Puppy 5.3

[jonyo]

puppyhood needs to decide it it's time to get serious as a group or whoever might chose to, another rootfest is not for me

you can't beat numbers and no doubt there are some here who are organized to some extent

and i might add i have not responded to either pm

via pm or any other way other than here

making waves here is the way it goes or has gone and how things get done

only problem with that is distrowatch and users are the real deal

outside of here

and there is no pulling the wool over there

then, it IS show me the goods and it better work

iow showtime

[RetroTechGuy]

BTW, I run fsck as a default option on all of my machines... My early experience with Puppy was several rounds of lost pupsaves, before I tested it, going back to 4.12 or there-abouts, and observed that I was not getting a clean shutdown in any of the versions. This behavior eventually corrupted the filesystem to a point of unusable.

a behavior that I have read about and would call inexcusable, as i understand from a normal shutdown(s) scenario

Yes, clearly there was some sort of bug in the shutdown script. I fought with it for quite a while under 4.3.1 (and tracked it back to earlier versions). I was running a pupsave, and live booting from CD (no grub or Lin'N'Win needed). Ultimately I remastered the CD to automagically perform this check.

I should note that I have not seen that behavior at all in Lupu 5.20. However, I still "fsck" on every boot. It takes so little time as to barely be noticeable (unless the filesystem is corrupt, and then you want it to occur).

But upon further thought about the "always fsck on bootup" -- I think this is a trivially good idea.

The boot CD now becomes the boot-repair CD, without learning about "switches".

A newbie can run a pupsave, while booting from the CD, with safety.

And upon real install (e.g. frugal), it is trivial for an minimally experienced user to delete the "pfix=fsck" from the menu.lst, if the user wants to disable it... And almost all experienced users are going to make a bootable install.

[jonyo]

i moved on after ~ the 3x series and glanced at the 4x bs that was probably inevitable

just about everything i've learned though has come from here

from scratch, an unforgettable, rewarding and educational experience

from a former win refuge

[puppyluvr]

Hello,
@jonyo,
I sent you a PM in responce to 01Micko and his goals for his Puppy release..
as the thread had been abruptly locked, and I wished to answer.....
Answer, as in the PM..

one word...
Slackware...

@Puppyite,
If a friendly PM is to be seen as attempted coercion, I apologize and will refrain in the future... Since you have expressed a desire to see the Lupu connection continue, I thought the information relevant...My bad I guess..

Sorry folks, I am Puppyluvr...gotta be me....

[jonyo]

i expect many more will chime in to sort it all out one way or another

i was leaning to ubuntu but it sounds like a mess

[puppyluvr]

Hello,
jonyo,
I gotta quote you "out of context"

i was leaning to ubuntu but it sounds like a mess

I said the same thing at Lupus beginning, and part of the dilemma is size...
Lib wise, you wanna be 100% compatible OOTB, you cant be Puppy...
You gotta be big ass bloated Ubuntu...
But Puppy has solutions, which Teach...
I reflect your earlier statement...
I knew nada, zip, zilch, when I got "here"...
Not Puppy....This Forum....
In 4 years Ive learned more than I learned in $soft land, and Im sorry, but other distros, for the most part are "learn how to use xxx" instead of "this is how to use xxx"...
So it needs a bit of tweaking some times...
I went to Linux, because I want to tell my computer what to do..
Not it telling me what I can do....
So using Puppy might require learning a few things if you want beyond OOTB performance...Doesnt that apply to any "light" distro...
And come on, other than the "business card" distros, Puppy is really small...
The more people that learn a bit of Linux...the better...
Linux is the future...learning a bit along the way might be a part of Puppy`s mission..
A "light distro" isnt supposed to be "everything and the Out house sink" OOBT....
Default Puppy does more, for less, than any other O.S. period...
And by the time you get it "customized beyond belief" you will know a little why along with the how....

How many Linux Developers has Puppy created.......

[erderfin]

Min spec P3 600 with 256 RAM ??

Too much for me, bye update Puppy

regards

[RetroTechGuy]

Min spec P3 600 with 256 RAM ??

Too much for me, bye update Puppy

regards

I'm curious, what are you running now? (hardware, and version)

[PaulBx1]

I'm coming to this thread late, and I haven't read all 18 pages of it either (mea culpa). Just wanted to get my druthers out there.

Most secure Puppy ever.
The firewall on by default
Browser run as spot (non root running)
Security dialogue on first booting, including unmounting, benefits of encryption, use of passwords, education rather than FUD, Running from DVD benefits etc.

If we really want to be serious about security, cryptoloop has got to go. We should be encrypting pupsaves with dm-crypt (maybe accessed through cryptmount). I mean, come on guys, cryptoloop was already deprecated when we first started using it! About time to give it a decent burial.

Another problem with cryptoloop is that we have to keep telling users not to have a swap volume. That is just lame. Who knows how many miss that message and have their passphrases sitting in swap in cleartext...

We need to build encrypted pupsaves and any other encrypted volumes using /dev/urandom, not /dev/zero as currently.

Oh, and we need to make "pfix=fsck" work for encrypted pupsaves too.

Might be nice to make a noob-friendly script that creates other encrypted volumes for personal files. All volumes should be mounted at boot using a single password, not one for each volume.

Should have a facility for md5sum checking the unencrypted boot files (e.g. the Puppy sfs) after boot to ensure it has not been covertly modified by adding malware, such as a keylogger.

Also, outside of security, I think we should move in the direction of standard linux structures and configuration files (as standard as it gets anyway). I don't mind having user-friendly scripts to modify those structures, but people should be able to edit them directly if they prefer doing it that way. One obvious advantage of this approach is that if the script is broken, you can still manually get things going. Maybe use Arch Linux as a model for these structures.

Oh, and I like Seamonkey and JWM, at least as options or pets. I like the 525 approach of not having a main browser until one is selected though. I always have liked the zdrv approach. Slackware, Ununtu, Debian, Arch, I don't care, as long as it has a nice, big, well-tested repository.

If it is not to late to suggest, why not leave all of 5.x as Ubuntu based. This will leave room in the numbering for updates.
Make Slack base 6 series.
After all if I remember right, 3.x was Slack, 4.x was T2, 5.x is Ubuntu.

Makes sense to me. I doubt 526 is the last thing we will see of Ubuntu around here. You are making it impossible for them to move to their own 5.3 release. That means you are restricting them to only bug fix releases from now on.

As to the suggestion of adding "spup" or "upup" to the designation, I don't like it. Why the added complication? It's not like we are going to run out of numbers any time soon. The precedent established by Barry is a major number change for a different base. Let's continue that. The designation of what we are working on should be "Puppy", not "spup". Can you imagine the confusion it would cause, adding this extra non-numeric designation to Puppy? What would distrowatch do with it?

However, I reserve the right to change my mind about that.

Well Lucid development can take up the entire 5.2.0 to 5.2.9999999999 range.

Um, maybe not. There seem to be places in the code that use things such as "525" (not 5.2.5), and may depend on 3 digits being there (and keep in mind the upgrade facility can't now handle distinctions like spup and upup - or can it?). Anyway everything from 5.2.1 to 5.2.9999999999 would just be bug fixes of 5.2.0 (theoretically anyway, although this is violated routinely). No more major revisions allowed for the Ubuntu Puppy...

Actually I now realize that I don't care.

[Lobster]

Mick (main developer) has informed me that naming and numbering is a minor issue
So currently Puppy 5.3 is to soon have a 3rd alpha release
We had three pre alpha releases (very early) - currently the naming is under the name of the kernel and Spup (Slackware base) and slacko (on the iso)
I am running 5.3 day to day
http://www.murga-linux.com/puppy/viewto ... 871#542871

Some of the issues you raise have to come after we have
the basics and are very dependent on the main developer
and the support 01micko gets.

By all means help in the testing, updating of the wiki
You will find more info on ways to participate here:
http://puppylinux.org/wikka/NoobHelp

[johnywhy]

I would still like to stay with JWM but some have grown fond of openbox/fbpanel. Should we have both?

Hi

As a dumb user, one of my sources of confusion with Lucid is that it offers two front-ends. At least i think it does. I mean, there's jwm, and xorg, and xvesa, um, and X, and OpenBox... ok, see, Lucid confuses me on this issue. This has to do with what I see during the boot process and in the menus. Please don't confuse me with 5.3!

([edit] Now i think i get that there are two window managers, jwm and OpenBox. They run on top of the X11 windowing system (aka X), which in turn runs on top of either xorg or xvesa. No, that's wrong. xorg and xvesa are two different implementations of X11. I think. But to be honest, i don't want to know. I'm just a dumb user. )

I don't care how many kinds of an app that you put in the OS, as long as the alternate apps are hidden from daily usage, and don't consume disk space. If your goal is to be smaller than Lucid (which i applaud, Lucid is too big for my taste), then I'd just as soon YOU pick the best front-end, don't include the other one.

If possible, maybe you could allow users to switch their front-end by downloading it, and auto-delete the old one to save space?

Please put me on your beta testing team, if possible