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 Mon 20 Oct 2014, 20:57
All times are UTC - 4
 Forum index » Taking the Puppy out for a walk » Suggestions
Size Matters - Puppy needs standardization on this.
Moderators: Flash, Ian, JohnMurga
Post new topic   Reply to topic View previous topic :: View next topic
Page 2 of 3 [31 Posts]   Goto page: Previous 1, 2, 3 Next
Author Message
technosaurus


Joined: 18 May 2008
Posts: 4353

PostPosted: Thu 03 Nov 2011, 03:00    Post subject:  

sickgut wrote:
having had experience with creating other linux distros, there seems to be a some mythology surrounding the disk size of an OS and its speed.

[sarcasm]
And predators in the wild are not affected by other predators competing over limited resources.
[/sarcasm]
if you are going try to bust myths, please provide data and not FUD

full install - ever heard of seek/read/write times? it takes longer for programs to start up
frugal install - if SFS in RAM is large it can force swap when RAM usage gets high ... and if no swap file or partition exists it will fail
live cd - do I even have to say it?
Puppy runs in many forms - you have to consider them all

try to prove that compression in RAM actually makes it slower than reading from a hard disk - better get yourself a really old cpu and a really fast hard disk

Being a small distro doesn't directly make puppy use less RAM, carefully selecting packages that are both small _and_ based on minimal dependencies that use less resources does.

The number of programs running is not directly related to RAM usage
I can load 1000 programs into RAM and use less resources than 10 other programs - dependencies matter. Loading a 10kb fltk program, a 10kb Fox toolkit program a 10kb QT3 program a 10kb SDL game and a 10kb kde4 program can use more resources than 1000 instances of a 10kb gtk+ program

Using 128MB as some arbitrary line is ridiculous though, start with a base system and carefully select, add and tweak the programs that provide your desired user experience. If you need 140Mb of RAM for your main app + 32Mb for system processes and want it to run in pfix=ram on a box with 256Mb, then your limit would be 84Mb. Don't just pick a number and pray that it works, based on some random thumb rule with no basis. Which reminds me, pet packages need an extra field(s) for resource usage in the pet.specs file.

_________________
Web Programming - Pet Packaging 100 & 101
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message 
gcmartin

Joined: 14 Oct 2005
Posts: 4353
Location: Earth

PostPosted: Thu 03 Nov 2011, 05:02    Post subject:  

Thanks to all who have taken a moment to add comments. It shows what I was getting at.
keep in mind that this shows a dialogue about SIZE. Taking all accounts, to date, we get a perspective of why I started this.

There are lots of perspectives being present here. Now we begin to see when someone says "SIZE" what comes to mind.

Further, when a distro producer creates their distro, some/many distro owners have taken a moment to give a perspective on the size of the ISO. Some others go further, and take a moment to share what RAM they recommend the PC to have.

I just trying to present a picture that when any distro is presented, it would be useful when it is presented to tell us what they intend it be; from a size-wise perspective. And, it would be very effective if it followed something consistent. This way, everyone knows to look for it and everyone knows what it means.

This is why I shared, earlier, that a simple table presented with each distro, would go a long way in presenting some good useful information for the testers, and users of the distros.

I present a table, again, just to ask, what would be wrong with a table that would be our reference to size.

I ask:
  • Does a simple table inhibit the creativity of the distro owners or PET/SFS developers?
  • Can a simple table hurt anyone's effort in using what this community produces?
  • Would a simple table allow an awareness of what the product is going to be using?
I saw one reference that implies that standards stifle development??? This is not true and never was true. From an "idea", standards provide a framework...and an understanding.

So using an arbitrary example for what several have mentioned, review this table below, and offer ideas. I'm trying to reference quality measurement, quality data and simple reference to the multiple, yet differing ideas of what size is. With a table, it no longer is this "gooey" thing, its has a framework for understanding. And, it would have good reasoning that associates with it.

As one other member has pointed out, size has NOTHING to do with quality of one product versus another. NOTHING!!! So because one may be larger or smaller does not mean one is better than the other. (This to me is a comparison of one human size to another human's size. Each of them bring a contribution....which to me is the important part. I can build/set their office space to accommodate their size.).

There are lots of reasons why something as common as a table would be useful? At best, it would offer extreme clarity.
Size table for review.png
 Description   This is a Sample idea. Needs community to contribute. It an example of 1 distro showing his table. And a 2nd distro is showing its table.
 Filesize   47.42 KB
 Viewed   940 Time(s)

Size table for review.png


_________________
Get ACTIVE Create Circles; Do those good things which benefit people's needs!
We are all related ... Its time to show that we know this!
3 Different Puppy Search Engine or use DogPile
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message 
sickgut


Joined: 23 Mar 2010
Posts: 1157
Location: Tasmania, Australia in the mountains.

PostPosted: Thu 03 Nov 2011, 20:12    Post subject:  

technosaurus wrote:
sickgut wrote:
having had experience with creating other linux distros, there seems to be a some mythology surrounding the disk size of an OS and its speed.

[sarcasm]
And predators in the wild are not affected by other predators competing over limited resources.
[/sarcasm]
if you are going try to bust myths, please provide data and not FUD

full install - ever heard of seek/read/write times? it takes longer for programs to start up
frugal install - if SFS in RAM is large it can force swap when RAM usage gets high ... and if no swap file or partition exists it will fail
live cd - do I even have to say it?
Puppy runs in many forms - you have to consider them all

try to prove that compression in RAM actually makes it slower than reading from a hard disk - better get yourself a really old cpu and a really fast hard disk

Being a small distro doesn't directly make puppy use less RAM, carefully selecting packages that are both small _and_ based on minimal dependencies that use less resources does.

The number of programs running is not directly related to RAM usage
I can load 1000 programs into RAM and use less resources than 10 other programs - dependencies matter. Loading a 10kb fltk program, a 10kb Fox toolkit program a 10kb QT3 program a 10kb SDL game and a 10kb kde4 program can use more resources than 1000 instances of a 10kb gtk+ program

Using 128MB as some arbitrary line is ridiculous though, start with a base system and carefully select, add and tweak the programs that provide your desired user experience. If you need 140Mb of RAM for your main app + 32Mb for system processes and want it to run in pfix=ram on a box with 256Mb, then your limit would be 84Mb. Don't just pick a number and pray that it works, based on some random thumb rule with no basis. Which reminds me, pet packages need an extra field(s) for resource usage in the pet.specs file.


i refered to everything BUT copy to ram. There is no comparison between running in ram or not, just running from disk. if you ready my post more carefully you will see this.

you also speak in a very general manner, while asking that i supply specs. Do you see how pointless it is when you start on that circle... if you are trying to debunk my myth then, how about providing evidence about what you posted regarding your 1000 instances in RAM, instead of just providing FUD?

all im getting at is it doesnt matter how physically large puppy is on a disk.. it has nothing to do with ram usage or other speed related performance issues. A normal unmodified bloated debian live setup with a 3gb live DVD will actually boot and run with no swap with 64mb of ram. Puppy needs 128mb to run live cdrom yet its only a 100mb or so .iso ... size here has no effect on ram usage in puppy or any other linux.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website 
technosaurus


Joined: 18 May 2008
Posts: 4353

PostPosted: Thu 03 Nov 2011, 23:09    Post subject:  

sickgut wrote:
all im getting at is it doesnt matter how physically large puppy is on a disk.. it has nothing to do with ram usage or other speed related performance issues. A normal unmodified bloated debian live setup with a 3gb live DVD will actually boot and run with no swap with 64mb of ram. Puppy needs 128mb to run live cdrom yet its only a 100mb or so .iso ... size here has no effect on ram usage in puppy or any other linux.
yes it does, you are trying to oversimplify it. The table really needs to have different requirements for each pupmode... the requirements for each varies and some _do_ depend on size. Sure if puppy wasn't puppy then you'd be 100% correct, but fortunately it is.
_________________
Web Programming - Pet Packaging 100 & 101
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message 
Master_wrong

Joined: 19 Mar 2008
Posts: 456

PostPosted: Fri 04 Nov 2011, 00:41    Post subject:  

@gcmartin

Quote:

As one other member has pointed out, size has NOTHING to do with quality of one product versus another. NOTHING!!! So because one may be larger or smaller does not mean one is better than the other. (This to me is a comparison of one human size to another human's size. Each of them bring a contribution....which to me is the important part. I can build/set their office space to accommodate their size.).


the iso is not the problem, the problem is wether you use savefile or not ?
if you use save file... then ram is no problem, if you dont then you need more ram to copy iso into ram.


Quote:
A normal unmodified bloated debian live setup with a 3gb live DVD will actually boot and run with no swap with 64mb of ram. Puppy needs 128mb to run live cdrom yet its only a 100mb or so .iso


i say... good luck using that dvd drive for that debian, because you cant just eject the dvd...
puppy need the ram so can use the dvd drive.

_________________
Cluster-Pup v.2-Puppy Beowulf Cluster
http://www.murga-linux.com/puppy/viewtopic.php?p=499199#499199
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message 
sickgut


Joined: 23 Mar 2010
Posts: 1157
Location: Tasmania, Australia in the mountains.

PostPosted: Fri 04 Nov 2011, 02:44    Post subject:  

Master_wrong wrote:
@gcmartin

Quote:

As one other member has pointed out, size has NOTHING to do with quality of one product versus another. NOTHING!!! So because one may be larger or smaller does not mean one is better than the other. (This to me is a comparison of one human size to another human's size. Each of them bring a contribution....which to me is the important part. I can build/set their office space to accommodate their size.).


the iso is not the problem, the problem is wether you use savefile or not ?
if you use save file... then ram is no problem, if you dont then you need more ram to copy iso into ram.


Quote:
A normal unmodified bloated debian live setup with a 3gb live DVD will actually boot and run with no swap with 64mb of ram. Puppy needs 128mb to run live cdrom yet its only a 100mb or so .iso


i say... good luck using that dvd drive for that debian, because you cant just eject the dvd...
puppy need the ram so can use the dvd drive.


debian live works the same as puppy in that respect you can copy to ram and then use the drive.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website 
Master_wrong

Joined: 19 Mar 2008
Posts: 456

PostPosted: Fri 04 Nov 2011, 03:53    Post subject:  

Quote:
debian live works the same as puppy in that respect you can copy to ram and then use the drive.


sure... unless the debian live iso is 1 G, which will need more than 1 G ram.
[ ] debian-live-6.0.3-i386-gnome-desktop.iso 14-Oct-2011 12:29 1.1G

or the smallest i see is 276M
[ ] debian-live-6.0.3-i386-standard.iso 14-Oct-2011 10:14 276M

from
http://cdimage.debian.org/cdimage/release/current-live/i386/iso-hybrid/

so is it correct ? or am i wrong ?

_________________
Cluster-Pup v.2-Puppy Beowulf Cluster
http://www.murga-linux.com/puppy/viewtopic.php?p=499199#499199
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message 
sickgut


Joined: 23 Mar 2010
Posts: 1157
Location: Tasmania, Australia in the mountains.

PostPosted: Fri 04 Nov 2011, 09:01    Post subject:  

Master_wrong wrote:
Quote:
debian live works the same as puppy in that respect you can copy to ram and then use the drive.


sure... unless the debian live iso is 1 G, which will need more than 1 G ram.
[ ] debian-live-6.0.3-i386-gnome-desktop.iso 14-Oct-2011 12:29 1.1G

or the smallest i see is 276M
[ ] debian-live-6.0.3-i386-standard.iso 14-Oct-2011 10:14 276M

from
http://cdimage.debian.org/cdimage/release/current-live/i386/iso-hybrid/

so is it correct ? or am i wrong ?


http://www.pussypussypussy.info/linux/pussy-beta-preview-server.iso

98mb, but if you remove the server.squashfs file your left with a 67mb OS

debian-live can be as small as Puppy, uses less ram too, as you can run a debian-live based live-cdrom with 64mb ram and no swap, puppy wont boot and run it with less than 128mb with no swap

also with puppy you have to download the other half of the OS when you set it up, the xorg_high 20mb, the browser 20MB, thats 40% right there...and it doesnt have even almost any needed dependencies that most programs require to be able to run on Puppy. After you have your SDL qt3, qt4, gtk2 etc etc etc it all adds up. There are pleanty of OSes out there that are 300mb or so, this is what size Puppy ends up being once you have installed a few programs and have achieved the same basic functionality as other distros.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website 
Master_wrong

Joined: 19 Mar 2008
Posts: 456

PostPosted: Fri 04 Nov 2011, 14:05    Post subject:  

Quote:

http://www.pussypussypussy.info/linux/pussy-beta-preview-server.iso

98mb, but if you remove the server.squashfs file your left with a 67mb OS


67m ?
so whats in it, do i have to install anything then... SDL qt3, qt4, gtk2 etc etc etc?

Quote:
debian-live can be as small as Puppy, uses less ram too, as you can run a debian-live based live-cdrom with 64mb ram and no swap, puppy wont boot and run it with less than 128mb with no swap


unless you boot puppy with savefile... have you try it ? i havent try it myself but i believe puppy will need lower ram usage if using savefile and .sfs.

Quote:
There are pleanty of OSes out there that are 300mb or so, this is what size Puppy ends up being once you have installed a few programs and have achieved the same basic functionality as other distros.


I agree, but i rather have many different purposely built puppy OS than 1 big OS which will give headache when you upgrade 1 program and turn out create conflicting library.

as I myself has create 3...
1. Puppy for capturing movie using tv-tuner... i wont need to upgrade anything here.
2. Puppy for printing and faxing and useable in case that my destop (Mint) has problem.
3. Puppy that demonstrate beowulf cluster (see sig)

_________________
Cluster-Pup v.2-Puppy Beowulf Cluster
http://www.murga-linux.com/puppy/viewtopic.php?p=499199#499199
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message 
sickgut


Joined: 23 Mar 2010
Posts: 1157
Location: Tasmania, Australia in the mountains.

PostPosted: Sat 05 Nov 2011, 03:23    Post subject:  

Quote:

agree, but i rather have many different purposely built puppy OS than 1 big OS which will give headache when you upgrade 1 program and turn out create conflicting library.


see this is why puppy needs better package management, this doesnt happen with other OSes like debian-live because of the central dpkg/ apt database keeping track of everything , you never have to worry about breaking anything no matter how much stuff you have installed.

the purpose of this thread is to discuss size standardization, and im posting here to say that smaller size doesnt improve performance, the only thing it really helps with is the size of the download from the internet.

sure puppy is small, but this doesnt equate to using less ram or running any faster. There are more bloated distros that can use less ram, you can still boot a debian on 32mb while the newest Puppy cant.

small size may help with the copy to ram then booting but thats about it, and if you do this on a low ram computer then your using up valuable ram that you need to run programs.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website 
technosaurus


Joined: 18 May 2008
Posts: 4353

PostPosted: Sat 05 Nov 2011, 04:39    Post subject:  

FUD
_________________
Web Programming - Pet Packaging 100 & 101
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message 
Master_wrong

Joined: 19 Mar 2008
Posts: 456

PostPosted: Sat 05 Nov 2011, 05:39    Post subject:  

@sickgut
Quote:
sure puppy is small, but this doesnt equate to using less ram or running any faster. There are more bloated distros that can use less ram, you can still boot a debian on 32mb while the newest Puppy cant.

32M ? ram ? well you set the bar too low...

Quote:
small size may help with the copy to ram then booting but thats about it

whats wrong if someone like it that way ? it need no harddisk or dvd/cd-rom, and it still faster than my other installed linux on better hardware btw

Quote:
see this is why puppy needs better package management.

sure you want to built big bloated puppy then you need package management, but then when you have big bloated puppy you ask yourself why big bloated puppy if you can have ubuntu ?
Wink

Quote:
this doesnt happen with other OSes like debian-live because of the central dpkg/ apt database keeping track of everything , you never have to worry about breaking anything no matter how much stuff you have installed.

so why dont we just port the application into puppy ?
why do you hate puppy from being small ? being small have nothing to do with the package management...

@technosaurus
actually, its technically correct... I agree that puppy need to learn it if puppy want to become a big dog,
from http://forums.debian.net/viewtopic.php?f=16&t=38976
Quote:
The real advantage of Debian's package system is not the convenience when you install one package, but that the Debian devs do such an outstanding job of thinking about the whole picture of a system. I have no reason to expect that I (or most people) can or would do nearly as well. If I make a single deb and install it, I haven't necessarily given any thought at all to dependencies, conflicts, etc. If anything, this method gives me a false sense of security, since I think - ah, it's a deb, everything is safe. But for example, I can easily imagine someone thinking "Oh, I want this new Whizbar from Gnome 4.27, but Debian still still has Gnome 3.54 and Whizbar wasn't even invented then. Cool, I'll just make a deb." But it's not cool, since the new Gnome Whizbar requires 457 Python and Cairo libraries to be updated as well. Has our imagined user made new debs for those too? I doubt it. Does he realize that Whizbar actually replaces Whizfoo, and that Gnome 3.54 is built around Whizfoo? I doubt it. Bottom line: building a deb for yourself does not, all by itself, equal dependency tracking and package management.


but puppy work on ram so any damage by bad package management is not so real... just reboot and it all reseted.
and then again if puppy want to be a big dog it also need to learn multiuser too.

but i prefer to improve useability of puppy linux as it is now.

_________________
Cluster-Pup v.2-Puppy Beowulf Cluster
http://www.murga-linux.com/puppy/viewtopic.php?p=499199#499199
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message 
sickgut


Joined: 23 Mar 2010
Posts: 1157
Location: Tasmania, Australia in the mountains.

PostPosted: Sat 05 Nov 2011, 07:00    Post subject:  

Master_wrong wrote:
@sickgut
Quote:
sure puppy is small, but this doesnt equate to using less ram or running any faster. There are more bloated distros that can use less ram, you can still boot a debian on 32mb while the newest Puppy cant.

32M ? ram ? well you set the bar too low...

Quote:
small size may help with the copy to ram then booting but thats about it

whats wrong if someone like it that way ? it need no harddisk or dvd/cd-rom, and it still faster than my other installed linux on better hardware btw

Quote:
see this is why puppy needs better package management.

sure you want to built big bloated puppy then you need package management, but then when you have big bloated puppy you ask yourself why big bloated puppy if you can have ubuntu ?
Wink

Quote:
this doesnt happen with other OSes like debian-live because of the central dpkg/ apt database keeping track of everything , you never have to worry about breaking anything no matter how much stuff you have installed.

so why dont we just port the application into puppy ?
why do you hate puppy from being small ? being small have nothing to do with the package management...

@technosaurus
actually, its technically correct... I agree that puppy need to learn it if puppy want to become a big dog,
from http://forums.debian.net/viewtopic.php?f=16&t=38976
Quote:
The real advantage of Debian's package system is not the convenience when you install one package, but that the Debian devs do such an outstanding job of thinking about the whole picture of a system. I have no reason to expect that I (or most people) can or would do nearly as well. If I make a single deb and install it, I haven't necessarily given any thought at all to dependencies, conflicts, etc. If anything, this method gives me a false sense of security, since I think - ah, it's a deb, everything is safe. But for example, I can easily imagine someone thinking "Oh, I want this new Whizbar from Gnome 4.27, but Debian still still has Gnome 3.54 and Whizbar wasn't even invented then. Cool, I'll just make a deb." But it's not cool, since the new Gnome Whizbar requires 457 Python and Cairo libraries to be updated as well. Has our imagined user made new debs for those too? I doubt it. Does he realize that Whizbar actually replaces Whizfoo, and that Gnome 3.54 is built around Whizfoo? I doubt it. Bottom line: building a deb for yourself does not, all by itself, equal dependency tracking and package management.


but puppy work on ram so any damage by bad package management is not so real... just reboot and it all reseted.
and then again if puppy want to be a big dog it also need to learn multiuser too.

but i prefer to improve useability of puppy linux as it is now.


This is a thread about the size of Puppy, i noted the debian booting on 32mb of ram, because its bigger than Puppy but can use less ram .... this is nothing to do with me setting a bar to low its a simple comparison. Size doesnt equal better ram use as evident with this case in point.

whats wrong with people liking copy to boot? nothing, i didnt say there was, its up to you if you like doing that.

Why do we need package management when you can just use ubuntu? because ubuntu sucks. I like to have everything i need on one USB stick or CDROM, i mean everything. Even debian live and ubuntu have to be modified greatly to fit onto a 2gb usb stick with all the apps ill ever need. Size makes no difference to ram use or speed but it makes a difference to size, obviously.

Why dont we just port the debian apt-get to Puppy? Why dont i like Puppy for being small?

FIrst of all ill answer the seccond question, i like puppy being small, did i say i hate it being small? this is a thread about the size of puppy, im voicing the concern that people seem to think small means faster and less ram used, and im trying to get the point accross that this isnt the case. If you want Puppy to be small then fair enough, but given that cdroms are 700mb in size and the smallest usb stick you can buy is 2gb or for $3 extra you can get a 4GB, does it really matter is Puppy is 280mb instead of 100mb? Wouldnt you prefer not to have to download the browser and the xorg high and devx etc and just have it included in Puppy? If anything i would like to argue that Puppy be bigger and have more of the standard stuff in it than you end up having to downlo ad anyway rather than smaller.

Now the first question, why not port the debian package management to Puppy?
Well, I actually did this. It was a reasonable success and people had high hopes for it but ultimately it was a dead end. It was by far the most popular package i have ever made and still every week i check my gmail and i have 2 or 3 messages from people saying: "Dude.. nice job on the apt package for Puppy Lucid, i reformatted and lost it, can you give me a link or upload it again?"..........

i had an accident on my server and i lost it forever. There was 4000 lines of code in the status file that i typed manually and it took me days to do and my wrists still haven't forgiven me. The apt-getting worked fine, all dependencies would be met, but when you install something that depends on kernel stuff, it presumes you have the ubuntu kernel and you end up with a non booting system. Packages in the repos that depend on kernel stuff include vlc media player, gxine.... etc etc. The problem is that even puppy lucid has the standard puppy kernel, and this kernel is compatible with nothing at all. You will never get 100% seamless successfull package management that leeches from other distros repos if you run such an overly stripped and custom kernel like the Puppy kernel. Most applications need to be recompiled to work on Puppy because there are things missing in the kernel that really should be there if Puppy wants to have even the basic minimal compatibility with other distros.

no doubt this post will spark 100 flame/ hate posts but what i have said here is true. All you need to do to have compatibility with most of the stuff in other repos is run a standard kernel. This is a kernel that has had frame buffer video at the console removed to save less than a couple of MB, but vastly restricts compatibility. There is no real performance gain, and when i say this i mean real, i dont mean there is none in running such a stripped kernel. Lets take jemimahs fluppy and puppeee as an example:

puppeee is fast and highly custom and only has drivers for one main type of computer, the EeePC and similar netbooks.

Fluppy is the same thing but includes in its kernel absolutely every driver it was possible for jemimah to fit in it.

Now put them on 2 identical computers and boot and use them. There is no appreciable difference in speed and memory usage. At most the performance difference is measured in milliseconds or other measurements of parts of whole seconds when booting and using applications. Is this any real gain?

The apt-get was a fail for puppy, we would need to have a precompiled repo that suits puppies kernel or a similar kernel to the distro you wanna leech off installed in Puppy...
Now if you actually make an OS that had a standard kernel and apt-get... what do you get? You get debian-live. This is the smallest (once an initial deletion of all bullcrap has been done, reducing the base iso from 200mb to 67mb. From this points is possible to apt-get all your apps you need then remaster to another iso after slimming down. This is what i have done in Pussy Linux. Due to apt-get being a fail, i set about to try to make a puppy like OS using a standard kernel and it has worked, the only drawback being its slightly larger in size, but ram usage is less and the speed is fine.

http://www.thepussycatforest.info/
or http://www.murga-linux.com/puppy/viewtopic.php?t=69475 to follow the thread.

This is what i see is the only way to solve package management problems, once and for all that is within my ability to do. I have sought the help of other puppy devs to help me make this OS more Puppy like, and port alot of the puppy apps like pmount etc to it but there has been no interest. Put simply... if Puppy used a normal linux kernel then it wouldnt be any slower or use more ram, i t would be slightly larger, but it would be able to leech off of established repos that contain 20,000 packages. Unless the Puppy kernel changes, the package management will always be an issue.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website 
sickgut


Joined: 23 Mar 2010
Posts: 1157
Location: Tasmania, Australia in the mountains.

PostPosted: Sat 05 Nov 2011, 08:47    Post subject:  

you guys probably sick of me posting about the size of the OS vs ram usage and speed, but here is a prime example of what im rattling on about:

http://www.murga-linux.com/puppy/viewtopic.php?mode=attach&id=48522

Here is a 658mb OS, that has booted, is running Xorg with proper Intel accelerated OpenGL video (equivalent of Xorg high), running ssh, telnet, ftp and lighttpd webserver... while booting on 42mb ram with no swap and using only 57% of the available RAM running from a live-cdrom. It wouldnt matter if the OS was 9GB in size and needed a dual layer live-DVD to run it, it is the same result. I know glxgears isnt running in the background to prove opengl is loaded and top isnt running to show the server stuff. But you can download and try it yourself if you like. Link on my previous post.

Years ago when Puppy first came out, 64mb USB sticks where common, i paid $20 for a 512mb USB stick a few years back. You can buy 8gb USB sticks from ebay for $8 or $12 or so at a post office. a blank cd-r costs 30 cents or so and is 700mb. Does it really really really matter if Puppy is 300mb instead of 100mb? Even on a 1GB usb stick, 300mb for the OS leaves plenty of room to save stuff.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website 
Master_wrong

Joined: 19 Mar 2008
Posts: 456

PostPosted: Sat 05 Nov 2011, 13:25    Post subject:  

Quote:

no doubt this post will spark 100 flame/ hate posts but what i have said here is true. All you need to do to have compatibility with most of the stuff in other repos is run a standard kernel. This is a kernel that has had frame buffer video at the console removed to save less than a couple of MB, but vastly restricts compatibility. There is no real performance gain, and when i say this i mean real, i dont mean there is none in running such a stripped kernel. Lets take jemimahs fluppy and puppeee as an example:


i never heard that... but... yes i can agree that puppy might need pure-breed-lucid kernel? because the lucid as we know today is a cross breed one ? which make it incompatible with debian repos ?

but we too should take consider what size would such puppy.iso size end up?
and were all the remaster, savefile, booting, shutdown script would need to be rewritten... ?
thats sound like a lot of work if we have to rewrite them all.

Quote:
This is what i see is the only way to solve package management problems

btw even slackware package management were simple and similiar to puppy
https://www.linux.com/learn/tutorials/261878-intro-to-slackware-package-management
and i already test in new slacko that
* installpkg - This application is used to install a new package
* removepkg -This application is used to remove a package from your system
work in slacko

_________________
Cluster-Pup v.2-Puppy Beowulf Cluster
http://www.murga-linux.com/puppy/viewtopic.php?p=499199#499199
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message 
Display posts from previous:   Sort by:   
Page 2 of 3 [31 Posts]   Goto page: Previous 1, 2, 3 Next
Post new topic   Reply to topic View previous topic :: View next topic
 Forum index » Taking the Puppy out for a walk » Suggestions
Jump to:  

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
[ Time: 0.1664s ][ Queries: 13 (0.0109s) ][ GZIP on ]