howto build a grand unified puppy

What features/apps/bugfixes needed in a future Puppy
Message
Author
User avatar
puppyfan12
Posts: 140
Joined: Mon 04 Dec 2006, 17:25
Location: Ontario, Canada

#21 Post by puppyfan12 »

Nathan F wrote:A few clarifications. Amish's 'ultimate wm' from Grafpup-2.xx is Openbox, with lxpanel providing the desktop panel. The default theme was hacked from the Human theme, originally ported over from Ubuntu. I also included the ubuntulooks gtk engine and both Human and Human-blue gtk themes. I can provide the themes and source packages to anyone who is interested, however the binaries were compiled against differing base libraries and are unsuitable for use in Puppy.
Thanks for clarifying, Nathan. I've never used openbox before so I'm looking forward to checking it out.
Joe D.

amish
Posts: 615
Joined: Sun 24 Sep 2006, 23:15

#22 Post by amish »

flattered, nathan. please understand that although i draw a very bold line, grafpup 104 is the biggest inspiration for
what i'm talking about. you really took puppy to another level with it, in a way that can be used in MANY derivatives.

it was actually a small thing in a way i think... you set the number of .sfs files to what, 10? but the advantage is fundamental and changes everything. in any case, it's also my favorite demonstration, as it's very polished, kde just works, (on/off, on/off... jwm! kde! jwm!) and you swore to keep it under 400mb (or i dreamed it) which still sets it apart from 600. and the core is 80! "it's in the way that you use it" i think the song goes.
At one point in time we toyed around with setting up a bug tracker, but it never did get used much and has since fallen into total obscurity. We really need to reinstate this, to collect all of the real bugs in one place so they can be kept track of and not forgotten. I'm talking bugs here, not more requests for mega-application dotpups or the endless request for a Puppy facelift.
YES, i am 100% in favor of this. it would make puppy a LOT more tolerable to know bugs and workarounds and keep them in one place. i tried making it easier on people by putting a place on my blog where people can reply without going through extra hassles, but even if it's a very simple one, a proper bug tracker could be just what we need. i didn't know grafpup had one, either.

by the way, i tried the editor in mc and it was frustrating. if i'm trying to fix something, i might as well just put puppy 2.11 in and boot to where i can use leafpad... but it's your design choice, and i understand that. actually a piece of software for the linux cli is being worked on as we speak that will promote more than mp, it's no problem. i use mp because it's there and i like it, and i don't use mc because i don't care for it much. i realize it's a staple among linux afficianados.
nobody else maintains their own website complete with news blog, supprot forum, bug tracker, package repo, and image gallery specifically for a derivative of Puppy. On the one hand it might be viewed as selfish and taking away from Puppy's glory, but I would disagree with that assessment and I will lay out my reasons.
hehe. now the irony of this is that i tried signing up on your forum last month, but it won't let me post until you approve it, and i haven't gotten any confirmation. so that's funny actually, but i'm not picking on you. it's not a very busy forum, and frankly i think the development of grafpup 2 is a lot more important, and will lead to the forum picking up.

when i brought up splintering i brought it up as a general thing. obviously it would be hypocritical to suggest what i'm suggesting, then say that all puppy derivatives are a bad thing. grafpup is a good thing, and pizzas is a good thing. muppy is a good thing, but it's a one-man thing and the one-man is busy.

and yet, i stringly feel that people could be brought together under a grafpup like distro based on puppy. like other puplets, it would provide things that barry could add to his project, and let's be clear yet again- we have barry to thank for whatever legacy comes of puppy. we have barry to thank for grafpup, just as we have guesttoo to thank. just as we have you to thank. so i hope i'm clear on that, i don't think i've ever contradicted it.

i don't think grafpup is causing a problem, nathan, i think it's a very FIRM beginning of a solution. there is a splintering of sorts, and it's not grafpup that's causing it. there's something else. is it people saying "this doesn't work?" i don't think so. whatever it is, i think it can be fixed, and i hope this thread helps.

oh, and i also think that .pet has a future, after a bit more work. i've said so before. oh and i really love openbox :)

now, since we've gone off on many WONDERFUL tangents, and since i was never totally clear (maybe for the best) what i'm looking for from other people, maybe i could make a request:

one thing i would really like is for everyone to just step up and say what's best about puppy... and what's worst. what are your favorite programs that are included? what are your favorite .pup's and .pets? what would you add?

if there isn't enough room in this thread, that's okay. the blog can be used for this, (the link is at the bottom.) if this thread gets too long, i'll make a post on the blog and people can just reply to it. if you've already done such a review of puppy, just be wonderful and link to the url here.

i think this will help, i know it seems silly, but don't most people like throwing their two cents in? i'm asking everyone to. thanks in advance.

and many thanks to rarsa and jeff. here are two guys saying two very different things in this post, and i stand by the idea that rarsa really misunderstood some of what i said, but i went back and read his post carefully (as i promised to) and he made some great points. i think even the point about longer release cycles not helping was the most interesting. i think there may be some truth there, at the same time i don't think a beta "stage" of three days (not even exagerating) can help much either. there has to be an "in-between" better than that.

on the one hand, you have rarsa partially refuting some things, and you have jeff really putting in superb retorts (IMO) to what rarsa said that i have to agree with and kind of already did. but the actual flipping it back and forth in your mind, the pondering of the question, is a useful thing for everybody that can ultimately only produce a community that doesn't just produce a better distro, but understands how it was done. there are people on both sides of an argument both making good points.

personally, i don't think it's sides or winning arguments that lead to progress, but the best points made by everyone (and the ideas that come from them) that inspire people to bring progress and even point the way.

more than five years ago, people were saying linux wasn't good enough. and WHY it wasn't good enough. and i was smashing my storebought redhat cd in frustration. as i see it, two things lead to barry creating puppy, that linux wasn't good enough and that it was in another way, so extremely good. i see puppy as a leap forward. nathan creating grafpup was another i think. what's next? i told you, now you tell me.
sadly, it is not possible to separate politics from free software. free software - politics = unfree software.

User avatar
Flash
Official Dog Handler
Posts: 13071
Joined: Wed 04 May 2005, 16:04
Location: Arizona USA

#23 Post by Flash »

I'd just like to make the point once again that Puppy, the operating system, should be considered separately from the suite of applications that come bundled and preconfigured with Puppy and its derivatives.

In my view, the purpose of an operating system is to provide the infrastructure to run application programs. The basic Puppy OS, including its excellent hardware recognition and host of drivers, is wonderfully small, yet it provides the basis upon which to run virtually any application program that any other Linux can run.

I'd hate to see Puppy, the core OS, become bloated or lose its unique ability to run from a multisession DVD. I really think that's got tremendous potential for certain applications.

Having rambled this far, I'll finish by saying I like the idea of versions of Puppy that come prepackaged with integrated applications for a particular crowd.
[url=http://www.murga-linux.com/puppy/viewtopic.php?t=69321][color=blue]Puppy Help 101 - an interactive tutorial for Lupu 5.25[/color][/url]

GeoffS
Posts: 427
Joined: Fri 24 Feb 2006, 08:39
Location: Australia

#24 Post by GeoffS »

Flash - just what I wanted to say 8) .
I've been following this thread and getting quite concerned. I love Puppy and don't want to see him destroyed by internal bickering and people forgetting what Puppy is - an operating system - a platform for applications. I'd even leave the browser and email client out but then, I suspect that we have many users who would not believe it was a computer if it didn't do those things 'out of the box' :lol:
I'm also concerned that the proliferation of derivatives (CE, Pizzapup, Muppy etc.) is very confusing to newbies.
I thoroughly like the idea of .sfs add-ons. New users should be encouraged to get Puppy working on their hardware before trying the add-ons. Those wanting to try a derivative should be asked to try the base Puppy on their hardware first.
The derivatives and the add-ons should have their own topics within this forum. This would help the newbies avoid some of the confusion.
Some of this is a bit off target but does seem to be related to some of the prevous posts.
Cheers
Geoff

User avatar
Nathan F
Posts: 1764
Joined: Wed 08 Jun 2005, 14:45
Location: Wadsworth, OH (occasionally home)
Contact:

#25 Post by Nathan F »

hehe. now the irony of this is that i tried signing up on your forum last month, but it won't let me post until you approve it, and i haven't gotten any confirmation.
That's my fault and I apologize. You just wouldn't believe the persistance of some of the spammers from .ru, I've had to implement some very tight controls to keep things from getting out of hand. And in the process I think I pissed some of them off making me a target for their wrath.

But I digress, I will go check the database and activate any accounts that seem legit.

Nathan
Bring on the locusts ...

User avatar
SirDuncan
Posts: 829
Joined: Sat 09 Dec 2006, 20:35
Location: Ohio, USA
Contact:

#26 Post by SirDuncan »

Here's my two cents. I really like the idea of .sfs files for holding large programs and program suites. It would take some work to categorize programs into groups for the .sfs files, but it would be worth it. On the other hand, for smaller program groups this is almost pointless. It would take some balancing, but I agree with most of the already mentioned .sfs packages.

I also strongly believe in a good stripped down Puppy for using as a base in Puplets. I have been using LitePup for this, but now I am looking into BarelyPup. Ideally, this stripped Puppy would contain just the OS itself along with important scripts and wizards and probably JWM. No calculators, games, chat agents, or web browsers. People would then run PETget and add what they wanted from the Unleashed suite. Then install any desired DotPups and .sfs files and remaster.

Keeping Puppy on the small side is, of course, something I believe vehemently in. I personally think that we should be aiming to stay below the 80 mb level, although I think that 50 mb is an unreasonable restriction on the main distro. (On a side note, even at it's current size I had puppy running an old Gateway 2000 Solo 133mhz with, I believe, 64mb RAM and no CD or HD. Just a floppy and a 256mb flash drive. It gives me a fuzzy warm feeling deep down inside to be running a modern OS on something that nearly got thrown out years ago.)

I agree with the comment that Puppy's package manager should have good descriptions of the programs on it. There are some basic descriptions, but many of the programs are undescribed and I have no idea what they are.

Well, that's all for now. Maybe I'll think of something else later, but for the most part Puppy is the best OS I have ever used. It's kind of hard to think of things that need major improvement.
Be brave that God may help thee, speak the truth even if it leads to death, and safeguard the helpless. - A knight's oath

amish
Posts: 615
Joined: Sun 24 Sep 2006, 23:15

#27 Post by amish »

thanks duncan. i partially agree with flash. actually, the whole idea that i'm talking about as i see it, is to once-and-for-all separate the core os... NOT barebones os, but a functional, *featured* core like grafpup 104 has (grafpup 104 is 80mb, with the 5 sfs files, it is 380) - the grafpup 104 80mb Core is a Lot like puppy 2.11... 80mb, xwin, icewm, opera, up to date help wizards / control panels / just like puppy. it has an editor, gimp, stuff that nathan thought should be core to grafpup.

then there are sfs files (each one optional) for multimedia, ooo, kde, usr_devx, and some other thing. even with these, the os is less than 380.

these .sfs files could provide a wide variety of options, so long as all of them added up to 380-390mb. or less. then if you wanted a "bloated" os with features more like ubuntu (kde is pretty cool, actually) then you just add them. voila, "bloated" puppy under 400mb.

i never disagreed with sir duncan. the entire point is to have some features in the core, some of the tiny programs that puppy has always had, enough that it is usable as an os in 60, 70, or 80 mb.

a barebones could be made that was business-card-cd-sized, but i've always thought this to be a very amusing gimmick that costs DSL more than it gains. some feel differently, and people make barebones versions all the time. so, it should be EASY to make a barebones version.

it's nice to be able to download less than 100mb, it can even be done on dialup. so i strongly recommend, that you at least (as nathan does) offer the 80mb self-contained core version, plus the less than 400mb deluxe version. that's two isos, one 80, one under 400.

if you wanted to, you could offer each of these downloads: (nathan does this too)

50mb - barebones or wallet version (iso)
80mb - core version (iso)
300mb - deluxe version (iso)
?mb - first sfs (sfs)
?mb - second sfs (sfs)
?mb - third sfs (sfs)
?mb - etc (sfs)

as an option, this would help the user and also the bandwidth costs.

there's talk of people being concerned about debates and arguing in this thread, i've actually seen very little. in fact, i see a great deal of agreement in this thread, but i don't think people notice every time they mostly agree on something. that's a pity, because it takes zero debate at that point- just keeping an eye open for an ally.

the entire point of this thread is to see how *either* a hypothetical, OR a very real, puplet could be designed not so much as an "alternative" to please a few people, but to actually please a wider Array of people that would otherwise find an alternative.

it's not intended to demonize alternatives either. just to outline ways in a which a more universal, all for one and one for all version could be made.

obviously, such a version will never please everyone. but if it could make a wider assortment of people happy via careful, clever design, then that's a good thing imo. this could help ce, or it could help another puplet version. that detail doesn't matter to me. this is not a protest, i intended to build a forum in a forum- one where we could talk about a more "universal" puppy. and that's all.

lastly, i have used (for purposes of amusement and who knows, maybe even enlightenment) the zodiac to illustate some archetypes (yes, even stereotypes!) of different kinds of puppies (citizens) the archetypes are not intended to show how one kind of puppy is better than another, but to illustrate the different goals people struggle for, and the different "forces" at work. i hope jung would be proud :)

it is my firm belief, regardless of pleas of the contrary, that it is possible to balance the way a puplet caters to many kinds of even opposite desires and goals. conventionally this is seen as impossible, but i think that convention follows unrealistically black and white thinking. i still intend to change that convention. the thread is here, and no one is expected to read it, or comment. you are welcomed to do both: http://murga-linux.com/puppy/viewtopic.php?t=15823 but make no mistake, this is not about fighting or even debate. ultimately, it is intended to help guide *design* in an improved way. anything else is peripheral and secondary.

User avatar
SirDuncan
Posts: 829
Joined: Sat 09 Dec 2006, 20:35
Location: Ohio, USA
Contact:

#28 Post by SirDuncan »

Oh no, I agree with the baseline Puppy being fully functional. I was just saying that we need to continue to have barebones versions and I described what I thought the perfect barebones would be (and from BarelyPup's description it seems to be just that, but I just finished DLing it so I haven't found out yet).

What you've said about the core Puppy I more or less agree with. I'm just saying that a good barebones is necessary for many reasons. Many people run on low end machines, others have very sepcific needs and design a Puplet for their own use, and some of us just like to toy around.
Be brave that God may help thee, speak the truth even if it leads to death, and safeguard the helpless. - A knight's oath

amish
Posts: 615
Joined: Sun 24 Sep 2006, 23:15

#29 Post by amish »

my understanding is that in puppy 2 (if not also puppy 1) that you need to make a pupsave file on the hard drive before .sfs works.

because of this, a *featured* core puppy of less than 80mb would have to have some vital apps (maybe even a browser) included in the core.

if there is a way around this, you could have a true barebones, with nothing but xwin, hardware support, mp and leafpad, and puppybasic, and pupget/petget, the wizards (many of puppy's core apps and wizards use it) and put ALL the other CORE apps in core.sfs, including seamonkey, mtpaint, abiword, and the other things we've come to expect from puppy in 80ish mb. to go TRULY barebones and just delete core.sfs! core.sfs would be included by default, so newbies would see "ooh, features!" not "but what features does it have?"

then you could still have things like ooo.sfs, kde.sfs, usr_devx.sfs, and multimedia.sfs. barebones/notbarebones/barebones/notbarebones. could be fun!

i'm not sure if this is technically possible. the idea is:
barebones (don't be fooled, mostly scripts) is 40-50ish mb
barebones+default core is less than 100 mb
barebones+core+all extra .sfs files is less than 400 mb Image

User avatar
puppyfan12
Posts: 140
Joined: Mon 04 Dec 2006, 17:25
Location: Ontario, Canada

#30 Post by puppyfan12 »

Your word processors are actually text editors. Big difference between the two :)
Joe D.

amish
Posts: 615
Joined: Sun 24 Sep 2006, 23:15

#31 Post by amish »

Your word processors are actually text editors. Big difference between the two Smile :)
just so long as we can agree they aren't graphics editors...

yes, the things under "word processing" in barebones are text editors. they aren't word processors per se, because barebones doesn't have one, but they are under the same category they are in under the puppy 2.11 menu. i haven't seen the xdg version yet. if you look in the core, there is abiword, which i consider a "word processor" because it handles layouts, pictures, and colored text and different fonts. that loads by default. otherwise, there is the optional ooo.sfs.

so- new page, i would rather leave the picture in... on a thread already this size, it shouldn't hurt for people to repeat a couple things:

"i'm not sure if this is technically possible..." the idea is: barebones (don't be fooled, mostly scripts) is 40-50ish mb
barebones+default core is less than 100 mb
barebones+core+all extra .sfs files is less than 400 mb Image

blubb_fallo
Posts: 19
Joined: Tue 20 Feb 2007, 16:51

#32 Post by blubb_fallo »

Phew, an whole lot of interesting stuff to read. ;)

Thanks for the pointer, arnish. My idea indeed seems to coincede with wide parts of yours and even more with what NathanF apparently has already done in Grafpup (which I haven't tried yet).

Aren't the size figures still a bit high? As an admittedly extreme example, see Micropuppy with 12MiB. Thanks to MU, who reactivated the download yesterday, I could play around with it a bit - it's cute! Of course, all the wizards, installers, MUT, well, almost everything is missing, but still ... amazing. :D The Fox apps (XFE, adie, shutterbug) turn out to be a very good choice.

On the upper end, there is e. g. JM''s Mean Puppy 2.02 AKA PuppyOpera - mere 50 MiB and perfectly usable. Due to Opera, it provides not just slick and convenient web browsing (even including my beloved (customized) mouse guestures :)), but also chat, a sophisticated news and email client, a download manager and even bittorrent. I'm still sticking with it (in the hope for the next PuppyOpera to come), because none of the other Puppy releases I have tried since then was nearly as efficient. Anway - that's just my personal favor, meant to indicate that 50MiB probably are quite a bit more than necessary for a "barebones" pup_xxx.sfs already.

For a fully modular Puppy, I would not bundle anything as unrelated as e. g. didiwiki and seamonkeymail together in one sfs, though. With a "modpup chooser" we could easily have 10 to 20 sfs to choose from at the first menu screen, and there should be a richer choice at deeper levels. Instead of putting the most likely wanted "core" apps into a single sfs, their (separate) modules could be preselected in the modpup menu to allow for easy first time booting.

See also http://www.murga-linux.com/puppy/viewtopic.php?t=15889 for more on this concept.
Last edited by blubb_fallo on Wed 28 Feb 2007, 23:17, edited 1 time in total.

amish
Posts: 615
Joined: Sun 24 Sep 2006, 23:15

#33 Post by amish »

Instead of putting the most likely wanted "core" apps into a single sfs, their (separate) modules could be preselected in the modpup menu to allow for easy first time booting.
here we have a difference in philosophy. i am aiming for a "more puppy-like than puppy" distro, one that shows you various things in core.sfs by default. this is a bit more like puppy has been as long as i've known him, since version 1.07 (not really, too much to explain there.)

making someone choose all that information on the first run would be daunting, i think. better to make it as undaunting as possible. while people try to make setup of puppy easier, others try to complicate it, i'm not sure which is worse :) but i'm referring to the "default" boot from cd... installing puppy will hopefully become easier, but is still an exception to the rule.

yes, it would be cool to have puppy small again, and that's really the reason why i've tried to come up with a way to make it 50, 70-80, and 400 in size, when 60 is becoming a thing of the past, when 70 is becoming 80 and 90, and 100, and when 400 is (damnit, no!) becoming 600 at which point puppy is just another fullsize cd distro. no! puppy is small.

but it's also simple. your "choose everything before you run" plan isn't fit for a livecd at all, imo. mine lets you get back to 50mb in a Hurry, without knowing much about puppy, but it also lets the person do it the old way: burn an iso and just run the thing and SEE a *working* os In Action. how many do that? well... kinda dsl, kinda, feather, they're okay. puppy was/is, imo better, and i don't want to be more like dsl. i want puppy to be more like puppy. (only moreso.) i think making it more modular can help, and yeah- grafpup 104 is a shining example to us all. i hope grafpup 2 is under 100mb. p.s. didwiki needs a browser, they go together better than you think. i only suggested it because it's already in puppy, and it's a pretty neat little tool.
sadly, it is not possible to separate politics from free software. free software - politics = unfree software.

User avatar
SirDuncan
Posts: 829
Joined: Sat 09 Dec 2006, 20:35
Location: Ohio, USA
Contact:

#34 Post by SirDuncan »

The only problem I can see with this is that, if I understand correctly, Puppy will only load one .sfs file into RAM. So Puppy would have to mount the CD and run from it, whereas it currently loads into RAM and then you can take out the CD. Am I wrong about this?

I believe there is a way to mount .sfs files without a save file. It would require modifying a boot script, but I'm not knowledgeable enough to say how.
Be brave that God may help thee, speak the truth even if it leads to death, and safeguard the helpless. - A knight's oath

amish
Posts: 615
Joined: Sun 24 Sep 2006, 23:15

#35 Post by amish »

absolutely. we are talking about something still hypothetical that requires puppy to have SLIGHTLY MODIFIED capability. there are some that know how- nathan is one.

keep in mind i'm talking about something i sincerely hope will be based on a version of puppy with LGPL startup scripts. barry has been considering that since 2.14, 2.14 may have them for all i know, but if it's 2.16 or 2.18 i'd just assume wait for that. i don't know how or who the building will be / doing the building. it's what's called "pre-alpha" and hopefully not but potentially what's called "vaperware"

blubb_fallo
Posts: 19
Joined: Tue 20 Feb 2007, 16:51

#36 Post by blubb_fallo »

amish wrote:
Instead of putting the most likely wanted "core" apps into a single sfs, their (separate) modules could be preselected in the modpup menu to allow for easy first time booting.
here we have a difference in philosophy.
I guess, we do have differences somewhere, but I'm not sure whether this is such a case. :) Maybe I should have duplicated some details from the linked-to other thread here: the modpup selector needs to have a short timeout, say, 3 or 5 seconds, so it is possible to interact if you want to change the default selection (or what was saved).

A first time user will hardly interrupt, but s/he will recognize that there is more that could be worth exploring later.

This behavior has an advantage over puppy's current implementation of the initial video setup wizard (which is skipped completely once you have made a choice): it is and remains evident when and where you can change the settings again in case that's needed, e. g. due to hardware exchange.
When you pay attention, it is not difficult to enter the dialog at the right moment, but the short delay does not affect the speedy boot experience, either.
You may check out e. g. UBCD to see this method in action.
amish wrote: i am aiming for a "more puppy-like than puppy" distro, one that shows you various things in core.sfs by default.
...
making someone choose all that information on the first run would be daunting, i think. better to make it as undaunting as possible.
I fully agree. I wouldn't want to have a first time user go through a sixteenfold multiple choice of module groups to load. That's no difference between our views. The difference, if any, is more about providing the user with either boulders or bricks. :wink:

User avatar
Colonel Panic
Posts: 2171
Joined: Sat 16 Sep 2006, 11:09

Core philosophy

#37 Post by Colonel Panic »

For me the "bottom line" for Puppy is its speed; it has to be small enough to load completely into RAM.

I can click on an icon in Puppy and see that app load instantly, which I can't do in any other distro I'm aware of.

Having said that, more and more people now have 128+ MB of RAM, so I don't see any reason why Puppy can't be released in different sized versions for those with more RAM to play with.

amish
Posts: 615
Joined: Sun 24 Sep 2006, 23:15

#38 Post by amish »

the modpup selector needs to have a short timeout, say, 3 or 5 seconds, so it is possible to interact if you want to change the default selection (or what was saved).

A first time user will hardly interrupt, but s/he will recognize that there is more that could be worth exploring later.
well that's interesting, and better than it first sounded.

I fully agree. I wouldn't want to have a first time user go through a sixteenfold multiple choice of module groups to load. That's no difference between our views.
mm, we probably still disagree on some minor things, although that's not a big deal. a lot of the time when people disagree strongly, they're disagreeing based on misunderstanding what the other person is really trying to say.

I don't see any reason why Puppy can't be released in different sized versions for those with more RAM to play with.
yes :) rather than three versions really, one that starts medium (but under 100mb) and can somehwat instantly become about half that, or 4 times that. you can fit almost anything in 400mb- but only with puppy. why? because puppy has always tried very hard to stay small, and it does an excellent job of its original goals, instantly rewarding people seeking that it do so. let's be fair, slax and sourcemage can do it too. (but they're not as simple as puppy.)

John Doe
Posts: 1681
Joined: Mon 01 Aug 2005, 04:46
Location: Michigan, US

re: howto build a grand unified puppy

#39 Post by John Doe »

T2!!!!!

User avatar
sunburnt
Posts: 5090
Joined: Wed 08 Jun 2005, 23:11
Location: Arizona, U.S.A.

#40 Post by sunburnt »

Sir Duncan & Colonel Panic; If there are many sfs (Squash) files, then as many
can load into memory as there's space for them, manually or automatically.

I don't know why you'd want to not have a Save file... you couldn't install apps.


I just made a MicroMuppyOpera version with a 12MB core Squash file, a 6MB
image.gz file & the kernel is 1MB, that equals a total of 19MB in size.
But the Squash file's only 12MB, so it can load to memory on a PC with +32MB!

As MU said, it's good for specific purposes, really anything except games & movies as it has no Xorg, to add it would probably increase size by over 10MB.

Post Reply