slacko 5.3.3, final
Re Sage:
After an earlier clueless and careless report of a problem with Slacko's software, Sage decided it was his hardware problem, but he did not apologize for his mistake then - so we should not expect an apology now.
Addendum:
Today, 11th March 2012, Sage wrote (note 1) "In this case, the issue turned out to be the smart new little monitor, which fits in the corner of my desk (note 2), but cannot access the higher resolutions with nV cards.
Notes:
1 Extracted from another thread: http://www.murga-linux.com/puppy/viewto ... 212#611212
2 Perhaps this desk is the command and control centre from which Sage runs dozens of distros and even more computers simultaneously.
After an earlier clueless and careless report of a problem with Slacko's software, Sage decided it was his hardware problem, but he did not apologize for his mistake then - so we should not expect an apology now.
Addendum:
Today, 11th March 2012, Sage wrote (note 1) "In this case, the issue turned out to be the smart new little monitor, which fits in the corner of my desk (note 2), but cannot access the higher resolutions with nV cards.
Notes:
1 Extracted from another thread: http://www.murga-linux.com/puppy/viewto ... 212#611212
2 Perhaps this desk is the command and control centre from which Sage runs dozens of distros and even more computers simultaneously.
Last edited by Jasper on Sun 11 Mar 2012, 10:54, edited 1 time in total.
No mount-sfs problem using Slacko-5.3.2.4-RC2
Hi all,
Frugal install of Slacko-5.3.2.4-RC2 to Ext4 partition. The same is able to mount SFSes on that partition as well as on a partition formated as ntfs.
Hope this helps figuring out the problem under K.5.3.2;6.
mikesLr
Frugal install of Slacko-5.3.2.4-RC2 to Ext4 partition. The same is able to mount SFSes on that partition as well as on a partition formated as ntfs.
Hope this helps figuring out the problem under K.5.3.2;6.
mikesLr
a few new backgrounds.
- Attachments
-
- pupmr10,1w.jpg
- http://www.mediafire.com/?7v1msw26s6chb
- (21.55 KiB) Downloaded 1016 times
-
- pupmr10,1cw.jpg
- http://www.mediafire.com/?7v1msw26s6chb
- (19.12 KiB) Downloaded 1053 times
-
- pupmr4,1a.png
- http://www.mediafire.com/?7v1msw26s6chb
- (71.81 KiB) Downloaded 1047 times
-
- pupmr4,1.png
- http://www.mediafire.com/?7v1msw26s6chb
- (69.35 KiB) Downloaded 1028 times
Thanks futwerk,
-
Every one else ... Just an update...
I am quite busy with real life at the moment, but things should settle down over the Easter period. I'd like to get another beta out before then, see what happens
After that Slacko will enter a new phase, perhaps even 64 bit only.
It will also be based on Slackware -current packages (until 14 is out). I am running Slackware current (120227) at the moment and it's fantastic! You would think it's a final release.
Moving to 64 bit arch will lift the size of the iso somewhat. I'll likely include Mesa in the build as well as some other useful stuff, however it will still be light, there will not be unnecessary bloat. The target will be well under 180MB iso.
A major niche of Puppy is the USB key install and lightness gives Puppy the advantage in this area. I would still rather stick with aufs, seems less buggy to me but the USB bug is critical, we'll see soon if it's fixed.
So for now, keep testing 5.3.2.6x.. I have 5.3.2.7x on the cooker..
Cheers
-
Every one else ... Just an update...
I am quite busy with real life at the moment, but things should settle down over the Easter period. I'd like to get another beta out before then, see what happens
After that Slacko will enter a new phase, perhaps even 64 bit only.
It will also be based on Slackware -current packages (until 14 is out). I am running Slackware current (120227) at the moment and it's fantastic! You would think it's a final release.
Moving to 64 bit arch will lift the size of the iso somewhat. I'll likely include Mesa in the build as well as some other useful stuff, however it will still be light, there will not be unnecessary bloat. The target will be well under 180MB iso.
A major niche of Puppy is the USB key install and lightness gives Puppy the advantage in this area. I would still rather stick with aufs, seems less buggy to me but the USB bug is critical, we'll see soon if it's fixed.
So for now, keep testing 5.3.2.6x.. I have 5.3.2.7x on the cooker..
Cheers
Puppy Linux Blog - contact me for access
Please not! Saluki is taking care of all the more recent HW, but I am installing and recommending your Slacko 5.3.3beta for a load of pretty old kit, including resurrection projects for charities and landfill avoidance stuff. It runs just fine on everything; Slackware has a long and proud history. Loss of this distro to 64bit or even deferring to USB install is a retrograde step for 80% of the kit coming this way; most of them are incapable of successfully booting from USB, with or without FDD assistance. Moreover, it also runs perfectly well under AMD64 on modern 64bit machines in 32bit mode and accomplishes 95% of regular functions.perhaps even 64 bit only.
If there were anything else on the wish list it would be a 50Mb .iso version, which has recently been attracting renewed interest on the Forum.
Well it is a perhaps... perhaps I'll drop PAE if I go 64 bit and keep 32 bit support chugging along with the smp kernel. Pure speccing at this stage.Quote:
perhaps even 64 bit only.
Please not!
The immediate future is still 533 with support for 32 bit arch and 32 bit PAE. I'm not a huge fan of PAE but while there's demand I'll build it, and I haven't had time to venture in to 64 territory except for a brief flirt with Iguleder's roar-ng, a fascinating project for which I wish I had time.
Puppy Linux Blog - contact me for access
Firstrun-1.9.9
Firstrun-1.9.9, test release, intended to be compatible with the recent woof.
http://www.murga-linux.com/puppy/viewtopic.php?t=58312
http://www.murga-linux.com/puppy/viewtopic.php?t=58312
Downloads for Puppy Linux [url]http://shino.pos.to/linux/downloads.html[/url]
Re: Firstrun-1.9.9
Thanks, I'll test it all out in 5327shinobar wrote:Firstrun-1.9.9, test release, intended to be compatible with the recent woof.
http://www.murga-linux.com/puppy/viewtopic.php?t=58312
Puppy Linux Blog - contact me for access
Yes to 64-bit and 32-bit-SMP : No to 32-bit-PAE
Hi 01micko,
I am pleased to follow where ever your interest takes you. But if time/real-life places limits on how many paths you can follow at once, and you can only choose two, than like Sage I would suggest continued support for the 32-Bit NON-PAE version followed by an interest in the 64-Bit version.
Somehow I've acquired 6 computers. All, regardless of their age and resources, can run 32-bit SMP. Only my youngest can run 32-bit PAE, and not among them is my Thinkpad T42, Those which can run 32-bit PAE, can also run 64-bit.
Although newer kernels and being based upon a different distro may alter these results, I doubt if the alternation will be substantial. In 2009 and 2011, Phoronix ran benchmarks comparing 32-bit, 32-bit-PAE, and 64-bit Ubuntus. Performance using the 64-bit systems was sometimes substantially better than under the 32-bit systems, regardless of wthether the 32-bit was, or was not, PAE. Occasionally, the 32-bit-PAE out-performed the 32-bit-non-PAE, but even then the performance gain was small. I would suggest in real-world terms, imperceptible.
See:
http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=a ... _pae&num=1 and
http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=a ... ae64&num=9
A 32-bit-SMP is needed for Puppy's expected "market": Older-computers with limited resources. A 64-bit appeals to those having modern equipment. I would think it would be a rare-bird who could not run a 64-bit but would benefit by 32-bit-PAE.
mikesLr
I am pleased to follow where ever your interest takes you. But if time/real-life places limits on how many paths you can follow at once, and you can only choose two, than like Sage I would suggest continued support for the 32-Bit NON-PAE version followed by an interest in the 64-Bit version.
Somehow I've acquired 6 computers. All, regardless of their age and resources, can run 32-bit SMP. Only my youngest can run 32-bit PAE, and not among them is my Thinkpad T42, Those which can run 32-bit PAE, can also run 64-bit.
Although newer kernels and being based upon a different distro may alter these results, I doubt if the alternation will be substantial. In 2009 and 2011, Phoronix ran benchmarks comparing 32-bit, 32-bit-PAE, and 64-bit Ubuntus. Performance using the 64-bit systems was sometimes substantially better than under the 32-bit systems, regardless of wthether the 32-bit was, or was not, PAE. Occasionally, the 32-bit-PAE out-performed the 32-bit-non-PAE, but even then the performance gain was small. I would suggest in real-world terms, imperceptible.
See:
http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=a ... _pae&num=1 and
http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=a ... ae64&num=9
A 32-bit-SMP is needed for Puppy's expected "market": Older-computers with limited resources. A 64-bit appeals to those having modern equipment. I would think it would be a rare-bird who could not run a 64-bit but would benefit by 32-bit-PAE.
mikesLr
Hi Mick,
You are on the right track. Already there is a Slacko puplet version out that uses the so called 32/64 bit super kernel. Kirk has a new Fatdog 64-600 about ready for testing. Unfortunately, TazOC is ill and hasn't been able to continue support for LHP 64-514 or his 32 bit 503 which are both fine pups. Hopefully, he will get well and return.
64 bit is still the wave of the future. The need for 32 bit is dimensioning. Puppy cannot afford to remain as support for just older hardware.
Cheers,
Jim
You are on the right track. Already there is a Slacko puplet version out that uses the so called 32/64 bit super kernel. Kirk has a new Fatdog 64-600 about ready for testing. Unfortunately, TazOC is ill and hasn't been able to continue support for LHP 64-514 or his 32 bit 503 which are both fine pups. Hopefully, he will get well and return.
64 bit is still the wave of the future. The need for 32 bit is dimensioning. Puppy cannot afford to remain as support for just older hardware.
Cheers,
Jim
Over the years, I've spoken with a number of industry specialists about 64bit. They all said much the same - 64bit advantage depends very much on application. The two main hold-ups in PC use are the HD and your ISP. Since most folks use their PC s (not mobiles!) to send emails, browse the Net, write to their mum and the Revenue, virtually no 64bit advantage accrues. More than anything, the future points firmly to the release of massive numbers of allegedly obsolete boxes - the perfect vehicle for Puppy and for preventing landfill. Don't join the lemmings unless your profession demands it!the performance gain was small
Aufs bug has got new bug fix:
http://murga-linux.com/puppy/viewtopic. ... 556#611556
http://murga-linux.com/puppy/viewtopic. ... 556#611556
That is great news! I'll recompile k3.1.10, seems the best balance between old and new for the time being.pemasu wrote:Aufs bug has got new bug fix:
http://murga-linux.com/puppy/viewtopic. ... 556#611556
Puppy Linux Blog - contact me for access
5.3.2.6 still running nicely on the Pentium D. I've noticed that SFS-Load bleats about unionfs support being experimental but I haven't encountered any oddities while using the SFS files I have loaded.
Zhaan - AMD K6 2 500, 512MB RAM, ATI Rage 128 VR. Full install Wary 5.5 [url=http://tinyurl.com/dy66kh8]HardInfo Report[/url]
Merlin - Core i5-4590, 8GB RAM, Radeon R9 270X. Slacko 5.7.0
Merlin - Core i5-4590, 8GB RAM, Radeon R9 270X. Slacko 5.7.0
Thanks, seems to be working well on 5.3.2.6 on the Pentium D, although I only use IRC. Thanks also for doing it i486, it should work on the 5.3.1 install on my K6 (which can't run newer Slackos).01micko wrote:pidgin-2.10.1-i486-s.pet
Zhaan - AMD K6 2 500, 512MB RAM, ATI Rage 128 VR. Full install Wary 5.5 [url=http://tinyurl.com/dy66kh8]HardInfo Report[/url]
Merlin - Core i5-4590, 8GB RAM, Radeon R9 270X. Slacko 5.7.0
Merlin - Core i5-4590, 8GB RAM, Radeon R9 270X. Slacko 5.7.0
- MinHundHettePerro
- Posts: 852
- Joined: Thu 05 Feb 2009, 22:22
- Location: SE
Well, I'm on a 32-bit machine and cannot see me being able to go 64-bit in the foreseeable future ... So, please, continue with 32-bit slacko .Jim1911 wrote:64 bit is still the wave of the future. The need for 32 bit is dimensioning. Puppy cannot afford to remain as support for just older hardware.
Cheers,
Jim
Thanks01micko wrote:The immediate future is still 533 with support for 32 bit arch and 32 bit PAE. I'm not a huge fan of PAE but while there's demand I'll build it, ...
Roar-ng is a very competent builder of pup-alikes, I've played around with it quite a bit, building, mostly slackware-based, 32-bit systems - so, if you'd find the time to indulge ...01micko wrote:...... and I haven't had time to venture in to 64 territory except for a brief flirt with Iguleder's roar-ng, a fascinating project for which I wish I had time.
Cheers / MHHP
[color=green]Celeron 2.8 GHz, 1 GB, i82845, many ptns, modes 12, 13
Dual Xeon 3.2 GHz, 1 GB, nvidia quadro nvs 285[/color]
Slackos & 214X, ... and Q6xx
[color=darkred]Nämen, vaf....[/color] [color=green]ln -s /dev/null MHHP[/color]
Dual Xeon 3.2 GHz, 1 GB, nvidia quadro nvs 285[/color]
Slackos & 214X, ... and Q6xx
[color=darkred]Nämen, vaf....[/color] [color=green]ln -s /dev/null MHHP[/color]
It it's just a question of kernel compile parameters, I've got code that lets the user switch the kernel and build a new ISO automatically. You could make several kernel pets available and let the user choose without having to maintain multiple isos. Of course this makes dealing with 3rd party kernel modules a real PITA depending on how many kernels you have.01micko wrote:Well it is a perhaps... perhaps I'll drop PAE if I go 64 bit and keep 32 bit support chugging along with the smp kernel. Pure speccing at this stage.Quote:
perhaps even 64 bit only.
Please not!
The immediate future is still 533 with support for 32 bit arch and 32 bit PAE. I'm not a huge fan of PAE but while there's demand I'll build it, and I haven't had time to venture in to 64 territory except for a brief flirt with Iguleder's roar-ng, a fascinating project for which I wish I had time.
5.3.2.7:
Nice - very nice, but...
...Xorg default is rated @ 1600x???, same feature as Saluki. This may well be for reasons explained by Jemimah, but the risk of overdriving folks' monitors so severely is that some of them will be sending you a bill for a new one! Whatever the origin of these false default selections, whether it be a Puppy or an Xorg issue, it needs to be fixed PDQ, before the hounds descend looking for a cash reimbursement...
Nice - very nice, but...
...Xorg default is rated @ 1600x???, same feature as Saluki. This may well be for reasons explained by Jemimah, but the risk of overdriving folks' monitors so severely is that some of them will be sending you a bill for a new one! Whatever the origin of these false default selections, whether it be a Puppy or an Xorg issue, it needs to be fixed PDQ, before the hounds descend looking for a cash reimbursement...
Last edited by Sage on Tue 13 Mar 2012, 16:50, edited 1 time in total.