Puppy 5.3

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

#21 Post by Lobster »

Long term, that is beyond the period of commercial exploitation,
the Cloud will be provide by 'public service institutions', perhaps provided by DIY yourself citizen networks much like the FOSS community.
http://www.murga-linux.com/puppy/viewto ... 568#378034

Gmail is a cloud service and it allows Google to sift and advertise on the basis of my data. Gmail is still more convenient than Sylpheed or the other Puppy alternatives (for me)

Twitter which I mainly use as a news feed, can be accessed from phone (when I get one) and desktop, netbook and pad (when I get one)

My Blog is in the Cloud, rather than on my personal server space. I prefer someone else to manage and pay for the server. That may change if the ads (not yet present) get out of hand.

At the moment I find no advantage to running an Office suite on line.

However this is usage of an operating system and is not integral to the design of 5.3 or Puppy 6

Talking of 5.3 (ah yes I knew this thread was about something) . . .
I am using Spup 'Elephant Rock' in preparation.
http://www.murga-linux.com/puppy/viewto ... 739#474739
Excellent base. Congratulations to Barry for Woof and Mick for implementing. :)
It does not have 'straight to desktop' like Lucid and Wary
and no quickpet like Lucid but as an Alpha base for 5.3
it is fast, stable, usable and these facilities can be the first
'spots'

Puppy Linux
Better from start to Finish
Puppy Raspup 8.2Final 8)
Puppy Links Page http://www.smokey01.com/bruceb/puppy.html :D

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

#22 Post by Lobster »

Will I have to migrate all my Ubuntu packages to Slackware
It means that the binaries that 5.3 uses
if based on spup will come from slackware
if based on Upup from Ubuntu
and if based on dpup from Debian
5.3 will be built from a woof base decided by the main developer
which at the moment will hopefully be Mick who prefers Spup
Is all that crunching always really necessary?
For limited resource computers
yes it is.
Chat? Why?
Chat will be built in allowing users direct access to the help provided on the IRC network
Secure in what sense?
In any sense we can offer, initially just running the browser rather than root, as user spot,
as Fatdog does
Last edited by Lobster on Tue 19 Apr 2011, 06:58, edited 1 time in total.
Puppy Raspup 8.2Final 8)
Puppy Links Page http://www.smokey01.com/bruceb/puppy.html :D

User avatar
666philb
Posts: 3615
Joined: Sun 07 Feb 2010, 12:27
Location: wales ... by the sea

#23 Post by 666philb »

Glad to here chat's coming back lobster. Chat has been in puppy since puppy 1 and i was quite disappointed to see it removed in lucid. The irc chat is an excellent place to get live help and advice on your puppy problems. In my short time on there, i've seen hundreds of people get help and advice. I have also been helped there multiple times.

#puppylinux

on irc and freenode
Bionicpup64 built with bionic beaver packages http://murga-linux.com/puppy/viewtopic.php?t=114311
Xenialpup64, built with xenial xerus packages http://murga-linux.com/puppy/viewtopic.php?t=107331

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

#24 Post by nooby »

Cloud only works if you can access internet. Suppose you go by railway train some 4 hour trip or on a Bus same distance at much slower pace. You are stuck to that small space and have a small Netbook or laptop and the Mobile Internet are too expensive and there is no free wifi either on board.

Then you want a normal Puppy that works outside the cloud and you can read texts and books and write emails offline and send them up later when you have access and listen to music and see videoclips and so on. It it lacks such then not much of use?
I use Google Search on Puppy Forum
not an ideal solution though

User avatar
goolwa_pup
Posts: 59
Joined: Thu 29 Oct 2009, 20:31

Re: Puppy Cloud ?

#25 Post by goolwa_pup »

sszindian wrote: If you have not taken a look at the ‘jolicloud’ program that is now running and expanding like wildfire, please do so, it gives a good example of where cloud computing is headed and how nice it performs. I believe Puppy would even be far superior because it can offer so many derivatives and options to the end-user.
For what its worth....extract the Jolicloud terms of service..

You retain your rights to any Content you submit, post or display on or through the Jolicloud Services. By uploading, submitting, posting or displaying Content on or through the Jolicloud Services, you grant Jolicloud a worldwide, perpetual, non-exclusive, royalty-free license (with the right to sublicense) to use, copy, reproduce, process, adapt, modify, publish, transmit, display and distribute such Content in any and all media or distribution methods (now known or later developed).

just because your paranoid does not mean they are not after you

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

#26 Post by ttuuxxx »

Hi Micko

I would be willing to support this release, My thoughts on it are as such.
I would like to see it puppy based but slackware compatible. I tried talking to playdayz about it before with Upup, but he took the simple yet bloated approach and used Ubuntu packages.
Puppy never needed all those extra gnome deps until Upup went main stream. Seriously we are talking a great deal of bloat. I like a slim and trim puppy that gives you more functionality than bloat.
as long as the following libs are the same :) GlibC,Gcc,Gtk,glib,pango,cairo,poppler,jpg,png
Then it should be almost 100% compatible and about 10% smaller
ttuuxxx
http://audio.online-convert.com/ <-- excellent site
http://samples.mplayerhq.hu/A-codecs/ <-- Codec Test Files
http://html5games.com/ <-- excellent HTML5 games :)

noryb009
Posts: 634
Joined: Sat 20 Mar 2010, 22:28

#27 Post by noryb009 »

Just a question: why is 5.3 going to be based on slackware when we already have ubuntu working? Is it just because the devs got board of ubuntu and think slackware would be fun to try? Is it because there is an option in woof? After this version is out, are we going to switch to T2? Let's just decide what is best for USERS and stick with it.
[url=https://github.com/noryb009/lick/releases/latest]LICK - Install Puppy Linux from Windows[/url]

SouthPaws
Posts: 66
Joined: Sat 16 Sep 2006, 15:49

Base/Core

#28 Post by SouthPaws »

What about Debian...?
Is it not leading edge enough...?
Wouldn't it have greater compatibility with LP...?

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

#29 Post by Lobster »

why is 5.3 going to be based on slackware when we already have ubuntu working?
What about Debian...?
Developers are users. Anyone wishing to develop Dpup, Upup or Lucid
are free to do so.

A developer is able to offer time, effort, expertise
and fun to others.

Those willing to facilitate, help, test. compile, support
etc. are part of the fun. :D
Puppy Raspup 8.2Final 8)
Puppy Links Page http://www.smokey01.com/bruceb/puppy.html :D

User avatar
sszindian
Posts: 807
Joined: Sun 25 Apr 2010, 02:14
Location: Pennsylvania U.S.

5.3

#30 Post by sszindian »

Puppy keeps making packages from packages that somebody made mostly from Dedian in the first place... Wouldn't it make a lot more sense to consider going 'DIRECT' with Debian?

Iguleder's Puppy Incidious 002 would be a good choice for starting a Puppy 5.3, it already has a good foundation in development and (in my view) is one of the fastest, one of the nicest, looking Puppy's to date and besides... didn't Iguleder already commit to helping on 5.3? one would certainly think that a plus !

Again... just my thoughts but for sure, we'll take whatever 5.3 offers!

>>>---Indian------>

User avatar
Iguleder
Posts: 2026
Joined: Tue 11 Aug 2009, 09:36
Location: Israel, somewhere in the beautiful desert
Contact:

#31 Post by Iguleder »

Insidious is a nice puplet for adventurous people, but it cannot be mainstream unless you freeze the packages and that's something you can do easily. The problem is that a puplet built with today's packages won't work with Debian Sid's packages tomorrow.

(And by the way: I made 001, the awesome fanbase made 002) :D

To be honest, I don't like this woofization - I think T2 is the best way to go for Puppy, but Slackware is definitely the best choice if we go the Woof way. Slackware packages are almost the same as T2 packages, except the extra dependencies which aren't a big issue.

I don't like all this whining and endless discussions about which distro is a better base, so I just go with my ideas and turn them into actions - I got glibc's package as small as 7 MB in my tweaked T2 and it's building X at the moment. I aim at 80-90 MB with Calf Linux 005 8)

Once I'm done with this T2 build I'll try to build a tpup ... if anyone wants to experiment with this path for 5.3 or 6.0, just jump on board. I'll upload the T2 I used, my patches, all packages and all sources, plus files for Woof. This is how uPup evolved into Lupu, isn't it? :)
[url=http://dimakrasner.com/]My homepage[/url]
[url=https://github.com/dimkr]My GitHub profile[/url]

User avatar
puppyluvr
Posts: 3470
Joined: Sun 06 Jan 2008, 23:14
Location: Chickasha Oklahoma
Contact:

#32 Post by puppyluvr »

:D Hello,
I think T2 is the best way to go for Puppy, but Slackware is definitely the best choice if we go the Woof way.
Agreed word for word... 8)

One of the worst things I ever read was, "Puppy Linux, based on Ubuntu, "
Close the Windows, and open your eyes, to a whole new world
I am Lead Dog of the
Puppy Linux Users Group on Facebook
Join us!

Puppy since 2.15CE...

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

#33 Post by nooby »

I don't have much experience of Linux. But let me make a brief comment on this

"Let's just decide what is best for USERS and stick with it."

My experience is that Linux Devs always go for what is best for the Dev.

And that is maybe the only way to do it or it would be a payed job and not fun at all. :)

Way back in 2006 I also thought that Linux Devs was into making the best Linux for the "Users" but that seems to get it all wrong. But maybe this is a derail?
for this thread we have to keep it what is most likely to keep the Devs motivation. Don't talk about users or they quickly lose interest in it.
I use Google Search on Puppy Forum
not an ideal solution though

dawnsboy

#34 Post by dawnsboy »

Quote:
I think T2 is the best way to go for Puppy, but Slackware is definitely the best choice if we go the Woof way.

Agreed word for word..
.

What he said....

User avatar
01micko
Posts: 8741
Joined: Sat 11 Oct 2008, 13:39
Location: qld
Contact:

#35 Post by 01micko »

Hi all,

Ok, from responses since my last post:

nooby, (16 April)
I'm sure seaside is the first to admit that his approach is experimental, and while it seems to me like a good idea it is really beyond the scope of an 'official' Puppy. I hope you understand.

sc0ttman, (16 April)
Your first point about 'jumping the gun'. It takes several months to put a release together. I don't even want to talk about it too much because nothing is set in stone at this stage. Well, people may not even want me as a leader. Either way, I'll continue on with what I do.
On your second,third and fourth points, version numbers go in numerical order. It makes no difference if the next release is called 526 or 1000.
On your points about window manager apps, that is a valid concern. Do you propose a solution? If so I am all ears, if not I have some ideas.
On size, well the Vesa only idea is very experimental. However i did build a 101M relatively sane BABY spup-100. Try it if you like, see the spup thread. It uses Barry's 4babybuild script (a new addition) in woof.
Conservative libs is not an option when building with binary compatibility, however, that doesn't completely mean that things can't be backwards compatiile. The aim is to have a minimum of libs necessary. Slackware compatibility does lend itself to this. So, the chances of a static compile of an app will have greater chance of working in earlier Puppies. That said, we have no control over the requirements of the big devs, (mozilla, chromium, libreoffice etc). Of course I invite (um if I'm it) all compilers to get the best bang for byte out of any app.
All users are going to want this and that, me too, but we have limits and we work within them.

stu90, (16 April)
Browser chooser was nice but I am of the opinion that we need a full featured secure browser in the disto by default. When I first used Puppy I didn't like seamonkey too much either, but I am a former netscape user and I soon realised the similarities. In Lupu there is Midori, Dillo, the nss and nspr libs, and Sylpheed. All this adds up to about 9M compressed. Current Seamonkey is about 12M compressed. I preferred Puppy 500's approach with Puppy Browser but it's too out dated now. Of course browser choosing can be in, but Seamonkey (if I have any say), is in by default. I'm sure I'll get a million detractors, but that's how I feel about it.

Iguleder, (16 April)
"new2dir" works for well for most packages.

tubeguy, (17 April)
See answer to sc0ttman up the page.

Lobster, (17 April)
Ian is most welcome to help any way he can. I think he's in Brisbane? Only a half hour drive for me.

sszindian, (17 April)
Nice thoughts! A full on Puppy cloud service! Certainly possible, jamesbond, Master_wrong et al have been doing just that. However we are concerned with the more immediate future with the next Puppy version, not to say that your idea doesn't have merit.

stu90, (18 April)
Well, I guess the cloud can be viewed from different angles.

Luluc, (19 April)
"What does that mean? Will I have to migrate all my Ubuntu packages to Slackware?" you said.
Puppy is Puppy. Binary compatibility is another thing. I would hope that some body picks up on Ubuntu woof development with Maverick or Natty. It is doable. The rationale behind Slackware development of Puppy is historical as well as personal for me. That doesn't mean to say that I am the be all and end all, Barry is yet to approve any of this. It's his Puppy.
Now to address the "xz" compression idea, yes maybe it's bad, especially for older kit. I don't want to alienate the faithful. That is where the 100MB thing comes into the equation. This is possible by removing some not so well used kernel modules and printer drivers and placing them in a "zdrv" (search it ;)).
I agree 100% with Lobster on chat, Xchat is only about 300K compressed, as for Transmission, well that can be an add on as far as I'm concerned. Of course more comprehensive chat programs are/will be made available.
Encryption needs to be worked on. Want a portfolio?
As for auditing of packages, currently there is no signature in 'official' packages, so that may have to be taken up with the BD.
The next valid point would be the sound mixer. Playdayz mentions this in the other 5.3 thread. Any one know of a good light weight mixer? (gtk)

Lobster, (19 April)
I agree that the 'cloud' is here and accessible. It should be an option in my opinion in any OS. I also agree about chat, see above. As for running the browser as user 'spot' (or any other user) then that can be an option too. Finer points need to be worked out but I'm sure it can be done.

goolwa_pup, (19 April)
"just because your paranoid does not mean they are not after you", you said.. true, but it made me laugh!

ttuuxxx, (19 April)
Glad to have you on board! (That's as so long as we have a vessel :;): ). good compiles I think are the key to a good, small, stable release.

noryb009, (19 April)
"why is 5.3 going to be based on slackware when we already have ubuntu working?", you said. Why not? We're not Ubuntu, we're not Slackware. Actually, there may be more interest in an Arch based pup. Nothing is decided yet, I'll reiterate.

SouthPaws, (19 April)
"What about Debian...?", you said. I agree, we could do that too, but I have decided (and I being me) on Slackware. I'm not the boss! I do what I want. It's fun that way. Read above about whether this is final.

sszindian, (19 April)
Debian was going to be Puppy 5 with gposil, but he had some unforeseen circumstances and had to leave. If Iguleder wants Puppy 5.3 or 6 or whatever he can have it (in the best spirit :wink: ) but I doubt he has the time or the inclination to follow it the 'woof' way.

Iguleder, (20 April)
see above :wink:

puppyluvr, (20 April)
I know you are keen, what do you want to offer? :)

nooby, (20 April)
Ah nooby my friend :) , devs are just glorified users you know :wink:

dawnsboy
What I said to puppyluvr :)

______________________________________________

note. I am just a bloke who knows how to use the woof build system. It's fully up to Barry and you lot if I am to coordinate a puppy version. That doesn't mean to say I don't want help! I need every ounce possible. All of your responses I have read and considered. I hope it shows! :D

Cheers!
Puppy Linux Blog - contact me for access

User avatar
sszindian
Posts: 807
Joined: Sun 25 Apr 2010, 02:14
Location: Pennsylvania U.S.

Thoughts !!!

#36 Post by sszindian »

01micko... Thanks for taking all the time to reply to everyone here interested in 5.3!

Without question, you are the man to head the programming in this project.

Questions were presented and those involved responded with their own personal THOUGHTS... which is a good start for this project. Most of us are not programmers, with a few that are dabblers-in-code, most of us are USERS and I hope all the dev's keep that in mind... we are looking for a Puppy that will be 'functional, easy to use and just do what it should do (example: I still run a really old original 412 version on a IBM T22 laptop I have, it is refreshing to go to Ambiword and the spreadsheet and see the HELP function work in those programs from the program-menu itself, like it was intended. I have not seen that happen in any version since this Woof came along. Little things like that probably are not of concern to Barry and dev's who seldom if ever use those particular programs but it is really important to a USER like me... 525 did have help on those two BUT in the desktop menu-structure... who looks there when there is an Icon to click on on the desktop?

My request on 5.3 (no matter what the flavor) would be for 'Everything' that is included in the Puppy WORK 100% like it should or... don't put that program in there at all.)

I wish you all the luck on this 5.3 Mick... it won't be an easy road for you I'm sure, I hope you can put up with guys like me (and a few more) but... we test and complain and that's a good thing yes?

>>>---Indian------> :D

scsijon
Posts: 1596
Joined: Thu 24 May 2007, 03:59
Location: the australian mallee
Contact:

#37 Post by scsijon »

damn it lobster :D , a new thread without a note in the old, closing it.

It's almost worth a :twisted: forced :twisted: shell malting as a sentance.

My latest notes are there.

regards
scsijon

User avatar
Iguleder
Posts: 2026
Joined: Tue 11 Aug 2009, 09:36
Location: Israel, somewhere in the beautiful desert
Contact:

#38 Post by Iguleder »

Good news, I produced a 81 MB LiveCD of Calf Linux :)

Pretty much everything, except Python, Mesa and display drivers (they're tiny anyway, they're several K each). I'm going to trim ghostscript and ncurses, maybe other big packages too.

I might do some graph of the biggest packages - could be useful for the 5.3 trimming stage. :)

Here's a little taste (and Moo is processing the first packages now):
1.1M processed_packages/gawk-exe
1.4M processed_packages/glibc-minimal-exe
2.3M processed_packages/file-exe
3.9M processed_packages/coreutils-exe
9.2M processed_packages/ncurses-exe
16M processed_packages/glibc-exe
47M processed_packages/perl-exe
84M total
If I remember right, the whole main SFS was around 270 MB extracted - if these take 84 MB, it's horrible. It seems that the big packages are responsible for most of the size. Python and Mesa are somewhere around ncurses' size, I removed them just because of Puppy tradition. I think Perl, ghostscript and ncurses are the first packages I should trim, then I'll add Mesa and Python probably.

EDIT: btw, it's xorg 7.6 and kernel 2.6.38.3 with BFS, GTK is 2.24.4 and most packages are the latest or very recent ... who said you need xorg >=7.3 and kernel 2.6.18 to achieve this size? :wink:
[url=http://dimakrasner.com/]My homepage[/url]
[url=https://github.com/dimkr]My GitHub profile[/url]

User avatar
MinHundHettePerro
Posts: 852
Joined: Thu 05 Feb 2009, 22:22
Location: SE

#39 Post by MinHundHettePerro »

Hello :)!

Just in case someone is eager to start woofing up (pre-)13.37 spups from slackware-current, I made a dependency resolved PACKAGES.TXT à la Stabellini (his site seems to be down at the moment, by the way) for the slackware-current DVD build of 2011-04-19. You can find the file here.

Cheers :)/
MHHP
[color=green]Celeron 2.8 GHz, 1 GB, i82845, many ptns, modes 12, 13
Dual Xeon 3.2 GHz, 1 GB, nvidia quadro nvs 285[/color]
Slackos & 214X, ... and Q6xx
[color=darkred]Nämen, vaf....[/color] [color=green]ln -s /dev/null MHHP[/color]

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

#40 Post by Lobster »

Image

Still in Spup.

Created an Spup logo (that can easily be changed to Spot)
. . . whatever name Mick prefers

Also joined the announce list at Slackware, so should know when 13.37 is available
http://www.slackware.com/lists/

Sorry about the two threads,
there may be a third if we get the green light . . . :roll:

Also sorry if you have not added your ideas to the developing wiki page

another promo video
http://youtu.be/lQRfgrbT7lY
Puppy Raspup 8.2Final 8)
Puppy Links Page http://www.smokey01.com/bruceb/puppy.html :D

Post Reply