91


Joined: 06 Aug 2012
Posts: 145
Location: England. Dpup. Dell Inspiron 1501

PostPosted: Tue 20 Aug 2013, 08:50    Post subject:  

What puppy needs is a solid foundation, none of this constant reinventing the wheel every x months - it would make it so much easier for the community to add to, build for and develop on.
Puppy doesn't need a 'fat' version it needs an 'lts' version.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message 
greengeek

Joined: 20 Jul 2010
Posts: 2747
Location: New Zealand

PostPosted: Tue 20 Aug 2013, 13:33    Post subject:  

I like the re-inventions, and I love the variety... Admittedly it does make it difficult when a developer moves on to something else and leaves a user with an "almost working" system - however I do feel that it is the responsibility of the user to track down the missing info, or missing programmes for themselves if the dev has not seen fit to do so.

What the dev offers is a platform upon which the user can add extras if available. I don't think anyone should require a dev to be chained to one version for ten years.

But if the dev chooses to add so much functionality that the pup becomes fat - so much the better! The fatter the pup the more likely it will have the programs the user wants in the long term.

I guess Barry will develop the core puppy to be as small as possible, and to be able to harness the latest source files from whatever is perceived to be the most appropriate source (I guess that is what "woof" is about..)... but if some other dev then takes that foundation and nourishes it till it becomes an obese pup thats great! More programs does not need to mean slower performance.

Vive la fatties!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message 
sunburnt


Joined: 08 Jun 2005
Posts: 5043
Location: Arizona, U.S.A.

PostPosted: Tue 20 Aug 2013, 14:41    Post subject:  

I`m with stu on the "reinventing the wheel" thing, I`ve seen lots of that here.
Basically it amounts to wasted effort, definitely not productive or desirable.

My main thought was all the good ideas and code that`s come and gone from Puppy.
If a few folks ( probably with download sites ) had repositories of donated code.
Most sites are apps., but there`s some Puppy tweaks to be found at some of them also.

There`s several threads about directions and needed fixes. This is definitely top drawer.

Some folks here are pillars of Puppy development, I`d think they`d be ready for consensus.

### What do the variant builders think of forming a "sudo fork" of Puppy. Mod. apps. really.

Scripts and apps. that alter Puppy`s setup and behavior, amounting to fixes and "new wheels".
.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message 
jpeps

Joined: 31 May 2008
Posts: 3220

PostPosted: Tue 20 Aug 2013, 18:09    Post subject:  

sunburnt wrote:


### What do the variant builders think of forming a "sudo fork" of Puppy. Mod. apps. really.

Laughing
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message 
Display posts from previous:   Sort by:   
Page 3 of 8 [112 Posts]   Goto page: Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 Next
Post new topic   Reply to topic View previous topic :: View next topic
 Forum index » Taking the Puppy out for a walk » Suggestions
Jump to:  

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
[ Time: 0.1416s ][ Queries: 12 (0.0070s) ][ GZIP on ]