Woof Archlinux

What features/apps/bugfixes needed in a future Puppy
Message
Author
amigo
Posts: 2629
Joined: Mon 02 Apr 2007, 06:52

#21 Post by amigo »

Actually, that arch 'i386' on debian and ubuntu is really i486. No distro with glibc newer than 2.2.5 can possibly run on a real i386 machine. The name i386 is used arbitrarily on those distros. Slackware was still using the label 'i386' too after changing to libc6(glibc-3.?). Since nobody ever really tries to use a real 386 machine anymore, it slipped by unnoticed that it wasn't really possible anymore. So, some puppians use of '--build=i386' in their CFLAGS is useless. Puppy has always been based on 'i486' distros anyway, so using build=i386 wouldn't work anyway.

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

#22 Post by ttuuxxx »

amigo wrote:Actually, that arch 'i386' on debian and ubuntu is really i486. No distro with glibc newer than 2.2.5 can possibly run on a real i386 machine. The name i386 is used arbitrarily on those distros. Slackware was still using the label 'i386' too after changing to libc6(glibc-3.?). Since nobody ever really tries to use a real 386 machine anymore, it slipped by unnoticed that it wasn't really possible anymore. So, some puppians use of '--build=i386' in their CFLAGS is useless. Puppy has always been based on 'i486' distros anyway, so using build=i386 wouldn't work anyway.
Hi amigo I've compiled that latest glibC as i386 last week for 2.14X, Ubuntu provides a patch, without the patch it doesn't compile. I didn't bother using it, I went with Wary's glibc so that they both could cross app share after a few other libs are altered.
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
alienjeff
Posts: 2265
Joined: Sat 08 Jul 2006, 20:19
Location: Winsted, CT - USA

#23 Post by alienjeff »

ttuuxxx wrote: Ya I bet your not using the latest firefox 4.0 on it either, or you must have one large swap file, Comparing arch to puppy on an old 233 really its only about 4 times the size of the series 2 you were using. Lets not sugar coat arch that much...
First things first: it's "you're"; not "your". And "its" is possessive; I believe you meant "it's".

I don't use a swap file. My swap partition isn't large, though. With the lappy RAM maxed out at 288M (32M hardwired and two 128M sticks), I opted for a 256M swap partition. Why? I want to give the original 4G hard drive half a chance at reaching its golden years. Besides which, I have no trouble adjusting my computing habits a bit to the restraints of existing hardware.

I did use Firefox 3.6.13 and, not surprisingly, xulrunner's porcine characteristics were altogether too obvious, After a couple of days I removed Firefox and installed Seamonkey 2.0.11. My first hit browser of choice remains elinks, though.

Chew on these factoids and data (with syslog-ng, dbus, network, netfs, crond, alsa, and openntpd daemons running):

Fresh boot, logged into tty1:

Code: Select all

[jeff@lappy ~]$ free
             total       used       free     shared    buffers     cached
Mem:        284820      35156     249664          0       5080      15640
-/+ buffers/cache:      14436     270384
Swap:       265068          0     265068
After logging in to tty2 and opening the only chat client whose use guarantees world domination:

Code: Select all

[jeff@lappy ~]$ free
             total       used       free     shared    buffers     cached
Mem:        284820      39344     245476          0       5196      17924
-/+ buffers/cache:      16224     268596
Swap:       265068          0     265068
After loggin in to tty3 and starting ratpoison WM:

Code: Select all

[jeff@lappy ~]$ free
             total       used       free     shared    buffers     cached
Mem:        284820      57860     226960          0       5932      29172
-/+ buffers/cache:      22756     262064
Swap:       265068          0     265068
After starting Seamonkey from within ratpoison:

Code: Select all

[jeff@lappy ~]$ free
             total       used       free     shared    buffers     cached
Mem:        284820     113556     171264          0       6752      65764
-/+ buffers/cache:      41040     243780
Swap:       265068          0     265068
After opening three active tab/links (drudgereport.com, bkhome.org, and alienjeff.net):

Code: Select all

[jeff@lappy ~]$ free
             total       used       free     shared    buffers     cached
Mem:        284820     128528     156292          0       7000      68356
-/+ buffers/cache:      53172     231648
Swap:       265068          0     265068
And here's the output of "top -u jeff" at this point:

top output

And now you know why there's the "ftw" in the channel name of Freenode IRC's channel ##arch-ftw.

"Lets not sugar coat Arch that much"? Arch doesn't need sugar coating. IIRC, Puppy is chronologically two years further down the development path than Arch. That said, compare the offical Arch wiki and forum to Puppy's in both form and content. Compare #archlinux on Freenode to #puppylinux: right now 1,048 versus 43 users, respectively.

You may quote DistroWatch's little sham of a popularity contest all you want. You may quote server download bandwidth all you want. But the fact remains that it's Puppy that needs sugar coating, among a lot of other things...
[size=84][i]hangout:[/i] ##b0rked on irc.freenode.net
[i]diversion:[/i] [url]http://alienjeff.net[/url] - visit The Fringe
[i]quote:[/i] "The foundation of authority is based upon the consent of the people." - Thomas Hooker[/size]

aarf

#24 Post by aarf »

Actually someone took some of the sugar coating off of puppy and put it on arch so that now we can install arch. But more sugar coating in the form of frisbee Wifi connect needs to be transfered to arch before i for one will actually use my installed arch.

User avatar
alienjeff
Posts: 2265
Joined: Sat 08 Jul 2006, 20:19
Location: Winsted, CT - USA

#25 Post by alienjeff »

aarf wrote:Actually someone took some of the sugar coating off of puppy and put it on arch...
That's hilarious. Thanks! I needed a laugh.

BTW, if I'm not mistaken, your avatar, besides being annoying, violates forum guidelines. To wit:

Only one image can be displayed at a time, its width can be no greater than 80 pixels, the height no greater than 80 pixels, and the file size no more than 6 KB. Reference: User profile, avatar control panel
Last edited by alienjeff on Fri 04 Feb 2011, 23:21, edited 1 time in total.
[size=84][i]hangout:[/i] ##b0rked on irc.freenode.net
[i]diversion:[/i] [url]http://alienjeff.net[/url] - visit The Fringe
[i]quote:[/i] "The foundation of authority is based upon the consent of the people." - Thomas Hooker[/size]

aarf

#26 Post by aarf »

Oh yes i forgot to mention the glacial speed that needs the sugar coating as well.

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

#27 Post by shariebeth »

1. Am I correct that a summation of the original post is that:
A-you want a Live CD of Arch ideally, and failing that want to make an ArchPup to accomplish the same thing? Have you looked at Archbang Live CD? http://archbang.org/
Here is a review: http://all-things-linux.blogspot.com/20 ... hbang.html

B-You are unhappy with the chaos structure of puppy? (Search my friend, it's been rehashed to death, do you think nobody's TRIED?)

2. Re: Arch not being newbie friendly...WHAT?! If you can read and follow instructions, there is not an easier distro to run. The installation is the hardest part but every step of the way is minutely detailed and documented. Including wifi, which I run all of my arch machines with, including remote wireless printing. Once you are installed, there is NOTHING easier and faster than pacman. I challenge you to find a distro that fixes the exceedingly few problems it does run into faster, or to find better organization and documentation or useful and helpful community. You choose exactly what you want and nothing you don't. It works for newbies and experienced users alike. You grow with Arch and it can grow with your abilities. What's not to love?

3. @ aitch: Your comments amaze me. I can't count how many times newbies and experienced puppy and other distro users have asked specifically for alienjeff by name for help in #p, and how many hours in every given day he spent researching for those who wouldn't do it themselves. And he knew what he was talking about. Shame the saintlier than thou forum gurus can't be bothered to contribute the same effort before they cast stones. He gave more to puppy than he should have, given how he's been treated here. And before you choose to comment on the sarcastic things he HAS said, you better know the history and reasons he said them first.

And as to making an ArchPup, I for one would hope he doesn't waste his time on that. Arch is arch, Puppy is Puppy. A merger would be about as useful as the Ubuntu disaster.

4. @ aarf: wifi on arch is fine, I have 3 laptops running it flawlessly all with different wifi cards. Only one driver needed to be rebuilt, the broadcom-wl using AUR, but with the precise detailed step-by-step instructions in Arch's wiki, that was a piece of cake too. Also #archlinux offers supurb help if you need it.

5. Puppy was an excellent stepping stone for me into the world of linux. However I lost interest after 431 when it tried to be something it wasn't. It isn't Ubuntu, it isn't Debian, it isn't Slackware, it isn't Arch. If you all want these distros so badly, go use them! Let puppy be puppy. It has veered sadly off of it's hayday path in my opinion.

6. Has anybody asked Judd Vinet, Aaron Griffin, and the rest of the Arch team what they think about Arch being used in this way? From http://www.archlinux.org:
Copyright © 2002-2011 Judd Vinet and Aaron Griffin.

The Arch Linux name and logo are recognized trademarks. Some rights reserved.

The registered trademark Linux® is used pursuant to a sublicense from LMI, the exclusive licensee of Linus Torvalds, owner of the mark on a world-wide basis.

For more details, you all might want to read here:
https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/De ... markPolicy

Oh yeah, and last but not least, mikeslr, there are "dames" here. :roll: I can only speak for myself, but I'm not here to be a dame. I'm here to learn linux.

User avatar
Aitch
Posts: 6518
Joined: Wed 04 Apr 2007, 15:57
Location: Chatham, Kent, UK

#28 Post by Aitch »

AJ wrote:Let he who is without sin cast the first stone, mkay?
persaccly! 'swhy I did it...no stone, though, just a grape...

You only need to justify if you feel there's any truth in it

otherwise....shh

help you may have....but you are remembered more for the ruderies and upsets, sadly

.....that's a stone you threw yourself in IRC heaven, mate

@shariebeth - don't be so amazed, I know both sides to the equation....and arch is no sacred cow, and most likely will be assimilated.....we are puppy.......there is no escape..... :wink:

Aitch :)

amigo
Posts: 2629
Joined: Mon 02 Apr 2007, 06:52

#29 Post by amigo »

@ttuuxxx -you'll have to actually try running ubuntu or pupy or any other modern distro on a real i386 machine to covince me. I suppose that the ubunut patch is merely to allow you to name the arch 'i386' instead of i486. Point me to the patch in question so I can have a look anyway.

Even if it were so, do you know lots of people running i386's. Not many -if any! And compiling anything for an i386 target ignores the most valuable optimizations there are. What I mean is that the performance gains of compiling for i486 instead of i386 are the largest leap available. i486 to i586, i586 - i686, i586 - pentiumIV --none of these other increments will give you as much advantage as the jump from i386 to i486.

And, tyring to compile programs with an i386 target on a system which has glibc compiled for i486 will do nothing. If glibc is not compiled for i386, then nothing else compiled with i386 target will run as i386 anyway. Also, unless you are properly using -march and -mcpu options, you may be disallowing any upper-end options available for faster arches.

A system compiled for 'pure i686' (march=i686 mcpu=i686) will not run any faster than a system compiled for march=i486 mcpu=i686. But compiling for pure i686 means the system will not run on any cpu lesser than i686. This is why pure i686 builds are so rare.

There really is no need to specify the 'build' option in your CFLAGS anyway(unless you are cross-compiling) -the configuration process figures it out on its' own. And if you still think that the option, as you use it, might do something, it's really the 'host' option you should be using. build is for the machine you are compiling *on*. 'host' is for the machine the program will run on. Specifying 'build' by itself does not affect the outcome of the compile. To get the (your) desired effect you'd need to specify the host and the build. You should see warnings every time you try to compile specifying only one of these.

To anyone who knows a little about compiling, your use of build=i386 on an i486 system is simply ludicrous.

User avatar
mikeslr
Posts: 3890
Joined: Mon 16 Jun 2008, 21:20
Location: 500 seconds from Sol

Walking=allowing yourself to begin to fall

#30 Post by mikeslr »

Hi All,

@ Alienjeff, thank you for contributing to the discussion, even if some have seen it as occasion to descend into chaos. Both chaos and order are primeval conditions. The I Ching recognizes both as fundamental, each containing the seed of the other. It has been too long since I read Loa Tzu, but I seem to remember a parable about branches: they must be sufficiently strong to provide support, but sufficiently flexible to bend in the wind.

The language of Denmark and Norway are both Scandinavian. There’s a story, perhaps apocryphal, that there was once a war between them. The king of one was insulted by what the other had intended as a complement.
The earliest strata of the Old Testament was written a thousand years before Greek Civilization invented Prose as a form of communication. It includes most of Genesis and the Court Histories of David and Solomon. Its verses of are True, even if they are not always historically accurate. Like poetry, they capture the essence, the “gestalt,

User avatar
cowboy
Posts: 250
Joined: Thu 03 Feb 2011, 22:04
Location: North America; the Western Hemisphere; Yonder

archlinux discussion

#31 Post by cowboy »

fascinating thread. person makes a remarkable, and thoughtful, suggestion about a possible future for Puppy. In fact, I believe it should be required reading for any developer involved. Thread wanders around from useful, to old venom, to perceived insult... is almost derailed, yet stays on the tracks and all the input remains worth reading. The forum in a nutshell.

I think that somewhere between the visions of mikeslr and amigo lies a successful long-term future of puppy. Should Puppy exist as a reflection of the larger world of linux distributions, or maintain a separate repository? Or can both ideas be merged into a third more resilient base from which Puppy can move forward?

For me as a user, and that's all I am, the worrying thing is simply what will puppy 5.5 or 6.0 be, and will it be able to speak, in any real way, to the data (or the savefile) I have in 5.2. Should I be betting, right now, on spup, or upup, or dpup? What dog should I have in the fight? Is there really a fight?

You were lucky, mikeslr, to pull playdayz into the thread. From my reading of the forum, he seems to have the best handle on woof of any person outside BK, and I think he may have the best mental roadmap of a future for Puppy along the lines you mention. Whether he has the time, or the inclination, to suffer the slings and arrow required to realize that path is another matter entirely.

ADDED: Arch is quite interesting. At first glance, as a poster mentioned, their wiki and website are full of information and...well...quite focused. Arch lays out, right up front, both what it is, and more importantly, what it is not. It seems that Arch is lead by a team leader, assisted by a team. They know what Arch will look like in a month, and in five years. Regarding package management, one developer on the team, had this to say "... I run ArchLinux since 0.4 and since then i never had to reinstall the OS on this laptop. Besides no need to reinstall it, i have always the latest versions of software i need." taken from here: http://www.osnews.com/story/10142

All that said, I remain a Puppy lover. It is an remarkable and singular achievement. It is elastic and useful. Like all acolytes, I have moments of doubt. For example, just this week, I see two other efforts on this forum to create new, additional wikis about Puppy rather than working on the existing effort. Just another example of enlightened design-by-chaos? Or an indicator that Puppy, like Bilbo, sometimes becomes like butter, spread over too much bread?

ADDED: as always, simply my worthless dos centavos. I thank everyone on the thread for some great food for thought.
[i]"you fix what you can fix and you let the rest go.."[/i] - Cormac McCarthy - No Country For Old Men.

User avatar
mikeslr
Posts: 3890
Joined: Mon 16 Jun 2008, 21:20
Location: 500 seconds from Sol

New Version of ArchLive for Devs to Consider

#32 Post by mikeslr »

Hi all,

Rest assured that I remain a loyal Puppy devotee. But from time to time I wonder what others are doing.
IMHO, it seems Ubuntu has somehow fallen under a spell, repeating to itself "bloat is good, bloat is good" until it was believed. Which raises the question "If woof is to be of value, woof what?"
There, of course, remains debian which many, myself included, believed was the best distro for Puppy commensalism. But, as I still like Arch Linux's ability to perform a live upgrade of both its core (operating system) and applications, I just checked.
Seems someone named Calimero has developed a new live version. The thread begins @ https://bbs.archlinux.org/viewtopic.php?id=107798&p=1, with more documentation @ http://ctkarch.org/documentation/0.7/.

Perhaps someone who understands both woof and Linux in general will find it useful.

mikesLr

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

#33 Post by puppyluvr »

:D Hello,
It isn't Ubuntu, it isn't Debian, it isn't Slackware, it isn't Arch. If you all want these distros so badly, go use them! Let puppy be puppy.
Agreed...
Oh, and Hi AJ.... :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D
LOL...
Oh, and I woofed an Archpup in the early days of woof....
Got a working desktop, but lots of things were broken...
Tried several times...and gave up...
If you build it, they will come.
The Vibrator????
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...

User avatar
mikeslr
Posts: 3890
Joined: Mon 16 Jun 2008, 21:20
Location: 500 seconds from Sol

Apologies -- should have re-read thread before posting

#34 Post by mikeslr »

Hi Again,

I got to mulling around, found link on an Archlinux blog back to this thread and decided to re-read it. Something I should have done before posting. But maybe not.
In re-reading, this time I took notice of Jemimah's mention of Amigo's src2pkg, and Amigo's post @http://www.murga-linux.com/puppy/viewtopic.php?t=64337. src2pkg --hadn't realized it existed, probably because I've never tried to compile anything.
But what a great idea. And I'll add that I think Amigo has presented a strong argument why Puppy should not be concentrating on retro-fitting other distros' apps.
Unless I've misunderstood, what src2pkg does --or facilities-- is the creating of a package from source via scripts; sometimes no "human intervention" is needed, but frequently the "script" will provide a modifiable framework that makes package creation easier than starting "from scratch."
Part of the idea behind Woof was to lessen the need for storage and bandwidth. Surely, a script applicable to the source maintained elsewhere requires less of both than the finished app. And I've seen, fairly frequently, where someone engaged in compiling has asked for assistance.
So, how about a repository of scripts? And a forum thread to discuss what modifications to each may be necessary when something fundamental, like a new kernel, requires changes. On second thought, a repository may not always be necessary, as the script could be attached as a compressed file to a post.
If the foregoing makes any sense, perhaps someone who understands compiling might suggest it to the appropriate forum moderators.

mikesLr

p.s., will someone please email me instructions regarding how to link to a post rather than just the webpage of the thread its on. (':?')

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

#35 Post by nooby »

Cool that you did test CTK ARch. I wish I knew how to boot that one in frugal install on NTFS. Maybe it need to be on a USB. But what grub2 bootcode does it need?

Sorry for derailing your thread. Arch seems tempting but as always. Puppy devs are in it for the fun of it so if they have not make an Arch version yet then something with arch are not enough fun for them.
I use Google Search on Puppy Forum
not an ideal solution though

User avatar
Aitch
Posts: 6518
Joined: Wed 04 Apr 2007, 15:57
Location: Chatham, Kent, UK

#36 Post by Aitch »

There are several Arch /Live CD builders available

http://larch.berlios.de/

https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Archiso

http://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=41386

and for those that don't know

http://bkhome.org/woof/

Stir/fold the ingredients slowly for a few hours, then bung it in the oven at gas mark 5 for 40 minutes :wink: :lol:

Aitch :)

aarf

#37 Post by aarf »

new release arch beats us again. never seen puppy at the top.
Attachments
image-10.jpg
(10.51 KiB) Downloaded 1354 times

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

#38 Post by nooby »

Arch has a huge loyal fan base to defend them. :)

I don't expect that Puppy will be on the top for long. It is too different.

I think we all should be happy over that we are so high up. Compare to other os with small iso like Slitaz and TinyCore. Them are way lower and them are no bad linux set ups at all.
I use Google Search on Puppy Forum
not an ideal solution though

disciple
Posts: 6984
Joined: Sun 21 May 2006, 01:46
Location: Auckland, New Zealand

Re: Apologies -- should have re-read thread before posting

#39 Post by disciple »

mikeslr wrote:p.s., will someone please email me instructions regarding how to link to a post rather than just the webpage of the thread its on. (':?')
Did anyone?
You just need to right-click, "Copy link location" or similar, on the white page icon at the top left of the post.
Do you know a good gtkdialog program? Please post a link here

Classic Puppy quotes

ROOT FOREVER
GTK2 FOREVER

ajbibb
Posts: 12
Joined: Thu 15 Apr 2010, 22:51

#40 Post by ajbibb »

Sorry to be so late to the party, and I think I might be one of the forum members mentioned in the first post working on a Woof-Arch build. Short story: I decided to drop the effort. To answer one of the questions, I don't believe Arch is a good canidate for a Woof build. What I was finding is that the Woof scripts required a lot of modification to accomodate Arch, mainly because Arch changed the compression scheme for their packages after Woof was written. There were also a couple of other structural items in the format of the repository database files that required modification of the Woof scripts. I think I had gotten around those problems however (or at least the ones I'd found).

Barry of course keeps updating Woof, which then required me to continually merge my changes in the scripts into his updated scripts. The other thing I found is that some package names changed from what they were originally called. Last reason I dropped it is that I really don't know BASH all that well and it was very slow going through all of the scripts and support files trying to find and fix problems.

For those reasons I decided to actually install Arch on my computer, and I found I really love it. Whoever said "learing curve" was correct, but once you are there it is a great system.

One thing I'd like to add to the first post is the comment about upgrading Arch. The simple pacman command given will indeed update all installed packages on your system. Sometimes however that is not the end of the story. Some upgrades will install new config files which then have to be merged into your existing files, and this step has to be done manually, file by file. Once you know how it is not difficult, but I'm not sure it could be automated.

Anyway I've now moved over to trying and create an Arch system that can boot from USB and save and load user files like a Puppy. If I actually get anywhere (don't anyone hold your breath) I'll post the results here.

Best to everyone..

Post Reply