Puppy 4.2 Bling Or No Bling ANNONYMOUS POLL

[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)

[brymway]

I take it that this request is for the up and coming community version right? It's nobodys job to decide what will go in the standard public release except the one who is in charge of the release. And that is not us. I believe the decision has been placed on whodos shoulders for the public release.

For the community version I always like to be surprised, although they usually throw some flash in there. Maybe you should specify that it doesn't matter what the public or the users think or say, it's whodos call.

I don't ever remember Barry asking us if we liked something.

Looking forward for the finale! I am using RC4 now with my own little additions and it works great. Great job to all the developers!

[ttuuxxx]

I take it that this request is for the up and coming community version right? It's nobodys job to decide what will go in the standard public release except the one who is in charge of the release. And that is not us. I believe the decision has been placed on whodos shoulders for the public release.

For the community version I always like to be surprised, although they usually throw some flash in there. Maybe you should specify that it doesn't matter what the public or the users think or say, it's whodos call.

I don't ever remember Barry asking us if we liked something.

Looking forward for the finale! I am using RC4 now with my own little additions and it works great. Great job to all the developers!

Yes its WhoDo's, but what is decided here is that, as soon as the final is released to I strip away the added bling and repackage it just like a regular puppy or not, by the number of results it does show a high number for it. I'll probably also do the unthinkable, remove Icewm, thats my little pride and joy that small package I made up but its a extra 500kb including 7 themes.
ttuuxxx

[01micko]

Hey ttuuxxx

Are you sure you haven't changed tack a little?

Anyhow, who cares?

If you are going to remaster a puplet count me in! I'm all for it. I love my old piece of crap 486! And I bet I've done more with it that most would bother to do I'd really love to see 4.2 run on it and I'm sure it can be done! (even with a touch of bling, added later of course!)(atm I'm doing a full install of fat_free... it's booting now! Yippee, grub worked, using xorg FFS!!! was using Xvesa, cursor is up... waiting..... Oooh, JWM is up!)

Patriot would be handy to have on side. He has a real knack for optimising things and I bet he's seen this thread.

Cheers buddy

Mick

[ttuuxxx]

Hey ttuuxxx

Are you sure you haven't changed tack a little?

Anyhow, who cares?

If you are going to remaster a puplet count me in! I'm all for it. I love my old piece of crap 486! And I bet I've done more with it that most would bother to do I'd really love to see 4.2 run on it and I'm sure it can be done! (even with a touch of bling, added later of course!)(atm I'm doing a full install of fat_free... it's booting now! Yippee, grub worked, using xorg FFS!!! was using Xvesa, cursor is up... waiting..... Oooh, JWM is up!)

Patriot would be handy to have on side. He has a real knack for optimising things and I bet he's seen this thread.

Cheers buddy

Mick

I'll be editing the sfs file in the iso, not a remaster, because I'm not going to use remax or the built in puppy remaster script, I'm surgically going to remove the software. That should be a more stable way of doing it. In the past there have been issues etc. I think its the best way to go. I'll also make you a stripped down version mick for your little 486 but we'll have to talk about whats needed for it
ttuuxxx

[01micko]

I'll be editing the sfs file in the iso, not a remaster, because I'm not going to use remax or the built in puppy remaster script, I'm surgically going to remove the software. That should be a more stable way of doing it. In the past there have been issues etc. I think its the best way to go. I'll also make you a stripped down version mick for your little 486 but we'll have to talk about whats needed for it
ttuuxxx

Sounds good!

I'll get back to yer on what can stay and what can go on the ol' dino!

Cheers

[brymway]

86

[trapster]

Anybody with a "low" number of post should be carefull. It seems ttuuxxx doesn't really care what you think.

Posted: 3/20, at 23:06
ttuuxxx wrote:

Libretto100ct Why don't you take your little 36 post and take a long walk of a short pier. Here's a good one to start with, watch your first step its a doozy.

[trapster]

placeholder

[01micko]

marker

[01micko]

Hmmmm .... Coolpup..... posts=0... input=∞

[ttuuxxx]

Anybody with a "low" number of post should be carefull. It seems ttuuxxx doesn't really care what you think.

Posted: 3/20, at 23:06
ttuuxxx wrote:

Libretto100ct Why don't you take your little 36 post and take a long walk of a short pier. Here's a good one to start with, watch your first step its a doozy.

Trapster did you miss what Libretto100ct said to me on the previous pages, go back to where you copied that from, then move back like 2 pages and read back to it, you were only catching the ending of it, He said a lot of stuff I didn't like to me, so that was a response back to his rude comments, I've helped tones of newbeeee's all the time, don't take the numbers out context. That was just related to him only!!! nobody else, he was being a jerk, ok
ttuuxxx

[ttuuxxx]

Yes its WhoDo's, but what is decided here is that, as soon as the final is released to I strip away the added bling and repackage it just like a regular puppy or not, by the number of results it does show a high number for it.

So it appears that you are putting up the poll to see what others would like to see in a derivative. If that was stated at the beginning, I probably wouldn't have posted what I did. But you didn't say that. It appeared that you were taking a poll for the up and coming official release, which in that case, would have seemed less than savvy. My initial impression was that your post seemed rather divisive.

But if this is for your knowledge, for what others would like to see in a derivative that you will put together after the official release, then just in case others got the same impression as I did, perhaps you might think of adjusting your title post. No sense in creating any waves at a critical time in Puppy history, right?

No thats not it, Originally I made this poll for WhoDo to take notice, that people didn't want extra resources being taken by bling, some have reported as high as 17% of the memory. But the numbers didn't happen on here, if we actually would of had a full turnout it would of made a difference, I had over 400 downloads of foxit pdf reader in 4 days. He had mentioned in the 4.2 bugs that 50 votes wasn't enough for him to change his mind, because the usual daily user login is like 400+. So because of that I'm prepared not to let the other users down. So I'll reduce the final, I don't really consider it a remaster, because if you were to use a remastering program to remove the bling, the system would be crippled. The new Bling has be integrated into the refresh scripts, and other scripts and they have to be edited or replaced and no remastering script can do that, they just remove what is in the package. This is a more complicated task.


Also WhoDo has stated that the retro version will have the bling turned off by default, I do believe that is because of this thread and the knowledge/input that the users have provided us all.
ttuuxxx

[mcewanw]

I voted for: no bloat, no bling. Keep adding bloat and you'll soon lose users/market.

I had already stated my opinion about such matters in another thread concerning why people still use old versions of Puppy, so I won't repeat that here; I couldn't care less how old or new the computer is, I loathe bloat (which is in any case easier to add later than to remove later). My opinion is expressed here:

http://www.murga-linux.com/puppy/viewto ... 569#286569

One day we will have to become responsible world citizens. The Modern Desktop: in the future their will be no room for stupid bloat and not having to maintain such extravagance will give us back some free time too! :-)

[ttuuxxx]

I voted for: no bloat, no bling. Keep adding bloat and you'll soon lose users/market.

I had already stated my opinion about such matters in another thread concerning why people still use old versions of Puppy, so I won't repeat that here; I couldn't care less how old or new the computer is, I loathe bloat (which is in any case easier to add later than to remove later). My opinion is expressed here:

http://www.murga-linux.com/puppy/viewto ... 569#286569

One day we will have to become responsible world citizens. The Modern Desktop: in the future their will be no room for stupid bloat and not having to maintain such extravagance will give us back some free time too!

I like your way of thinking, give what is needed and let the users decide if they want to add the extras.
ttuuxxx

[01micko]

Hang on,

I´m all for a 4.2 with absolutely no bloat, barebones even, but WhoDo made his choice long ago for the official. You did grab his attention but not in the right way. I also know that another dev may or may not have peeved you, but let that go, no harm was intended and you know it.

I agree Jeff that maybe you should retitle this thread to get helpers for a no bling Puppy 4.2 derivative, no matter how it is made, because the title is provocative and I think you know you´ve pissed off WhoDo enough.

All the best mate and look forward to advancing!

Mick