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 Fri 24 Oct 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 2 of 5 Posts_count   Goto page: Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 Next
Author Message
nooby

Joined: 29 Jun 2008
Posts: 10557
Location: SwedenEurope

PostPosted: Sat 07 May 2011, 12:43    Post_subject:  

Did I not made a copy that I actually was in root and it still told me that that partition or whole HDD was set as read only.

Still can you not describe what you actually do so one can learn to do the same.

And remember three Linux users that know how to use linux was as sure as you are now and them totally failed too to get the menu.lst getting accessable for saving and last but not least. Why would Rcrsn51 say that this is how it works if he doesn't know that from deep insight in linux.

I trust that what you refer to is something else. Maybe full install or you have frugal install on one partition and the menu.lst on another partition?

Something has to be different between the way it is set up at my place and how it is set up at your place or the structure or sequence we do the thing. So why not describe it.

The evidence or proof is in the taste of the pie. Referring to a recipe and not actually describing how you apply it don't make me trust we have the same thing set up.

I've done my best to describe my set up. What you have accomplished is a kind of miracle or astonishing achievement that can help many people so I would love that you share your knowledge and not keep it hidden.

_________________
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, 15:44    Post_subject:  

nooby wrote:
Did I not made a copy that I actually was in root and it still told me that that partition or whole HDD was set as read only.

Still can you not describe what you actually do so one can learn to do the same.

I "described" what I would actually do -- "would" since I've never found myself in that odd situation -- I would switch to running as root.

nooby wrote:
And remember three Linux users that know how to use linux was as sure as you are now and them totally failed too to get the menu.lst getting accessable for saving and last but not least. Why would Rcrsn51 say that this is how it works if he doesn't know that from deep insight in linux.

I didn't look at what Rcrsn51 wrote until now:

Rcrsn51 wrote:
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.

Automatically mounting a partition as read-only does not mean that it cannot be unmounted, mounted as read/write or deleted by root. Going back to Puppy is a workaround and does not correct the read-only mounting.

nooby wrote:

I trust that what you refer to is something else. Maybe full install or you have frugal install on one partition and the menu.lst on another partition?

Something has to be different between the way it is set up at my place and how it is set up at your place or the structure or sequence we do the thing. So why not describe it.

THERE IS NOTHING TO DESCRIBE. NOTHING. The type of install doesn't matter. The partition doesn't matter. Where files are doesn't matter. The sequence doesn't matter. The structure doesn't matter.

nooby wrote:

The evidence or proof is in the taste of the pie. Referring to a recipe and not actually describing how you apply it don't make me trust we have the same thing set up.

This has NOTHING to do with any setup. It has nothing to do with "applying" anything. It has to do with one and only one thing, running as root.

nooby wrote:

I've done my best to describe my set up. What you have accomplished is a kind of miracle or astonishing achievement that can help many people so I would love that you share your knowledge and not keep it hidden.

The evidence or proof is in the taste of the pie. Referring to a recipe and not actually describing how you apply it don't make me trust we have the same thing set up.

This has NOTHING to do with any setup. This has NOTHING to do with any "accomplishment" of mine. This has to do with the nature of Linux, what Linux is and what root is.

FYI, I am a capitalist, not a socialist. I have no interest in helping others outside of my own personal whim. I have no desire to "share" my knowledge. My knowledge is FOR SALE, not to give away. It is exactly this attitude and this sort of talk that bothers me on open source forums. It's one thing for a tinkerer to trade ideas or methods but it's another with constant demands for welfare handouts. Do you know why Microsoft has 85% of the OS market and why Linux has less than 2%? Do you know that one costs money while the other is free? The iPhone OS is already beating all versions of Linux combined... but then it's commercial, not amateur.
Usage share of operating systems.jpeg
 Description   
 Filesize   15.42 KB
 Viewed   978 Time(s)

Usage share of operating systems.jpeg

Back to top
View user's profile Send_private_message 
nooby

Joined: 29 Jun 2008
Posts: 10557
Location: SwedenEurope

PostPosted: Sat 07 May 2011, 16:00    Post_subject:  

So you would do it but have never done it? No wonder that you are so sure it works then.

I was root at that moment. The Terminal confirmed me was root. Still I was not allowed to change that permission to change menu.lst to read and write.

Talk is easy. Show me that you can do it with the same set up I have that is what counts!

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


Joined: 23 Jul 2009
Posts: 758
Location: U.S., Midwest, Central Time Zone, GMT-6

PostPosted: Sat 07 May 2011, 16:41    Post_subject:  

nooby
Looks like you cause problems in every thread you post in.

_________________
Learn more about Puppy Linux: Puppy Linux FAQ
Protect your privacy: Scroogle.org - Ixquick
Back to top
View user's profile Send_private_message Visit_website 
Bernie_by_the_Sea


Joined: 09 Feb 2011
Posts: 329

PostPosted: Sat 07 May 2011, 17:11    Post_subject:  

nooby wrote:

I was root at that moment. The Terminal confirmed me was root. Still I was not allowed to change that permission to change menu.lst to read and write.

Talk is easy. Show me that you can do it with the same set up I have that is what counts!

You were NOT root. What the terminal confirmed is that you were running as someone named root but you were actually running as a limited user. How can you confirm that you are root? Simple. Just change the menu.lst permission to read and write. Can't do it? Then you have confirmed that you are not root. What counts is that if a person wants root privileges he must actually run as root and not as a limited user called root. What you have to do in your setup is figure out how to run as root and then you can change file permissions.
Back to top
View user's profile Send_private_message 
Eyes-Only


Joined: 10 Aug 2006
Posts: 1046
Location: La Confederation Abenaquaise

PostPosted: Sat 07 May 2011, 17:17    Post_subject:  

[ - comment deleted - but eyes kept on a "certain individual" Mad ]
_________________
*~*~*~*~*~*
Proud user of LXpup and 3-Headed Dog. Cool
*~*~*~*~*~*
Back to top
View user's profile Send_private_message 
nooby

Joined: 29 Jun 2008
Posts: 10557
Location: SwedenEurope

PostPosted: Sat 07 May 2011, 17:33    Post_subject:  

oops I am watched by one Big Cat and one Big Doggie.

So the Terminal only name that user root. But as I remember it did change the $ sign to the Hash # sign indicating me was in root really!


But then why would Rcrsn51 confirm that what I tried to do is impossible by design of how linux works or maybe how the hardware works. Taht is the impression I got.

Rcrsn51 would not lie to me to bluff about such a thing. And he knows very much about how puppy and other OS works. I have followed his comments now for many years and he is usually always right in what he says.

Bernie what I can think you are right about is if one stop the boot and go into prompt and tell the OS that one want to boot and log in as root then maybe it will not set the menu.lst as read only but to give permissions to write to it.

But not even the Dev of AntiX suggested I should do such thing and is that even possible in the three or four OS that I did test it on?

You only want to show me that you can do it with an identical set up as I have if I pay you? Was that correct way of reading your text? Smile


You tell me now what you would have done if you where in my situation.
Have I read you right there?

When I read you first time I thought you wrote that you have done recently enough to remember how you did it or that you can do it now using same set up as I have.

How do you know that that is so if you never have done the same set up? Theory is one thing and practice can be a totally other thing.


I go to bed now so the reason I don't answer is that I am sleeping and dreaming of being chased by Big Cats and Dogs 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, 17:39    Post_subject:  

puppyite wrote:
nooby
Looks like you cause problems in every thread you post in.


Yes that is very true. But we talk about how hardware and software work together and them don't care about how annoying I am and I did follow advice of people that don't cause problem so the software should have behaved as they are used to unless I failed to follow their advice that is.

_________________
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, 21:14    Post_subject:  

nooby wrote:

So the Terminal only name that user root. But as I remember it did change the $ sign to the Hash # sign indicating me was in root really!

No, that indicates NOTHING. Each user can have his own sign.

nooby wrote:

Bernie what I can think you are right about is if one stop the boot and go into prompt and tell the OS that one want to boot and log in as root then maybe it will not set the menu.lst as read only but to give permissions to write to it.

But not even the Dev of AntiX suggested I should do such thing and is that even possible in the three or four OS that I did test it on?

It may not be possible to log in as root that way.

nooby wrote:

You only want to show me that you can do it with an identical set up as I have if I pay you? Was that correct way of reading your text? Smile

That's one way. My fee is $2,000 for the first day's work plus $500 for each additional day. If I don't have a solution in ten days, I will refund half your money. The bank commissioner in Nigeria, Mr. Barrister Thomas, will accept my fee and send you a receipt. Smile

nooby wrote:

When I read you first time I thought you wrote that you have done recently enough to remember how you did it or that you can do it now using same set up as I have.

How do you know that that is so if you never have done the same set up? Theory is one thing and practice can be a totally other thing.

What I said was:

Quote:
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.

Let's get a bit more specific about your system. You said Archiso. Which version are you using?

Also you might state exactly how this is related to the topic (Puppy and Ubantu difference).
Back to top
View user's profile Send_private_message 
sheepy


Joined: 06 May 2011
Posts: 235
Location: GA

PostPosted: Sat 07 May 2011, 22:22    Post_subject: Re: Difference Between Puppy & Ubuntu
Sub_title: Please Tell me what you Think about our Great Puppy
 

Bernie_by_the_Sea wrote:
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


Uhhh. No.

Believe it or not, I actually use Ubuntu as my main distro. And, no, it is most definitely not for people who want a "winbloze look-alike." honestly, I think that's really ignorant. If you know what you're doing, you can make it look/feel any possible way you want. Want to know how I use Ubuntu? I have no panel, desktop-manager, or anything of the sort. I do everything through terminal and gmrun. How can you say that Ubuntu was meant for newer hardawre and such? You can change everything in Ubuntu the same way you can with Puppy. In fact, I'm thinking about editing the Ubuntu iso and changing the window manager, file manager, desktop-drawer, everything, and making a completely minimalistic derivative, with the glory of Ubuntu's vast selection of repositories and packages.

Insulting Ubuntu is like insulting Debian, which is one of the first distributions in Linux. Puppy was made around 10 years after Debian.
Back to top
View user's profile Send_private_message Visit_website 
Bernie_by_the_Sea


Joined: 09 Feb 2011
Posts: 329

PostPosted: Sat 07 May 2011, 23:57    Post_subject:  

sheepy wrote:

Insulting Ubuntu is like insulting Debian, which is one of the first distributions in Linux. Puppy was made around 10 years after Debian.

Not exactly. I used Debian on and off for six years. I used Ubuntu about three hours. That's how I think those two compare. Now I've used Puppy about three months and it's become my everyday workhorse. I go to XP or Knoppix only when I need to do certain things quickly.

Nowadays Ubuntu is almost universally recommended by Linux reviewers as the best distro for newcomers to Linux and for "Windows refugees." I think that's wrong but that's how it is.

sheepy wrote:
You can change everything in Ubuntu the same way you can with Puppy.

This is true of about every Linux distro. So?

Being a newcomer to this forum you might not realize that I'm really not a fan of Puppy. I like using it myself but I would never recommend it to anyone else. On the extremely rare occasions when I have suggested a Linux distro, either for Linux beginners or old hands, I named only Knoppix -- which by the way -- is a just a junior Debian. I also use Mepis and DSL that are Debian-based. I know Debian which makes its derivatives easier for me to use productively right off the bat.

There is no right or wrong distro but there are right and wrong fits for both users and hardware. Some go together smoothly but some don't. Ubuntu generally goes well with Linux newcomers and current hardware while Puppy usually goes well with either hobbyist tinkerers or those who have ancient hardware.

_________________
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 
nooby

Joined: 29 Jun 2008
Posts: 10557
Location: SwedenEurope

PostPosted: Sun 08 May 2011, 06:58    Post_subject:  

Hi Bernie, sorry long delay. My Sleep Apnea made me sleep some 10 hour or so. Not good at all. You can come to my funeral if it goes on for longer Smile

Now back to hardware and software and first things first.

Difference Between Puppy & Ubuntu

Puppy is different in the way it allowed me who is an Ms Windows and Ubuntu refugee to find a Linux environ that allowed me to get something going on my 4 computers.

So the biggest difference I as a complete??? newbie found to be different was that Puppy was root. Ubuntu had Sudo which I never learn to get used to. Puppy allowed me to do things that Ubuntu failed to allow me. Puppy was fast when I used the DVD and it saved on the DVD that I used a Swedish keyboard with åäö and such crazy letters. Ubuntu did not save that on the DVD. I started with Ubuntu 6.04 and Puppy 4.0

Back to my set up. First thanks for looking up what you actually said that got me going.

Quote:

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.


I should have read that with more curious eyes. I think the reason we are so disagreeing lies there in that text.

Your menu.lst is on the ntfs but we have to establish where is the OS that you boot up on? The same ntfs partition or another linux partition like ext2 or ext3 or Reiferts or something else?

My current computer is an OEM version of Acer D250 and that means it is loaded with Ads programs that are only for test 30 days or so and bloated with that extra software so they have made three partitions on it. Acer has one ntfs partition (hd0,0) Recovery has one (hd0,1) and Ms win7 has the one (hd0,2) that I have everything linux on. inclusively the menulist and gldr.

Sure I could move both menu.lst and gldr to (hd0,1) then most likely I could do as you would be able to do if I pay you Smile

So my menu.lst looks like this


title Wary-511-fido Puppy Linux
rootnoverify (hd0,2)
kernel /wary-511-fido/vmlinuz pmedia=scsihd pdev=sda3 pusubdir=wary-511-fido puppy nosmp pfix=fsck
initrd /wary-511-fido/initrd.gz


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 by Godane
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=xxxxxxxx fromiso=antiX-M11.iso vga=791
initrd /antiXboot-M11/initrd.gz

Archiso is this one by Godane
http://godane.wordpress.com/2011/01/05/archiso-live-20110104-release/

Maybe the one I used is the older one so I will test the new one later.
I tested both AntiX 8.5 and 11 newest version.

Swift is really AntiX8.5 with a different way to make it look and behave but plain AntiX beneath that outer appearnce.

I tested a few others too but have now forgotten them. Chakra, PureOS, Lubuntu, what could I have forgotten. I add them later Smile

So everthing is on NTFS HDD with menu.lst and gldr and iso and files and all of it on same and I trust rcrsn51 when he say that if one set it up like that then it is impossible to use a live iso because by design them are made to treat the boot medium in this case (hd0,2) AKA sda3 as the CDROM and thus only readable and that is not something that Root can change due to how things work in Linux one would need to rewrite the script that do the boot set up.

One actually see that at boot if one have a chance to read what it says it does at boot. I don't remember exact words but it does say it set the boot medium or hdd as read only and that as I get it has higher authority than root has later.

You are most likely right that it is too late to when one boot and tell it too boot as root. It has already set the (hd0,2) sda3 as only readable then in the sequence of priorities it goes through.

So I fail to get why you are so sure of yourself.

I will test it using Knoppix Adriane maybe that one are like puppy an exception to the norm too. Slitaz as I remember did not even allow me to ever see the (hd0,2) at all. But maybe I have to give it another try now when I know how sure you are that everything is possible if one are the dreaded root guy.

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

Joined: 14 Jan 2007
Posts: 186

PostPosted: Sun 08 May 2011, 08:26    Post_subject:  

Differences between Puppy and Ubuntu from a layperson's viewpoint:

1) Can install Puppy in many different ways in almost any storage device one's PC's BIOS can boot from. Try installing Ubuntu on a 1GB USB drive.
2) It's so easy to remaster Puppy. I created a puppy remaster based on Macpup51 which was specifically designed to fix other computers (antivirus, disk wipe, data recovery, partition management, etc.). And it fits to a 1 GB USB drive or a CD. I'm currently making a new remaster based on Macpup52. I wonder if I can do this easily on Ubuntu.
3) Ubuntu's updates can sometimes break your OS. When I updated Ubuntu 10.10, I ended up with an OS with no GUI, just CLI. Never will I update again.
4) It's easier to install software on Ubuntu. Sure Puppy can use Ubuntu's repository, but sometimes software installation fails. I still have Ubuntu on my home PC because I was unsuccessful in installing Openshot. Fortunately, Diaboluque and Puppy Studio (lowtech's) came along.
5) Puppy is fast. It doesn't matter if you are using an old PC or one of those latest powerful beasts. Puppy leaves Ubuntu in the dust, every time.
6) For someone new to Linux, Ubuntu is easier to handle. I was ushered into the Linux world by Ubuntu. As I gained more knowledge, I strayed into the Puppy kennel and fell in love with this distro. Puppy is easy for me to use because I learned so much from my Ubuntu experience.
Back to top
View user's profile Send_private_message 
sheepy


Joined: 06 May 2011
Posts: 235
Location: GA

PostPosted: Sun 08 May 2011, 10:12    Post_subject:  

Bernie_by_the_Sea wrote:
sheepy wrote:

Insulting Ubuntu is like insulting Debian, which is one of the first distributions in Linux. Puppy was made around 10 years after Debian.

Not exactly. I used Debian on and off for six years. I used Ubuntu about three hours. That's how I think those two compare. Now I've used Puppy about three months and it's become my everyday workhorse. I go to XP or Knoppix only when I need to do certain things quickly.

Nowadays Ubuntu is almost universally recommended by Linux reviewers as the best distro for newcomers to Linux and for "Windows refugees." I think that's wrong but that's how it is.

sheepy wrote:
You can change everything in Ubuntu the same way you can with Puppy.

This is true of about every Linux distro. So?

Being a newcomer to this forum you might not realize that I'm really not a fan of Puppy. I like using it myself but I would never recommend it to anyone else. On the extremely rare occasions when I have suggested a Linux distro, either for Linux beginners or old hands, I named only Knoppix -- which by the way -- is a just a junior Debian. I also use Mepis and DSL that are Debian-based. I know Debian which makes its derivatives easier for me to use productively right off the bat.

There is no right or wrong distro but there are right and wrong fits for both users and hardware. Some go together smoothly but some don't. Ubuntu generally goes well with Linux newcomers and current hardware while Puppy usually goes well with either hobbyist tinkerers or those who have ancient hardware.


Yes, but you act as though Ubuntu lacks power or something. You said it was inferior in the Linux world. It's very simple to change the environment and make it just as lightweight as Puppy. The buntu family has more compatibility than any other distro.

In my opinion, Ubuntu is for those who need to get things done that would otherwise have to be one with Windoze. Most other distros lack apps for specific tasks that not everyone would have to do. That's where Ubuntu comes in.
Back to top
View user's profile Send_private_message Visit_website 
sheepy


Joined: 06 May 2011
Posts: 235
Location: GA

PostPosted: Sun 08 May 2011, 10:12    Post_subject:  

Bernie_by_the_Sea wrote:
sheepy wrote:

Insulting Ubuntu is like insulting Debian, which is one of the first distributions in Linux. Puppy was made around 10 years after Debian.

Not exactly. I used Debian on and off for six years. I used Ubuntu about three hours. That's how I think those two compare. Now I've used Puppy about three months and it's become my everyday workhorse. I go to XP or Knoppix only when I need to do certain things quickly.

Nowadays Ubuntu is almost universally recommended by Linux reviewers as the best distro for newcomers to Linux and for "Windows refugees." I think that's wrong but that's how it is.

sheepy wrote:
You can change everything in Ubuntu the same way you can with Puppy.

This is true of about every Linux distro. So?

Being a newcomer to this forum you might not realize that I'm really not a fan of Puppy. I like using it myself but I would never recommend it to anyone else. On the extremely rare occasions when I have suggested a Linux distro, either for Linux beginners or old hands, I named only Knoppix -- which by the way -- is a just a junior Debian. I also use Mepis and DSL that are Debian-based. I know Debian which makes its derivatives easier for me to use productively right off the bat.

There is no right or wrong distro but there are right and wrong fits for both users and hardware. Some go together smoothly but some don't. Ubuntu generally goes well with Linux newcomers and current hardware while Puppy usually goes well with either hobbyist tinkerers or those who have ancient hardware.


Yes, but you act as though Ubuntu lacks power or something. You said it was inferior in the Linux world. It's very simple to change the environment and make it just as lightweight as Puppy. The buntu family has more compatibility than any other distro.

In my opinion, Ubuntu is for those who need to get things done that would otherwise have to be one with Windoze. Most other distros lack apps for specific tasks that not everyone would have to do. That's where Ubuntu comes in.
Back to top
View user's profile Send_private_message Visit_website 
Display_posts:   Sort by:   
Page 2 of 5 Posts_count   Goto page: Previous 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: 0.1638s ][ Queries: 13 (0.0154s) ][ GZIP on ]