4.2 Meeting - Here

[Lobster]

control panel

Jay? This could be your coding chance
Also MU had something using GTBasic
and John Murga was planning something using Lua

Are there any other potentials?

[amigo]

A couple of ideas- As long as you have ROX, a really flexible way to set up a control center is to just create separate AppDIrs for each control and then group them in subdirs under a main directory. Of course using some consistent gui or modal widget tools for each of them. This would break up the tools into resonable bits. Still, even if you created a common gui for the whole thing, it could call these individual tools as needed.

Another way would be, yes, from a webpage interface. I've gotten pretty interested in this lately and have been fooling around with some basic functionality which mixes custom cgi scripts written in bash, with other ready-to-run web applications like the namazu desktop search engine, didiwiki and such. I have the thttpd server running for any of these which don't have their own server(like didwiki). And I write the html code so that it works using dillo. This makes everything fast and compatible with whatever browser you want -but dillo makes the perfect frontend cause it starts quickly. Even the webpage could call AppDirs if you want.

Either of these ways would be much more flexible and modular than trying to get everything into one piece of code.

You have probably all seen the post about the Puppy web apps page. I'm doing the same sort of thing but building it from web applications which are installed on the machine and accessing them through localhost://
Another thing that this sort of interface is good for is for making a kiosk interface. You can make the browser the whole desktop and limit the available tools to only those which are linked to your pages.

For the AppDirs that I write that need gui elements, I use several small
tools including xdialog. I have done a bit of work on writing a set of interchangeable widgets which can be called from scripts. I have also done a little like this with html widgets which can be sourced and then used in the bash-cgi frontends.

Using a web-type gui has some nice advantages for being freer with design elements if you want to get fancy -particularly for apps that should like a control panel.

[Aitch]

fltk2.0 by plinej/I know Jay uses fltk

http://www.murga-linux.com/puppy/viewto ... 5a953c6071

Aitch

[ttuuxxx]

have also done a little like this with html widgets which can be sourced and then used in the bash-cgi frontends.

Using a web-type gui has some nice advantages for being freer with design elements if you want to get fancy -particularly for apps that should like a control panel.

This is pretty much what I said,
Hmmmmmmmm html widgets this sounds very interesting, I like the idea, any links???????
Thanks
ttuuxxx

[raffy]

Using a web-type gui has some nice advantages for being freer with design elements if you want to get fancy -particularly for apps that should like a control panel.

Keep the ideas coming, Amigo. The only problem would be that these approaches could be different enough to be outside the current development.

[ttuuxxx]

Using a web-type gui has some nice advantages for being freer with design elements if you want to get fancy -particularly for apps that should like a control panel.

Keep the ideas coming, Amigo. The only problem would be that these approaches could be different enough to be outside the current development.

Hey raffy

Basically you could have a webpage that acts a gui, Its simple, you can easy modify it, and the size would be very small, Plus without any navigation buttons it looks like a real application. like when you click /menu/help but without the navigation. Then it would look like Gtk apps but better. Well we could at least experiment and see the outcome.
ttuuxxx

[big_bass]

Hey Guys

The latest puppy using the slackware 12.1 kernel (patched of course )

kernel 2.6.25.5 smp also


#--------------------------------------------------------------
puppy version 4.1 released oct 8
release notes from 4.1
'puppy-4.1-k2.6.25.16-seamonkey.iso' at 94.1MB and 'puppy-4.1retro-k2.6.21.7-seamonkey.iso' at 94.6MB. The latter is a more conservative kernel that perhaps suits older systems.
#--------------------------------------------------------------

*you can see the different kernel listed
in the Hardware info tool and the compile date

the image below is a screen shot
I didnt resize it so you can see all the details

let this be documented as the advances with slackware
are real and not just a proposed concept

big_bass ~~~~> pet packages and iso's @ http://www.puppylinux.ca/tpp/big_bass/

[ttuuxxx]

Hey Guys

The latest puppy using the slackware 12.1 kernel (patched of course )

kernel 2.6.25.5 smp also


#--------------------------------------------------------------
puppy version 4.1 released oct 8
release notes from 4.1
'puppy-4.1-k2.6.25.16-seamonkey.iso' at 94.1MB and 'puppy-4.1retro-k2.6.21.7-seamonkey.iso' at 94.6MB. The latter is a more conservative kernel that perhaps suits older systems.
#--------------------------------------------------------------

*you can see the different kernel listed
in the Hardware info tool and the compile date

the image below is a screen shot
I didnt resize it so you can see all the details

let this be documented as the advances with slackware
are real and not just a proposed concept

big_bass ~~~~> pet packages and iso's @ http://www.puppylinux.ca/tpp/big_bass/

Hey big bass,

I feel a bit of attitude coming from you, anyways I looked at your site http://www.puppylinux.ca/tpp/big_bass/ and you don't have a release made?
I've only been in the planning stage for like 1.5 weeks. The same as Whodo's 4.2, and yes he doesn't have anew Kernel either:) LOL
You keep posting in the wrong thread, It should be in 5.0 Slackware
Also which gtk,qt and glibc are being used?

Also you compiled it as i686 when it should be i486,
It needs to be i486 to match compatibility of Slackware and when you say patched does that means you did all the patches that Barry usually does plus his latest extra's?
Anyways we should stop hijacking this forum and maybe discuss this in 5.0 thread http://murga-linux.com/puppy/viewtopic.php?t=34498

[Lobster]

let this be documented as the advances with Slackware
are real and not just a proposed concept

Good luck with your and ttuuxxx's efforts in this direction.

As you probably know Barry will be releasing a release candidate of 4.1.1 soon
and then the final 4.1.1..

4.2 will be a progression from 4.1.1 which Dougal and other developers are currently supporting.
.
There is no plan for a reintroduction of Slackware compatibility for 4.2

Slackware compatibility might be possible for 4.3

You can see some of the upgrades that will be in 4.2 (added by Coolpup) here:
http://www.puppylinux.org/wiki/archives ... -wish-list

Also our 'meeting secretary' who was going to make a record of points raised in this thread seems to have gone?

If you feel a record of salient points is required add here:
http://www.puppylinux.org/wiki/archives ... t-meetings

[big_bass]

Lobster

I will move all my slackware and puppy progress info over to your `unofficial `post



http://www.murga-linux.com/puppy/viewtopic.php?t=34704

for those who are serious about slackware and puppy
you can PM me



P.S ttuuxxx please remove any reference to Fat free Pup linked to ttuuxx.com your server hasn't worked for months



all of my work is at puppylinux.ca

big_bass The fat free series and pet packages --->http://www.puppylinux.ca/tpp/big_bass/

[ttuuxxx]

Lobster

I will move all my slackware and puppy progress info over to your `unofficial `post



http://www.murga-linux.com/puppy/viewtopic.php?t=34704

for those who are serious about slackware and puppy
you can PM me



P.S ttuuxxx please remove any reference to Fat free Pup linked to ttuuxx.com your server hasn't worked for months



all of my work is at puppylinux.ca

big_bass The fat free series and pet packages --->http://www.puppylinux.ca/tpp/big_bass/

Listen Joe , Barry said publicly I could do it, If your jealous or upset about you could just PM me instead, Looking the way you do, every time you write something its very immature, almost like a young kid having a fit because he didn't get his way. Grow up and act your age.
ttuuxxx

[Lobster]

I would like to move on to the 'realistic'
wish list for 4.2

Are there any small programs that have been overlooked that really deserve inclusion in 4.2?

[zigbert]

Transmission 0.6.1 (111 kb)
GpicView (113 KB)

[alienjeff]

P.S ttuuxxx please remove any reference to Fat free Pup linked to ttuuxx.com your server hasn't worked for months

Listen Joe , Barry said publicly I could do it, If your jealous or upset about you could just PM me instead, Looking the way you do, every time you write something its very immature, almost like a young kid having a fit because he didn't get his way. Grow up and act your age.

Yet another example of the pot calling the kettle "black."

1) big_bass makes measured and reasonable request,

2) big_bass provides a legitimate reason for said request, then

3) ttuuxxx has a tantrum. In public. Again.

@ttuuxxx

If your knee-jerk antics weren't so freaking pathetic, they'd be funny. Don't you ever get tired of putting your foot in your mouth?

[WhoDo]

Transmission 0.6.1 (111 kb)
GpicView (113 KB)

Agreed, wholeheartedly. Lobster will add these to our wish list for packages to include in 4.2

I'd also like to see your work on miniscule widgets included, too, if it can be matured in time. I don't see that as a major change; rather an evolutionary development in usability - especially the desktop calendar and customised conky.

[Béèm]

I would like to move on to the 'realistic'
wish list for 4.2

Are there any small programs that have been overlooked that really deserve inclusion in 4.2?

Hello Lobster,
I am kinda lost in all the threads going on on 4.2
Your link in your sig leads to more confusion threads, well in my opinion.
The best link I found so far is the deep thoughts one, which gives a more concise overview.
Wonder if that one shouldn't be the ultimate one to start with to learn about the 4.2 plans, when maintained in a concise way of coarse.
From there the more in depth threads with the detailed discussions could be referenced.

This link would maybe the best to reference in a sig.

Hope you're not offended by my comments.

Bernard

[raffy]

for those who are serious about slackware and puppy
you can PM me

Sorry, maybe it's useful to discuss things openly, like in a new forum thread?

Version 3.x is about slackware compatibility, so why not label your work as such, say 3.3? (3.02 has been booked for the project led by Tronkel and ttuuxxx)

I understand that one of this build's features is the use of Slackware kernel? That makes it unique.

[Lobster]

This link would maybe the best to reference in a sig.
Hope you're not offended by my comments.

Bernard

Courteous and kind comments inspire
a change of sig . . .
Hope that is clearer

zigbert wrote:
Transmission 0.6.1 (111 kb)
GpicView (113 KB)

Agreed, wholeheartedly. Lobster will add these to our wish list for packages to include in 4.2

Done. Here.
http://tinyurl.com/6x9ubl

Thanks to Coolpup who is also updating wiki

[Aitch]

Lobster, a breath of fresh air amidst the stench of confusion, - thanks

Aitch

[Béèm]

Thanks Lobster, much clearer now.