Puppy Linux Discussion Forum Forum Index Puppy Linux Discussion Forum
Puppy HOME page : puppylinux.com
"THE" alternative forum : puppylinux.info
 
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   RegisterRegister 
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

The time now is Sun 21 Dec 2014, 16:59
All times are UTC - 4
 Forum index » Advanced Topics » Puppy Derivatives
Difference Between Puppy & Ubuntu
Moderators: Flash, JohnMurga
Post_new_topic   Reply_to_topic View_previous_topic :: View_next_topic
Page 1 of 5 Posts_count   Goto page: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 Next
Author Message
l2ulinux


Joined: 25 Jan 2011
Posts: 148
Location: Blountstown, Fl.

PostPosted: Thu 05 May 2011, 13:38    Post_subject:  Difference Between Puppy & Ubuntu
Sub_title: Please Tell me what you Think about our Great Puppy
 

Difference Between Puppy & Ubuntu

Puppy Linux and Ubuntu Linux are two of the more commonly used Linux distributions, or "distros, in existence in 2011. Even though they're both Linux, they're about as different as two Linux operating systems can be.

Puppy Disctinctives

Puppy Linux is a distribution to use on older computers, or to run from a CD or USB. The whole system is usually about 85MB, which is small for an operating system. As a result, Puppy Linux usually boots quickly. Many users choose Puppy Linux for this speed and for the tools that come standard on a Puppy system image that can be burned and booted from CD. Puppy is a good choice for older hardware, too. Because it's so small, you can easily install it onto an older hard drive. It takes up less space and operates smoothly.

Ubuntu Linux

Ubuntu Linux is a more full-fledged operating system. A typical Ubuntu download is 685 MB and fills a blank CD to the brim. After the installation to the hard drive it takes up significantly more than that. Ubuntu recommends 5GB for the system. Ubuntu is an operating system that is intended to compete on a level playing field with the Windows operating system, offering software alternatives in every arena of normal computer use: OpenOffice for office applications, Firefox for Internet browsing, Rhythmbox for music, and Totem Movie Player for video. When users need new software, Ubuntu provides Synaptic Package Manager to easily install new software, and Ubuntu takes care of automatic updates to your system, just like Windows.

Pros and Cons

Puppy and Ubuntu Linux are completely different operating systems based on the same linux kernel. After the kernel, their similarity ends. Puppy is much more bare-bones, intended for a different audience than Ubuntu. Puppy was made for slimmer, older hardware, while Ubuntu is made for the newest hardware on the market. That's not to say Ubuntu won't work well on a 3-year-old computer. It will, but it's made for direct competition with the newest operating systems, while Puppy is really not

Choosing Between Puppy and Ubuntu

Both Puppy and Ubuntu have a following, as evidenced by the many derivative distros that have arisen from both, such as MacPup, Muppy and Minipup ("puplets") for Puppy, and Xubuntu, Lubuntu, Kubuntu, and Masonux for Ubuntu Linux. However, Ubuntu, the most commonly used Linux distro, according to Distrowatch.com, will seem easier to use for most new users. Its appearance and graphical interface is more similar in function and style to a Windows operating system than Puppy's. Most new users will gravitate to Ubuntu, given this choice, unless older hardware dictates a slimmer operating system, in which case Puppy Linux would be a great choice
Back to top
View user's profile Send_private_message 
mickee


Joined: 08 Feb 2011
Posts: 212
Location: Saskatoon SK Canada, Gateway 5300 Laptop, 600MHz Celeron, 384MB RAM, lucid puppy 5.2 (Full Install)

PostPosted: Thu 05 May 2011, 16:58    Post_subject:  

Strange this topic came up. I have a PC which I dual boot Win7 and ubuntu, (still jaunty). I use ubuntu when I can, Win7 if I must. I have puppy 5.2 on my laptop, an archaic piece of hardware from 1999. Works well there, in fact, the laptop was going to be trashed, and puppy linux saved it. I now use my puppy laptop most of the time, and ubuntu and Win7 only sporadically. Something to be said of using a computer in the livingroom, rather than at a desk. Plus ubuntu can be used by most Windows users, Puppy not so much. With 'root' comes great responsibility. A Windows only user I would never let them take my puppy for a walk unattended!

Love puppy. I have learned more about Linux since Feb this year than all my experience with ubuntu.. I can "use" ubuntu. Puppy is so much more involved than just "using". Puppy is about LIVING with Linux -- and that is a great place to live.

make sense?

Good Puppy! Sit! Good boy!

_________________

Linux is NOT Windows. Doesn't PRETEND to be, Doesn't WANT to be; Don't try to MAKE it be.
Back to top
View user's profile Send_private_message Visit_website MSNM 
l2ulinux


Joined: 25 Jan 2011
Posts: 148
Location: Blountstown, Fl.

PostPosted: Thu 05 May 2011, 18:42    Post_subject: The Truth
Sub_title: Web Sites
 

I have been looking thru the forum and kept running across the web site listed. So I put what was there here were everyone could read and not have to go to another web page.
I love using Puppy and it is used on the same system with Win7. I use Puppy and sometimes other Linux releases myself. My grandkids I let use BrowserLinux.

I give THANKS to all who help bring THE PUPPY linux to us.
Back to top
View user's profile Send_private_message 
Bernie_by_the_Sea


Joined: 09 Feb 2011
Posts: 329

PostPosted: Thu 05 May 2011, 21:18    Post_subject: Re: Difference Between Puppy & Ubuntu
Sub_title: Please Tell me what you Think about our Great Puppy
 

l2ulinux wrote:
Puppy Linux is a distribution to use on older computers, or to run from a CD or USB.

Puppy works fine on a brand new top-of-the-line computer. Ubuntu can be run from a CD or USB. A live CD is the only way I've ever looked at Ubuntu. I looked at it about three hours total in six years starting with 5.10. It's remained consistently crap over the years.

l2ulinux wrote:
The whole system is usually about 85MB, which is small for an operating system. As a result, Puppy Linux usually boots quickly..

Puppy is usually about 120MB which is still small. Traditionally in Linux boot time is totally unimportant. Linux is known for running for years without a reboot. The command uptime is built into the Linux kernel to allow bragging about how long Linux has gone without a reboot. Today a friend of mine told me his Red Hat system has now been up 750 days. Linux is all about stability, not boot up speed.

l2ulinux wrote:
Ubuntu is an operating system that is intended to compete on a level playing field with the Windows operating system, offering software alternatives in every arena of normal computer use: OpenOffice for office applications, Firefox for Internet browsing, Rhythmbox for music, and Totem Movie Player for video. When users need new software, Ubuntu provides Synaptic Package Manager to easily install new software, and Ubuntu takes care of automatic updates to your system, just like Windows. .

Ubuntu is far inferior to Windows and it’s an inferior distro in Linux. It’s designed for newbies and generally avoided by Linux old timers. Automatic updates? I've used the same version of XP for eight years without a single "update" automatic or otherwise.

l2ulinux wrote:
After the kernel, their similarity ends. Puppy is much more bare-bones, intended for a different audience than Ubuntu. Puppy was made for slimmer, older hardware, while Ubuntu is made for the newest hardware on the market. That's not to say Ubuntu won't work well on a 3-year-old computer. It will, but it's made for direct competition with the newest operating systems, while Puppy is really not .

Actually Puppy compares well with any operating system and it’s certainly far superior to Ubuntu. Puppy was never intended to be used only on old hardware.

l2ulinux wrote:
However, Ubuntu, the most commonly used Linux distro, according to Distrowatch.com, will seem easier to use for most new users. Its appearance and graphical interface is more similar in function and style to a Windows operating system than Puppy's. Most new users will gravitate to Ubuntu, given this choice, unless older hardware dictates a slimmer operating system, in which case Puppy Linux would be a great choice.

Ubuntu is certainly not the most commonly used Linux distro. Distrowatch ranks by measuring one and only one thing-- the number of hits on its own web pages. It's totally meaningless as far as determining the number of users. A person might check out a half dozen small systems on Distrowatch but that doesn’t mean he chose Puppy or anything else just because he looked at its page. Most Linux users never look at or have never heard of Distrowatch.

Newbies interested in a Windows lookalike are attracted to Ubuntu. Those with more sense are attracted to more traditional Linux distros... or to nontraditional Puppy. Smile

_________________
Frugal: Knoppix 6.4.4 DVD
USB: DSL 4.4.10
Full: WinXP Pro
Puppy (Feb. 4 - May 12, 2011) led me back to Linux.
Back to top
View user's profile Send_private_message 
mickee


Joined: 08 Feb 2011
Posts: 212
Location: Saskatoon SK Canada, Gateway 5300 Laptop, 600MHz Celeron, 384MB RAM, lucid puppy 5.2 (Full Install)

PostPosted: Fri 06 May 2011, 08:51    Post_subject: Re: Difference Between Puppy & Ubuntu
Sub_title: Please Tell me what you Think about our Great Puppy
 

Bernie_by_the_Sea wrote:
Newbies interested in a Windows lookalike are attracted to Ubuntu. Those with more sense are attracted to more traditional Linux distros... or to nontraditional Puppy. Smile


What if they are attracted to both ubuntu and Puppy?

_________________

Linux is NOT Windows. Doesn't PRETEND to be, Doesn't WANT to be; Don't try to MAKE it be.
Back to top
View user's profile Send_private_message Visit_website MSNM 
nooby

Joined: 29 Jun 2008
Posts: 10557
Location: SwedenEurope

PostPosted: Fri 06 May 2011, 11:15    Post_subject:  

I think that mickee point out the absolute biggest difference.

Ubuntu are so set on to discourage usage of root that you have a hard time getting if they have root or not. I am not that intelligent to find out.

Sure they have sudo and su? but do they really have root the way Puppy have?
And compare Puppy with other distros. How many of them do frugal install on NTFS and allow one to edit the menu.lst? I spent hours yesterday on getting sombody to tell me how I could edit the menu.lst on the NTFS HDD and then save it. Tested on four different Linux OS and none of them did allow me. TinyCore don't even encourage one to install the ntfs-3g tcz to be able to install on the _NTFS and to use it even.

Puppy are unique in how it allow root access to files that the others set as read only due to one boot on the same partition as the menu.lst is on so they don't allow one can change it from within AFAIK

Which other small Linux distro allow that?

_________________
I use Google Search on Puppy Forum
not an ideal solution though
Back to top
View user's profile Send_private_message 
Bernie_by_the_Sea


Joined: 09 Feb 2011
Posts: 329

PostPosted: Fri 06 May 2011, 17:11    Post_subject:  

nooby wrote:
Sure they have sudo and su? but do they really have root the way Puppy have?
And compare Puppy with other distros. How many of them do frugal install on NTFS and allow one to edit the menu.lst? I spent hours yesterday on getting sombody to tell me how I could edit the menu.lst on the NTFS HDD and then save it. Tested on four different Linux OS and none of them did allow me. TinyCore don't even encourage one to install the ntfs-3g tcz to be able to install on the _NTFS and to use it even.

Puppy are unique in how it allow root access to files that the others set as read only due to one boot on the same partition as the menu.lst is on so they don't allow one can change it from within AFAIK

Which other small Linux distro allow that?

Almost every version of Linux is set up with an option to run as root or as a user. Every time I boot up Mepis or PCLOS I am asked to choose to run as root or as a specific user before I can even get to a desktop. This root is the same as Puppy's root.

Frugal install is a very bad idea for almost every Linux distro. It is rightfully discouraged. A frugal makes some sense only in the case of (1) a relatively small OS that can fit in RAM and most importantly (2) enough RAM in the machine so that the distro isn’t forced to use swap space. Even then there may be problems with persistence. I would estimate that Ubuntu would need at least 10GB and possibly as much as 40GB RAM to work best as a frugal install. A frugal install originally called a “poor man’s install” is a last resort to allow using a distro on a machine with limited resources, either RAM or drive space.

My menu.lst is on an ntfs partition and I have no trouble editing it and saving it in any distro I use -- Puppy, Mepis, DSL, PCLOS or Knoppix. I haven’t seen any files on any distro I’ve used that block root access. I doubt that can be done successfully. Root can always reach a file one way or the other.

What does Tiny Core have to do with the difference between Ubuntu and Puppy? Tiny Core is less than half the size of Puppy so it needs additions to bring it up to the level of Puppy. It is even more for hobbyist experimenters than Puppy.
Back to top
View user's profile Send_private_message 
nooby

Joined: 29 Jun 2008
Posts: 10557
Location: SwedenEurope

PostPosted: Fri 06 May 2011, 17:50    Post_subject:  

Bernie I have either failed to express myself logically correct or the Developer of AntiX and Archiso and other linux distros know less than you do.

Even of one are root it is by design not possible to edit the menu.lst if it reside on the same partition as the subdirectory as one boot up in frugal install using a live CD iso.

If you can do it then please teach it to us that fail doing it. That would be of much help really. I go to bed now very late here. soon past midnight. 11.50 PM

_________________
I use Google Search on Puppy Forum
not an ideal solution though
Back to top
View user's profile Send_private_message 
Bernie_by_the_Sea


Joined: 09 Feb 2011
Posts: 329

PostPosted: Fri 06 May 2011, 21:34    Post_subject:  

nooby wrote:
Bernie I have either failed to express myself logically correct or the Developer of AntiX and Archiso and other linux distros know less than you do.

These are not the only possibilities. Smile

nooby wrote:
Even of one are root it is by design not possible to edit the menu.lst if it reside on the same partition as the subdirectory as one boot up in frugal install using a live CD iso.

This is not logically possible.

If it is not possible to edit the menu.lst or any other file then one is not running as root.
Back to top
View user's profile Send_private_message 
8-bit


Joined: 03 Apr 2007
Posts: 3398
Location: Oregon

PostPosted: Sat 07 May 2011, 02:57    Post_subject:  

I installed an early release of ubuntu that came in a Linux-Pro magazine.
When I did, I always logged on as root, basically defeating the so called protection one would get by NOT running as root.
And I still did not have control as some apps I would try to run would ask for root's password as a condition of running.
Needless to say, I trashed that installation and installed Puppy.
And by the way, Linux-Pro magazine was my first knowledge that Puppy Linux even existed!
Back to top
View user's profile Send_private_message 
nooby

Joined: 29 Jun 2008
Posts: 10557
Location: SwedenEurope

PostPosted: Sat 07 May 2011, 03:23    Post_subject:  

Edit. I have found the post where Rcrsn51 explain how it fail to use root to edit the write protected menu.lst due to the whole partition or even the whole HDD is set to Read only regardless if one are root or not. Such setting at boot has higher authority for the OS then root has.

read here

http://www.murga-linux.com/puppy/viewtopic.php?p=518802#518802

Quote:

Is this the menu.lst file in your NTFS Windows partition that is run by grldr? It may be that Archiso is automatically mounting that partition as read-only.

If that's the case, you will have to go back to Puppy to edit the file.


Rcrsn51 would not write this way to me if that is not how Linux and any kind of OS works unless one have done like Barry has on Puppy. Barry has changed how it works so Puppy is an exception to the norm on any Unix OS.

And read here
http://antix.freeforums.org/solved-almost-cheat-code-for-frugal-install-of-8-5-t2308-15.html

Three guys knowing more about permissions and root and su and such spent hours on trying to help me and if it had been as easy as you say that would have been solved within 10 minutes or so.

I rather trust Rcrsn51 that he knows what he says.

This is the catch facts as I get it

If one boot the os the way I do and the os is a live distro that treat the HDD as if it is a CDROM then by design it is impossible to use root to change the menu.lst because the whole HDD is set up as read only.
Such boot up has a higher priority than being root. It will ignore that we are root and protect the hdd regardless of what we try to do. They built it that way.

So if you can trick it to do what you say in this thread that is great news and I would love that you share how you do it.


AFAIK that is how Unix and all their deriv... works apart from Puppy that can use another pupmode that do allow that one change things as root.

back to my older text

Bernie, it would be wonderful if you get it right.

but there are two "heavy" reasons that makes me think you read into my language something I have not said.

1. AntiCapitalistic who is the Developer of AntiX which is a kind of Simply Mepis but with a few changes and leaner he could not instruct me how to do it.

2. rcrsn51 here in puppy forum wrote in a way that I trust him on that if the script at boot set the partition that the menu.lst is on as read only then it does not help that one are root. Then that is too late.

My interpretation of his short text is that it is an hierarchical structural way programs work. What the script assign to that partition and all the files that is on it can not be altered by root ever.

so I trust that your set up is different from my set up.

The only way to be able to edit that menu.lst is to reboot and stop the boot process before the built in script assign the partition as read only and then bypass the script by jumping ahead of it's assigning and never let it set the partition as read only. Some script fail to boot up if one to this.

You being this sure of you being right can you not share exact how you set it up to work from before boot up.

1. I have an Acer D250 and the menu.lst is on sda3 which is a NTFS formatted internal HDD the primary drive.

2. My boot code is this.


title SwiftOS fail to do sda3 write but read okay
root (hd0,2)
kernel /swift/vmlinuz vga=791 fromhd=/dev/sda3 fromiso=/swift/swiftlinux-0_0_3.iso drvr=intel xres=1024x768
initrd /swift/initrd.gz


title Archiso-live
root (hd0,2)
kernel /archiso/boot/vmlinuz from=/dev/sda3/archiso rw elevator=deadline load=overlay session=xfce
initrd /archiso/boot/initrd.img


title antiX-11 frugal using iso use blkid
root (hd0,2)
kernel /antiXboot-M11/vmlinuz fromhd=UUID=C030C5AD30C5AAAC fromiso=antiX-M11.iso vga=791
initrd /antiXboot-M11/initrd.gz


title Porteus OS
rootnoverify (hd0,2)
kernel /porteusboot/vmlinuz rw
initrd /porteusboot/initrd.lz
boot

3. I have asked in Antix forum and I have asked another forum not sure where and I have asked in Puppy forum and in all three none of their equally sure answers as you being sure none of their suggestions did work. Until rcrsn51 answered me that it can not work due to the way an OS is set up at boot. it is not logically possible to get it to work unless you do as Barry Kauler did. Rewrote the whole thing to allow it.

Now your turn to do the impossible or at least to describe what it is you actually have done from set up to where things are when you do it.

_________________
I use Google Search on Puppy Forum
not an ideal solution though
Back to top
View user's profile Send_private_message 
L18L

Joined: 19 Jun 2010
Posts: 2620
Location: www.eussenheim.de/

PostPosted: Sat 07 May 2011, 08:33    Post_subject: Difference Between Puppy & Ubuntu
Sub_title: on NEW hardware
 

Big differences on
newest hardware Laughing

http://www.murga-linux.com/puppy/viewtopic.php?p=520409#520409

Why is this in Forum index » Advanced Topics » Puppy Derivatives Question Rolling Eyes
Back to top
View user's profile Send_private_message 
nooby

Joined: 29 Jun 2008
Posts: 10557
Location: SwedenEurope

PostPosted: Sat 07 May 2011, 09:26    Post_subject: Re: Difference Between Puppy & Ubuntu
Sub_title: on NEW hardware
 

L18L wrote:
Big differences on
newest hardware Laughing

http://www.murga-linux.com/puppy/viewtopic.php?p=520409#520409

Why is this in Forum index » Advanced Topics » Puppy Derivatives Question Rolling Eyes


I guess that mechmike tried to find a proper place and thought Hardware was the best choice. I would have placed it on Totally Off Topic instead Smile

_________________
I use Google Search on Puppy Forum
not an ideal solution though
Back to top
View user's profile Send_private_message 
nooby

Joined: 29 Jun 2008
Posts: 10557
Location: SwedenEurope

PostPosted: Sat 07 May 2011, 11:53    Post_subject:  

Bernie sorry I wrote such a long response above. What about this short version?

If one boot the os the way I do and the os is a live distro that treat the HDD as if it is a CDROM then by design it is impossible to use root to change the menu.lst because the whole HDD is set up as read only.
Such boot up has a higher priority than being root. It will ignore that we are root and protect the hdd regardless of what we try to do. They built it that way.

So if you can trick it to do what you say in this thread that is great news and I would love that you share how you do it.

_________________
I use Google Search on Puppy Forum
not an ideal solution though
Back to top
View user's profile Send_private_message 
Bernie_by_the_Sea


Joined: 09 Feb 2011
Posts: 329

PostPosted: Sat 07 May 2011, 12:21    Post_subject:  

nooby wrote:

If one boot the os the way I do and the os is a live distro that treat the HDD as if it is a CDROM then by design it is impossible to use root to change the menu.lst because the whole HDD is set up as read only.

This is impossible.

nooby wrote:

Such boot up has a higher priority than being root. It will ignore that we are root and protect the hdd regardless of what we try to do. They built it that way.

They, and you, may think they built it that way but in fact it is impossible to build a Linux system that way.

nooby wrote:

So if you can trick it to do what you say in this thread that is great news and I would love that you share how you do it.

Since root can do anything possible in Linux if it can't be done then root is not running -- a limited user called root is running. The "trick" is to become root. With root any drive/partition set up as read only at bootup can be changed to read and write at any time. A system booted with a read-only HD cannot prevent root from writing to that drive if it's physically possible.
Back to top
View user's profile Send_private_message 
Display_posts:   Sort by:   
Page 1 of 5 Posts_count   Goto page: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 Next
Post_new_topic   Reply_to_topic View_previous_topic :: View_next_topic
 Forum index » Advanced Topics » Puppy Derivatives
Jump to:  

Rules_post_cannot
Rules_reply_cannot
Rules_edit_cannot
Rules_delete_cannot
Rules_vote_cannot
You cannot attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
[ Time: 0.1303s ][ Queries: 13 (0.0081s) ][ GZIP on ]