Puppy 5.1 to 6

News, happenings
Message
Author
User avatar
jemimah
Posts: 4307
Joined: Wed 26 Aug 2009, 19:56
Location: Tampa, FL
Contact:

#81 Post by jemimah »

shariebeth wrote: All the community needs really, is somebody to organize it for them, or for users, however you want to look at it. Puppies can be labeled after the fact with whatever number system works best AND the cute name the devs come up with, and put into the appropriate category.
All this potential organizer would have to do is show up and start organizing. No one's going to give you permission - you gain acceptance by offering something of value.

Of course, figuring out what will be perceived as valuable is the hard part.

raffy
Posts: 4798
Joined: Wed 25 May 2005, 12:20
Location: Manila

contribution

#82 Post by raffy »

If the person has done valuable contribution already, s/he has a good chance of attracting followers, and possibly a large part of the community later.

I guess what's critical is grace when the questions about leadership begin coming in. The way out seems to be just sticking to the project and pushing ahead.

Pioneering work in a niche is already a test of leadership, and what remains to be done is only that of enlarging the project to encompass a general public release. (At the moment, only playdayz is moving in this direction* with Lucid Puppy, while ttuuxxx has done his homework silently with 214x. )

* "Compatibility with Ubuntu packages" may still be regarded as a niche project. What would be regarded as a real general public release is a CE project.

The pattern now seems to be that there are simultaneous niches being developed:

- bleeding edge development with Quirky
- compatibility with a major distro with LuPup (also SlaxerPup, etc)
- 64-bit capability with Fatdog64
- updated official versions (214x, 432)
- eeePC niche with puppeee

Whoever wants to do a general public release would just have to pick the best parts from all these developments and present a build that s/he and the community will support. S/he should be ready to commit time for this in the next 3-6 months.
Puppy user since Oct 2004. Want FreeOffice? [url=http://puppylinux.info/topic/freeoffice-2012-sfs]Get the sfs (English only)[/url].

User avatar
WhoDo
Posts: 4428
Joined: Wed 12 Jul 2006, 01:58
Location: Lake Macquarie NSW Australia

#83 Post by WhoDo »

jemimah wrote:
WhoDo wrote:Who's in charge of the community effort these days? :?: :?: :?: :?: :?:
In general the people that do the work make the decisions.
http://www.communitywiki.org/en/DoOcracy
Yes, it was a rhetorical question. See my sig. :P
[i]Actions speak louder than words ... and they usually work when words don't![/i]
SIP:whodo@proxy01.sipphone.com; whodo@realsip.com

User avatar
WhoDo
Posts: 4428
Joined: Wed 12 Jul 2006, 01:58
Location: Lake Macquarie NSW Australia

#84 Post by WhoDo »

shariebeth wrote:Here's a thought:
Let the devs and Barry do as they please. No structure, no organization, they work on what they want to work on, and call it whatever the heck they want to call it.
Status quo then ... :wink:
shariebeth wrote:All the community needs really, is somebody to organize it for them, or for users, however you want to look at it. Puppies can be labeled after the fact with whatever number system works best AND the cute name the devs come up with, and put into the appropriate category.
Example:
"Official-Stable and Supported", Old Machines, Bleeding Edge....(see my old posts heh). Each category can have a corresponding number to indicate where it belongs.
Puppy 6.5.0 (AgilityPup) (I made this up so don't all jump on me saying no such thing or I labeled it incorrectly :P )
This way everybody is happy, no pressure on devs, and we will have a more cohesive accounting of what we have and what it does. It would make it a lot easier to know what we have, what is being worked on, and what is still needed if anybody is interested in working on that.
The difficulty here is that the devs already have a numbering system, and that's what appears when you query you Puppy about which version it is. It's built in to the version via the initrd.gz file and other things depend on it such as scripts. A second number system on top of that would only add confusion IMHO.

If the community were to say to the devs ..."come to us when you decide to build a new version, puplet, etc and we'll assign you a number for your project", that might work, provided the devs were happy with that process. A version registry system if you will, just like getting IP addresses for the Internet. Once started, though, it will require maintenance and management and Barry and the devs are unlikely to volunteer for that. The Do-ocracy must own the task and not take it personally if no-one wants to use the system. Just ask Gecko who tried to have a formal bug reporting and management system ... oh, sorry, you can't because he gave up in disgust and took his enthusiasm elsewhere. :roll:
[i]Actions speak louder than words ... and they usually work when words don't![/i]
SIP:whodo@proxy01.sipphone.com; whodo@realsip.com

User avatar
RetroTechGuy
Posts: 2947
Joined: Tue 15 Dec 2009, 17:20
Location: USA

#85 Post by RetroTechGuy »

shariebeth wrote:
WhoDo wrote:Frankly I believe the sort of organisation that dictates a fixed release numbering scheme is anathema to Barry. With the community in charge, though, it may be worth resurrecting some "rules" but if the devs or the majority don't want to follow them, then that's that. Who's in charge of the community effort these days? :?: :?: :?: :?: :?:
Well same subject different day...
Here's a thought:
Let the devs and Barry do as they please.
I rather dislike the term "Let.." -- it sounds as if we "permit" them to do this...

Yes, we "let" them do as they please, as we have absolutely no control over them. We neither own them, nor command them...

"Let" implies that these authors, contributors and enthusiasts have a duty to us... They do NOT have a duty to us... Out of the goodness of their hearts, they assist us in solving problems, and supporting hardware.

I suspect, however, that offers of good beer or Scotch might allow you to bribe some of them to work on your desired goals... ;)
No structure, no organization, they work on what they want to work on, and call it whatever the heck they want to call it.
Well, you cannot "call it what you want", without limitations. The name "Puppy" belongs to Barry -- and those who he permits to use the name (e.g. ttuuxxx's pending "Puppy 4.3.2"). It would be very impolite, if not unlawful, to start declaring that _your_ version of "Puppy" is the "True One".

However, Barry does permit his work to be used in any fashion you wish, so there is nothing to prevent you from creating "ShariebethPup". If you create a Puplet, feel free to name/number it what you will (as long as the name isn't taken).

For me, while I do know a fair amount about Linux, I am far from an expert -- nowhere near the class of the major contributors found here -- and I am content to let them choose the direction and goals. I follow the project, contribute where I can, and use the creation -- as it is a benefit to me. If it one day ceases to be a benefit, I am likewise free to discontinue using it.

We may have suggestions and wishes, but ultimately we have no control over the project(s), unless we become major contributors (see "DoOcracy") -- but we still ultimately only have control over ourselves.

Think of the whole thing as anarchy (which means "a lack of government"). The contributors travel in the same approximate direction, when it is convenient for them, and then go their own way when "it" (e.g. the "Puppy" project) ceases to be conducive to their own wishes, goals and desires. That is as it should be.

I have said this before, and say it again: thank you authors, contributors and enthusiasts!

Addendum: Shall I give a partial list of our HEROES?

http://bkhome.org/blog/
http://www.puppylinux.ca/tpp/index.php
http://puppylinux.ca/members/

(Contributors: If I didn't list you, I apologize -- I merely wanted to make a point about the size of the community and the number of contributors)

shariebeth
Posts: 242
Joined: Tue 26 Jan 2010, 19:37
Location: Florida

#86 Post by shariebeth »

A few of you are getting much too hung up on nitpicking at the semantics rather than addressing the obvious issues. I of course do not mean "let them" in the literal permissive interpretation which implies anyone has that right. Do you REALLY think that's what was meant or was that a "good" way to derail the topic and insult the participants once again? It's beating a dead horse to keep saying "we're free to use it or leave as we see fit and it will go on in chaos as it will blahblahblah". Everyone knows that, the idea was to move on past that point and look at ways to keep Puppy healthy and thriving if that is what the community wants.
(Obviously I do not have the talents the current batch of devs have or I would have been offering to participate myself in any developing or organizational attempts.)

Thank you anyway WhoDo for at least being willing to understand and discuss. Just for the record, I have found the previous topics over the years on this very same issue and it is interesting how closely the current one in these various threads mirror them, just different names really. *sighs* I don't feel I'm way off base, but I don't have the experience or following here to do a heck of a lot about it either. I guess I am just hoping somebody who does agrees and tries.

User avatar
jemimah
Posts: 4307
Joined: Wed 26 Aug 2009, 19:56
Location: Tampa, FL
Contact:

#87 Post by jemimah »

I think it's a natural human urge to try to come up with something more efficient than anarchy. If it weren't, the world would be a libertarian Utopia right now (or not so Utopian depending upon your perception of human nature, maybe a bit more like Escape from LA ;) ).

However, in the case of the puppy community, the only alternative to DoOcracy that can possibly work is dictatorship. And only if you can find a dictator that the majority of the developers deeply respect who also wants the job.

Hierarchical or democratic systems of management are guaranteed to fail due to the Dilbert principle.

User avatar
RetroTechGuy
Posts: 2947
Joined: Tue 15 Dec 2009, 17:20
Location: USA

#88 Post by RetroTechGuy »

shariebeth wrote:Everyone knows that, the idea was to move on past that point and look at ways to keep Puppy healthy and thriving if that is what the community wants.
http://distrowatch.com/

Puppy Linux is #9, over the last 12 months, in that list of the top 100 versions (and "only" #11 in the last 6 months).

Wiki has a page naming the "notable" Linux versions:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Li ... tributions

Yep, there's Puppy in the list.

Those data are indicative that Puppy is what the community wants... As is the number of contributors and postings here on Murga.

User avatar
WhoDo
Posts: 4428
Joined: Wed 12 Jul 2006, 01:58
Location: Lake Macquarie NSW Australia

#89 Post by WhoDo »

shariebeth wrote:Just for the record, I have found the previous topics over the years on this very same issue and it is interesting how closely the current one in these various threads mirror them, just different names really. *sighs* I don't feel I'm way off base, but I don't have the experience or following here to do a heck of a lot about it either. I guess I am just hoping somebody who does agrees and tries.
I know the feeling. I've been a part of efforts to at least organise the stuff the devs don't want to bother about - documentation, directions, hosting, publicity, etc - without a whole lot of success. I approached it as a part of the Do-ocracy, too, which is why I paid for and hosted puppylinux.org for a while, and supported the site developer to make it a usable thing.

Any efforts to produce organisation on the development side seem doomed to failure, by virtue of the original Puppy ethos outlined by Barry - chaos driven by fun to produce innovation.

Efforts to deliver organisation on the community side have largely depended on the actions of a few committed individuals of the Do-ocracy; Lobster with the wiki, Raffy with the current web site, various sub-forum denizens for the languages projects, etc. I tried it with the look-and-feel aspect, first by creating the EZpup interface add-on, then by starting the theme exchanges for JWM and Icewm and the Dingo icon themes exchange. I also drove two community editions; 2.15CE and 4.2x - the latter becoming the first official Puppy release without Barry as lead developer. I won't go into why I no longer participate in such efforts but suffice it to say that some people (not lumping you in here, shariebeth) feel they are owed delivery of their own expectations by the developer side of the equation, and that simply can't happen.

I had a good friend (an ex-U.S. marine Lieutenant and now pastor in the Episcopal church) who always reminded me that "money follows ideas, not the other way around". I guess what I'm saying, shariebeth, is that if the "idea" is good enough the "money" (read "support") will follow. It's been my experience that only happens when the ideas are properly developed rather than just tossed in for consideration (not suggesting that's the case here, either).

If you are passionate enough about the organisation aspect of Puppy community led development, you could start by developing your own ideas about how it would work and still fit in with the Puppy ethos, and then make them available for comment in a forum poll. Just my 2c.
[i]Actions speak louder than words ... and they usually work when words don't![/i]
SIP:whodo@proxy01.sipphone.com; whodo@realsip.com

nooby
Posts: 10369
Joined: Sun 29 Jun 2008, 19:05
Location: SwedenEurope

#90 Post by nooby »

RetroTechGuy wrote:
shariebeth wrote:Everyone knows that, the idea was to move on past that point and look at ways to keep Puppy healthy and thriving if that is what the community wants.
http://distrowatch.com/

Puppy Linux is #9, over the last 12 months, in that list of the top 100 versions (and "only" #11 in the last 6 months).

Wiki has a page naming the "notable" Linux versions:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Li ... tributions

Yep, there's Puppy in the list.

Those data are indicative that Puppy is what the community wants... As is the number of contributors and postings here on Murga.
they say that
Puppy Linux A mini distribution which runs well under low-end PCs - even under 32 MB RAM. Includes Slackware 12 support (since version 3).
I've been using Puppy since 2008 and never thought of it as having Slackware 12 support

How is that apparent? Does the Puppy Package Manager go to Slackware 12 to find the packages? No puppy have their own servers and mirrors?
Sol where does the Slackware 12 support come in?

Edit

Lobster write a wise comment on puppy still too geeky following this post
Last edited by nooby on Wed 12 May 2010, 11:00, edited 1 time in total.
I use Google Search on Puppy Forum
not an ideal solution though

User avatar
Lobster
Official Crustacean
Posts: 15522
Joined: Wed 04 May 2005, 06:06
Location: Paradox Realm
Contact:

#91 Post by Lobster »

2.15CE and 4.2x
Two great editions. Very well supported and very influential.
It is because of them that I no longer need to install icewm
- Puppy was beautified sufficiently in JWM.

Playdayz and Mick
have taken to heart my release often advice.
Lucid generated momentum and innovation very fast.
with a greater number of testers - we always welcome more 8)

I am also confident that binaries for major programs
will be updated and provided for 5.1

I think usability is now a big factor as our usage
will increase again after release of Lucid.

Let me give you an example of non-usability
You go to shutdown your computer
You are also presented with

exit to prompt
restart JWM
and restart X

[noob hat on]
Exit to prompt - what is that?
DOS? - oh is that Linux console? rxvt?, terminal thingee?
Will I get back in?

What is JWM? Why would I want to restart it?

Restart X? What is that a porn channel?
[/noob hat]

It sounds like geek gibberish
. . . because it is . . .

Dpup had a simpler shutdown
with explanations
Puppy Raspup 8.2Final 8)
Puppy Links Page http://www.smokey01.com/bruceb/puppy.html :D

User avatar
WhoDo
Posts: 4428
Joined: Wed 12 Jul 2006, 01:58
Location: Lake Macquarie NSW Australia

#92 Post by WhoDo »

nooby wrote:I've been using Puppy since 2008 and never thought of it as having Slackware 12 support

How is that apparent? Does the Puppy Package Manager go to Slackware 12 to find the packages? No puppy have their own servers and mirrors?
Sol where does the Slackware 12 support come in?
Puppy 3.x series was built with binary compatibility with Slackware 12. It also had a package acquisition program called GSlapt that would allow you to access Slackware programs for that series and use them in Puppy.

Big Bass has continued the idea with his derivative based on Puppy 4.12 release.

Bottom line: Yes there are versions of Puppy with Slackware package support.

BTW, the original version of Puppy was actually compiled on Vector Linux, a Slackware derivative.
[i]Actions speak louder than words ... and they usually work when words don't![/i]
SIP:whodo@proxy01.sipphone.com; whodo@realsip.com

Minnesota
Posts: 326
Joined: Thu 11 Sep 2008, 11:25

usability

#93 Post by Minnesota »

Lobster
Official Crustacean
..........
I think usability is now a big factor as our usage
will increase again after release of Lucid.

Let me give you an example of non-usability
You go to shutdown your computer
You are also presented with ................................
In my opinion that is the tip of the iceberg, there are a lot of issues.. I have commented a few times on CUPS and all the duplicate and confusing question asked... once you are used to the procedures.. it is easy to skip to what is needed.. but for someone new.. it is bewildering.

Similar for the old wireless set up.... including the load button at the top of the screen when you select a new module at the bottom of the screen.
As well as the display of the access points in the window.. yet you must click a button below... on and on.

I do not mean to disparage anyone or anything in PUPPIES... they simply are designed by programmers for Programmers.. or if you prefer developers who are familiar with the terminology.

Give a copy to a M...S person and they are completely lost with menu items such as pburn???? or Rox??? Even as in my case with forty years in this business. I understand the term file manager but rox?

Please, it is time to think of the user... and continue to clean up the puppies and make them more friendly. A lot has been done in the past few years... that is for sure.. but there is a tremendous amount more to go.

One more comment if I may. I have followed puppy for several years and played with many versions. I understand the politics, and I understand it's openness.. but as a interested person, both from the development standpoint and from the desire to give this to others... HOW in the world is anyone to keep track of all the versions and worse yet how are they to follow all the test versions.

Thanks for the FORUM... and thanks for all the hard work of everyone![/quote]

nooby
Posts: 10369
Joined: Sun 29 Jun 2008, 19:05
Location: SwedenEurope

#94 Post by nooby »

Minnesota, I agree with most of what you say.

But maybe not this one:
as an interested person, both from the development standpoint and from the desire to give this to others...

HOW in the world is anyone to keep track of all the versions and worse yet how are they to follow all the test versions.
Up to now there existed only one puppy and that is Barry K's official one.

But then he decided to retire and those who love puppy hoped to get nest version the community version going.

Then Barry wanted to launch Quirky 1.00

All the other puppies are derivatives that are based on Barry's pioneering work.

So there exist only one puppy and one experimental Quirky officially.
But Lucid Puppy may arrive within weeks I guess so at most three official versions.

But sure I agree it is very demanding to test all the test versions. I barely keep pace with the newly built ones. But doesn't other linux has nightly built versions too. Puppie derivatives are only more individualistic as I see it.

Every dev give them their own individual twist.

All above is only my naive take of it though. I am not a good thinker and I am rather confused about all the versions too.

But without puppy there would be no linux for me so I am very happy about all the experiments.

2006 to 2008 Puppy failed to shut down for me. Now it does shut down cleanly. I trust Puppy in the end will be what I need.

So hurray for all the experiments. As long as the devs feel good about what they do I say all the power to them.
I use Google Search on Puppy Forum
not an ideal solution though

User avatar
RetroTechGuy
Posts: 2947
Joined: Tue 15 Dec 2009, 17:20
Location: USA

#95 Post by RetroTechGuy »

nooby wrote:Minnesota, I agree with most of what you say.

But maybe not this one:
as an interested person, both from the development standpoint and from the desire to give this to others...

HOW in the world is anyone to keep track of all the versions and worse yet how are they to follow all the test versions.
Up to now there existed only one puppy and that is Barry K's official one.
Errr...ahhh...ummm...

Actually, there are a number of "official releases", in addition to dozens of "puplets". In the official Puppies, you'll find 2.x, 3.x, 4.x -- somewhere out there is/are 1.x version(s), but I think only a few still use it...

Like many open source project/products, it is generally best for newbies to use the "latest-greatest official/stable release" unless there is a reason not to (i.e. it doesn't work for you).

I'm planning to try 2.14/6 on my old laptop (although it did run 4.3.1 retro) -- I'm hoping for a little less hardware demand (noting that there seems to be considerable work on 2.14/6 by the gurus).

User avatar
ttuuxxx
Posts: 11171
Joined: Sat 05 May 2007, 10:00
Location: Ontario Canada,Sydney Australia
Contact:

#96 Post by ttuuxxx »

Personally I think Puppy head developers should have some sort of meeting and decide what is puppy's main goals, its always been bleeding edge but I think it might have to rethink at this. A lot of the the newer introduce bloat is Xorg/Kernel/Gnome libs.
Tell you the truth I think woof is a great idea in theory, but it does bring a lot of unnecessary weight to this small distro. It might be a case to revert back to 2 series ways, compile every app/lib from source and be independent of any other distro. Use a older kernel(like 4 series) and xorg(like 4 series) with all newer introduced series 5 gnome deps removed.
Still could use the latest Gtk2/Glib/Gcc, Basically bring it back to the magic 100MB size, I think it was wayyyyyyyyyyyy to quick to jump and badge a 130MB release as puppy 5. So maybe puppy 6 could be a rethink of the foundation. Like it has had many times before. I do commend the work that went into puppy 5, Its just too large for liking. No offense to the developers what so ever, you done a spot on job with what you had.
When My job is finished a few weeks I might look into building a new puppy from scratch if I have a team to work with, I do have a few weak spots when it comes to linux, not many but a couple. I'm no Barry but I do strive to succeed.
ttuuxxx
http://audio.online-convert.com/ <-- excellent site
http://samples.mplayerhq.hu/A-codecs/ <-- Codec Test Files
http://html5games.com/ <-- excellent HTML5 games :)

User avatar
zigbert
Posts: 6621
Joined: Wed 29 Mar 2006, 18:13
Location: Valåmoen, Norway
Contact:

#97 Post by zigbert »

ttuuxxx
We tend to disagree about a lot of stuff, but regarding your opinions about size and bloat, our minds work similar. - And the fact that bleeding edge doesn't mean 'stable'.

I am amazed of technosaurus' release of 4.4
I am also sure that Puppy 5.4 will amaze me


Sigmund

User avatar
Lobster
Official Crustacean
Posts: 15522
Joined: Wed 04 May 2005, 06:06
Location: Paradox Realm
Contact:

#98 Post by Lobster »

Personally I think Puppy head developers should have some sort of meeting
Ttuuxxx I am happy to report that the IRC (click on desktop chat)
is now capable of supporting meetings after its recent expulsion
of those suffering from voluntary tourette syndrome
The most you might find is a lost troll
or crazy cructacean . . .

Maybe something can be arranged in a few weeks time :)
Puppy Raspup 8.2Final 8)
Puppy Links Page http://www.smokey01.com/bruceb/puppy.html :D

User avatar
ttuuxxx
Posts: 11171
Joined: Sat 05 May 2007, 10:00
Location: Ontario Canada,Sydney Australia
Contact:

#99 Post by ttuuxxx »

Lobster wrote:
Personally I think Puppy head developers should have some sort of meeting
Ttuuxxx I am happy to report that the IRC (click on desktop chat)
is now capable of supporting meetings after its recent expulsion
of those suffering from voluntary tourette syndrome
The most you might find is a lost troll
or crazy cructacean . . .

Maybe something can be arranged in a few weeks time :)
sounds great :) But please keep in mind that my main goals is reduction in size, So that older computers that run Xp will fly with puppy. Bloat has infiltrated into puppy mainstream just push a next release and to make it simpler.
I'm not one those who bend to that, I've had hundreds of pm's/email from people loving my releases and that a puppy 100MB is not dead yet. At least I hope not :)
ttuuxxx
http://audio.online-convert.com/ <-- excellent site
http://samples.mplayerhq.hu/A-codecs/ <-- Codec Test Files
http://html5games.com/ <-- excellent HTML5 games :)

Jim1911
Posts: 2460
Joined: Mon 19 May 2008, 20:39
Location: Texas, USA

#100 Post by Jim1911 »

ttuuxxx wrote:sounds great But please keep in mind that my main goals is reduction in size, So that older computers that run Xp will fly with puppy. Bloat has infiltrated into puppy mainstream just push a next release and to make it simpler.
I'm not one those who bend to that, I've had hundreds of pm's/email from people loving my releases and that a puppy 100MB is not dead yet. At least I hope not
ttuuxxx
Hi ttuuxxx, great to have you back on the forum, that job has really kept you busy. Other things than hobbies must take priority though. Looking forward to your new releases.

I agree that puppy should keep it's size down, for a segment of it's users, however keep in mind, that even low end systems have a fast processor with 4G of ram that can be purchased new now. That's also true of much of the used hardware, so the segment of the users that need larger distributions with up-to-date software is growing much faster than those that need the small retro distributions. Then of course there is also a growing segment that enjoy bleeding edge. It appears to me that the mainstream pup needs to be in at least three versions plus a fourth that pushes bleeding edge ie. Fatdog64.

Personally, I have three systems, two have 2G or over of ram and dual boot with Vista, the third is an old Sony Vaio laptop with only 64MB ram and even it runs the latest Quirky and Wary without a problem. The other systems can handle all the bloat that's available plus.

A new low end system will have 4G of ram and run Windows 7 as a minimum. So, should the target audience be primarily those with less than 512MB of ram? I think not, we need to target the growing population that have better hardware while still meeting the needs of all these groups and keeping all three groups pushing with up-to-date software. The reason that puppy remains high on distribution lists is that it is keeping up-to-date. Look at all the fat pup derivatives available versus the skinny pups and that's great because puppy is meeting the needs of all groups.

Welcome back, and please continue to support all of the puppy population.

Jim

Post Reply