Puppy Linux Discussion Forum

[jhecht]

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]

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]

[ecomoney]

"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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

[toomuchcomputertime]

I came to puppy because it is fast and customizable. My usual computer is over 10 yrs old.

Blinky is cool, but please make it an add on.

[capoverde]

Options give a sense of freedom and power; precooked features feel like a prison, however comfortable.

Anyone offering his product to others MUST consider what the user's tastes are, which means it's wise to make things as adaptable as possible -- of course without losing view of the fundamentals on which a given project was born. Thus, Puppy should have an option for "bling" or "no bling".

However, today's "average" users, spoiled by the industry's marketing cuddles, frown at the mere thought of having to tweak their system with more than two mouseclicks: thus, a really child-easy control of the "blingy" features is mandatory.

And IMHO, one or two really good backgrounds, still lacking in the official Puppy, could gain a lot more consensus...

[floborg]

I don't have my old Puppy machine (a PII 400 MHz w/224 MB RAM) running currently, but I can tell you it did not like IceWM. IceWM was great at causing a random system freeze/lockup. Ironically, XFCE ran much better. Conky, though, tended to eat up resources. I have a feeling that the 4.2 RC would not run very well on that machine.

Regardless of how much computing power you have, the "traditional" Puppy desktop was, IMO, better for obtaining at-a-glance system information. Now, some of that has been moved onto the desktop, where it would be covered by running applications. Remember, many Puppy users have small monitors and would be running applications maximized.

Finally, some of the new desktop goodies are redundant. Why exactly do we need two clocks? I also don't see why the upper panel is necessary, especially when there are already launchers for some of those items right on the desktop or taskbar.

[Flash858]

Call me simplistic, but how about 2 separate packages for each release?

Puppy 4.2, and Puppy 4.2B (for "bling")...

Seems like a .pet could be created for all of the extra features.

Just my $.02, adjusted for inflation...

[linuxsansdisquedur]

i like it bling....on puplets downloading page i always link to anyone don t know what puppy can become...if you like it so...
BUT i don t like it in the basic feature ! which have to be usefull for any old or new PC
runing to distrowatch top is runing to M$ place (Micro$oft OR M.$huttleworth one)
it's losting puppy soul i like to.
...Anyway i still like bling effects with puppy touch (light but fast and furious)