Puppy 4.2 Bling Or No Bling ANNONYMOUS POLL

Message

gerry · #21 Post by **gerry** » Fri 13 Mar 2009, 07:29

As I said somewhere else, TOP shows that the widgets use a total of 14 percent of my 256MB ram, and it shows in speed.

Gerry

#22 Post by **ttuuxxx** » Fri 13 Mar 2009, 07:57

gerry wrote:As I said somewhere else, TOP shows that the widgets use a total of 14 percent of my 256MB ram, and it shows in speed.

Gerry

Yes thats hard to measure on my pc because I have 4gigs of ddr2, so it shows like 1%, but the average user will notice a change. I notice mostly with the dragging of the windows,compiling and fixmenus.
ttuuxxx

droope · #23 Post by **droope** » Fri 13 Mar 2009, 18:58

Then it's a definitive no from me, i guess.

bugman · #24 Post by **bugman** » Fri 13 Mar 2009, 21:52

i tried pwidgets once and it seriously killed my computer

[now happily removed]

trapster · #25 Post by **trapster** » Fri 13 Mar 2009, 22:12

Me likes my transparent Gkrellm.
I do use a slim down conky for a calendar, reminders and latest newsfeeds.

jhecht · #26 Post by **jhecht** » Sun 15 Mar 2009, 05:00

What makes Puppy so outstanding is Barry K's effort toward lean, clean, and fast software - not only his own work, but what is chosen to include with each iteration of Puppy.

When we deviate from that mindset, we lose sight of the original design concept, and risk devolving into bloatware...

Think the Bauhaus school of design - or - since this is Puppy, perhaps Bowowhaus. 'Form follows function' - that which functions most cleanly and simply is most beautiful...

ecomoney · #27 Post by **ecomoney** » Sun 15 Mar 2009, 15:31

"Bling" vs Performance are not always mutially exclusive. Its possible to have something that doesnt look like Windows 3.1 but still runs very nearly as fast as the "3.1-looking" puppys.

Its not enough to have something that "just works", it has to be something that people are able to work easily, and that they actually want to work as well.

Pwidgets adds a lot of usability to puppy 4.1.2, at very little cost to performance. Im not sure about its long term inclusion in standard puppy linux, but I am glad that it was included in 4.2 just to show how attractive and useable puppy linux can be with a few extra tweaks.

I dont think the results of this poll should be taken seriously, as the Puppy Forum a lot more frequented by serious developers than end users. In my experience, a poll of everyone who had ever used puppy linux would show a very different result.

jhecht · #28 Post by **jhecht** » Sun 15 Mar 2009, 15:54

ecomoney wrote:"Bling" vs Performance are not always mutially exclusive. Its possible to have something that doesnt look like Windows 3.1 but still runs very nearly as fast as the "3.1-looking" puppys.

Its not enough to have something that "just works", it has to be something that people are able to work easily, and that they actually want to work as well.

You are imposing your own aesthetic judgments on others. I happen to >like< a minimalist look - why should more 'eye candy' be installed in a basic build, when it can easily be added as a .pet package? Or, if it is installed, it should be easily removable.

ecomoney wrote:Pwidgets adds a lot of usability to puppy 4.1.2, at very little cost to performance. Im not sure about its long term inclusion in standard puppy linux, but I am glad that it was included in 4.2 just to show how attractive and useable puppy linux can be with a few extra tweaks.

I dont think the results of this poll should be taken seriously, as the Puppy Forum a lot more frequented by serious developers than end users. In my experience, a poll of everyone who had ever used puppy linux would show a very different result.

I have not used Pwidgets, so I'm not able to judge it. However, this poll is being answered by Puppy users who care enough to do so. To say it should be ignored is once again, imposing your values on other Puppy users. And how do you propose to contact 'everyone who had ever used Puppy Linux'? Further, what 'experience' do you have that makes you think the results of an expanded poll would be different? You totally have the right to your own opinion - but so does everyone else...

In >my< experience, the most ardent Puppy users, are fluent computerists who want to get away from bloated OSs that include too much decoration. There is no reason to not offer whatever >add-ons< you like, to change appearance - but don't include them in the basic build.

ecomoney · #29 Post by **ecomoney** » Sun 15 Mar 2009, 17:45

Further, what 'experience' do you have that makes you think the results of an expanded poll would be different?

My experience is in using puppy linux, in head to head competition with windows computer engineers, full time as my primary "job" in my local community over the past five years, looking after the needs of individuals, family homes, small business, schools and charities. I ran a puppy Linux cybercafe for three years, and support around 150 p.c.'s in my local area.

http://www.murga-linux.com/puppy/viewtopic.php?t=12714
http://www.deoss.org/positive/index.php ... &Itemid=43
http://www.murga-linux.com/puppy/viewto ... 86&t=23459

I have an academic and practical background in Computer Programming and Business Computing using Windows for twelve years before that.

In >my< experience, the most ardent Puppy users, are fluent computerists

This may well be true, but only because Puppy Linux is currently at an underdeveloped state, and does not yet entirely fulfil the purpose for which it was created. Its mission statement (as stated by Barry Kauler, its origionator) says in its entirety

Puppy Linux Mission Statement:

* Puppy will easily install to USB, Zip or hard drive media
* Booting from CD, Puppy will load totally into RAM so that the CD drive is then free for other purposes
* Puppy will be extremely friendly for Linux newbies
* Puppy will boot up and run extraordinarily fast
* Puppy will have all the applications needed for daily use
* Puppy will just work, no hassles
* Puppy will breathe new life into old PCs

Only a tiny fraction of the people I have introduced to puppy linux have ever posted on this board. Generally speaking end users just dont, whatever operating system they use. If it goes wrong, or doesnt do everything they want it to, they just call an engineer. They dont answer polls on message boards.

From a technical perspective, I understand part of puppy linux's speed and "special powers" are derived from its small size. IMHO the fact that is has until now looked like (and I quote from the general public who I meet every day) an obsolete Windows OS, full of strange codes, with common tasks not being automated, has severely held back its uptake as a mainstream operating system. Its recent rise up the rankings at distrowatch are because its automated simple tasks like accessing cd's and pendrives, improved its appearance (slightly), gives warnings about full disks and because it no longer defaults to a black screen full of code if it is improperly shut down. These have required hardly any increase in size to achieve.

Like I say, I think it was a wise choice from whodo to include some extra "bling" in this release, just to show what is possible from any future puppy linux. It is much more usable to, and desired by, the average computer user (who it is aimed at) because of these extra small additions. I am sure his own personal experience in supporting puppy linux based p.c.'s in charities to average end users made him aware of the need for this.

I hope future editions of puppy will spare a few well chosen extra bytes (because thats all it would take) to make it look like a modern operating system, and a lot more suitable to the vast majority of people out their that dont have access to a computer, and are not fluent computerists.

#30 Post by **ttuuxxx** » Sun 15 Mar 2009, 18:11

ecomoney wrote:
I dont think the results of this poll should be taken seriously, as the Puppy Forum a lot more frequented by serious developers than end users. I

Well then it should be taken even more serious due to the fact that people who are voting actually have an idea how things work, and If its developers voting against Pwidgets then that alone is very important, due to the fact that they know that unnecessary programs that take a lot of system resources by default are bad for the user and bad for puppy's reputation as a OS that just works on older computers. I think as long as Pwidgets is on by default, Puppy should raise its min resources, to 256mb of ram min., forget 128mb or less. Also I take this poll serious because of it, I'm trying to get WhoDo to make 1 extra final unofficial version without Pwidgets and this is the proof I have. Once pwidgets is gone, WhoDo could replace Claws mail with the full Seamonkey suite and still be right around the 100MB area. That should make a lot of people happy. So you can take this Poll VERY serious because the version it will produce will probably end it on your systems that you provide people.
ttuuxxx

jhecht · #31 Post by **jhecht** » Sun 15 Mar 2009, 18:41

My congratulations to Ecomoney on his Puppian exploits! You support 150+ Puppified computers? My hero!

Why not have the bloody bling >switchable< on/off? Like Window$ 'best appearance' or 'best performance'? I have no objection to bling being available - just don't impose it on me if I don't want it!

cb88 · #32 Post by **cb88** » Sun 15 Mar 2009, 19:55

why don't you just set the priority of the bling very low.... then it shouldn't interfere with normal tasks

I'm not one to be all pro bing by default just a suggestion

01micko · #33 Post by **01micko** » Sun 15 Mar 2009, 20:18

jhecht wrote:My congratulations to Ecomoney on his Puppian exploits! You support 150+ Puppified computers? My hero!

Why not have the bloody bling >switchable< on/off? Like Window$ 'best appearance' or 'best performance'? I have no objection to bling being available - just don't impose it on me if I don't want it!

Pwidgets gui has an option to switch it off from V2.0 onwards

ecomoney · #34 Post by **ecomoney** » Sun 15 Mar 2009, 20:23

"take it seriously" was a bad phrase to use, sorry for any offense. What I meant is that the results would not necessarily reflect what puppys "target audience" (Linux newbs) might like to see. The people here are here because they are, on the whole, happy with how puppy is at the moment.

Ive often thought that the reason Windows does so well against linux is because their developers are paid to produce an operating system that is simple for ordinary computer users to understand and use, therefore they will buy it and continue to pay them. If they had been left to their own devices then Im sure windows would look very different...probably a lot more like Linux!!!

If linux wants to do better and become the world most used operating system, then its developers must have the same kind of attitude, to produce something that will be of more use to more people than just themselves....but do it for free.

Pwidgets solves a problem for new puppy users, and makes the whole thing a lot more accessible to them. It doesnt make puppy do any more than it does already, but it does make the more important functions more accessible to and usable by them. Zigbert has done a great job in identifying a real world need, and programming a solution to a problem that he doesnt even have himself! IMHO He deserves great applause for this and should be a role model for other linux developers to follow.

If we need to make space, then lets drop other programs that most "linux newbs" dont need, like a mail client at all (most people use webmail), gnumeric, the web page composer in seamonkey etc etc and make those optional add ons.. Perhaps then we would have room for things that are important to end users, like a modern flash player that will work on old computers with most sites well into the future (flash 10 is an extra 2mb). Puppy 4.2 is still a long way from how my "customers" would like to see it, and I am sure I will have to spend hours modifying it as it is.

@jhecht, being able to look after as many computers as I do would not be possible unless the puppy developers had done a great deal of work under the hood to make it reliable, and neither would it have been possible unless I had spent a great amount of time customizing the user interface to make it useable. Different people have different skills, and they are all needed.

canbyte · #35 Post by **canbyte** » Mon 16 Mar 2009, 04:39

No bling thanks, but pwidgets? How do i know, what does it do anyway?
Typical of geeks, everyone assumes the reader knows what you're talking about. Ecomoney said it worked well in 412 so i looked around and did not find it. How long am i supposed to work/read/search for something to replace what i've worked so hard to get working properly. Upgrade to 4.2 - why? especially if threatened with bloat (even a little). So not knowing what i'm dealing with, i just reacted to bling, bloat and bother.

Ecomoney or various said something about making puppy more accessible, without of course

giving me anything further to go on. But on a GUI machine, the only thing that is inaccessible is something with a problem. All else is accessible if you know the procedure/ where to look and THAT is the proper role of a manual, a wiki, a tutorial, a video or an Ecomoney! The former are in great need of improvement and i wish the latter lived closer to ME! Therefore, pwidgets should be a .pet.

Barrie's 3rd objective, being friendly to newbies can either be achieved by cloning every look and function of windows OR by proper documentation and teaching. The latter course is MUCH better than the former, EXCEPT when windows refugees MUST keep, open and resave old files and/or interface with windows-using colleagues. Tall order.

Well, Puppy is just a puppy, not a working dog (yet). Enjoy.

ComputerBob · #36 Post by **ComputerBob** » Mon 16 Mar 2009, 23:53

Seeing as it took almost 30 minutes, just to get the input box to appear on the forum -- and I was unable to reach this forum at all, all day long today, I'm going to make this quick, and hope that the forum accepts it before my browser times out again.

I'm not a developer. I'm probably not a typical user, either, though.

I use Debian (Squeeze) on my own PC. There's only one reason why I started using Puppy Linux: I fix up old, donated PCs for a charity and Puppy 4.1.2 was lean and fast on several old Dell PCs that had onboard Intel video chipsets and 128 MB of RAM, even when antiX Linux couldn't even boot up on those machines and other "mini-Linuxes" were either "too barebones," or required too much work to get them configured the way I wanted.

I was also very impressed that Puppy 4.1.2 was able to run (well, actually it "walked") when I booted its LiveCD up on a Pentium (1), 166 MHz PC with 64 MB of RAM and no hard drive.

I'm all for bling -- but only for those who want to install it, not installed by default for everyone. If Puppy 4.2 contains any bling by default that reduces its ability to work on old PCs, I will continue to use Puppy 4.1.2 instead.

Now it's time to click on "Submit" and take my chances with this currently extremely flaky forum.

hayagix · #37 Post by **hayagix** » Wed 18 Mar 2009, 05:02

I like bling. I voted for it but I was wrong.

Let the puplet makers worry about the bling. There will always be something for everyone.

As long as there is NO snowymountain/lake or guyonabike wallpaper I'm happy.

Boxpup 4.1.2 and Buddapup 4.0 are fine examples of desktops that seduce anyone who boots them up.

jabu2 · #38 Post by **jabu2** » Thu 19 Mar 2009, 07:06

post No 3 page 1 suggested
this poll will achieve little and is wasting time and resources.

And it's not about widgets or pwidgets - or skins or favourite colours, or more clocks or more weather forecasts (of undoubtedly doubtful reliability

) they are just examples or symptoms.

Surely, Puppy is /can be defined as
1. a core OS with uniquely useful attributes (big list of these as we all know) , and with
2. ability via packages/package loaders to add to the core in similarly useful and practicable ways. And
3. for ALL users, ie a wide spectrum?

If this is the Puppy concept, then it is obvious that bling, in whatever guise, should be
(a) non-core, but
(b) easily added-on.

This has been done already with many superb packages etc and likely to get even more that way with PWoofery?

Whether you want bling or no-bling becomes irrelevant.
Any user should be able to add or ignore bling
- it is not an issue worth voting on, or people wasting time on.

And 4.2 is better than anything we've had before, thanks to WhoDo and team - don't doubt it!

01micko · #39 Post by **01micko** » Fri 20 Mar 2009, 16:36

Well we've been copping a schellacking... we're being beat.... sad but true.... what to do?

Now, I tried Xonclock and xli (Slideshow) on my 486, not much RAM. Worked fine.

Well that's not a test!!!

But this is ... and the pic aint no lie... ttuuxxx knows it.

Yes. That is what you see.

An IBM 80486DX 50MHz, 32 MiB ram, 512 MiB Harddrive, running Puppy fat_free-2.16-dillo... LIVE.... 120 Mib swap, latest Pwidgets-2.0.5, it did not break.

Cheers

Mick

EDIT. Sorry, pic was down for a while.

You can see the machine is working hard and using plenty of resources but it is working on the most bottom end kit that I can get Puppy to run on. This would not have worked on any Pwidgets before 2.0.4. Since then Patriot hacked conky and the total Pwidgets package is now 222K compressed, including Conky.
I didn't vote in the poll. And I wont. I don't even care if Pwidgets was not included really in 4.2. But it is, and I just think WhoDo included it as a "selling point" for doze refoes (haven't I said that somewhere?

)
Please, a little forgiveness here, time and date are wrong because the internal battery in the 486 is a bit sad.

Cheers folks

Barburo · #40 Post by **Barburo** » Fri 20 Mar 2009, 16:59

Adding "extra" features is a "get carried away with what I can do" developer syndrome that I'm all too familiar with having been guilty myself on several occasions in the past.
For success always have a clear idea of the objectives of your project (call it a vision or charter if you like).
Use KISS, and ask "Does what I'm considering adding, conflict with the objectives?"
Your end result will be a clean implementation of the original vision.
Was extra bling part of the original vision? I'm guessing No.

Kudos to all of the developers of special puplets out there - wow, TaxOC, Gray, Ttuuxxx, tombh and a host of others. I've used your puplets and add-ons that build on base versions and I have been amazed at what you accomplish.
B.

(old)Puppy Linux Discussion Forum

(old)Puppy Linux Discussion Forum

Puppy 4.2 Bling Or No Bling ANNONYMOUS POLL

less is WAY more...

have the best of both...

Re: have the best of both...

To bling or not to bling