The journey to Archpup..

For talk and support relating specifically to Puppy derivatives
Message
Author
User avatar
James C
Posts: 6618
Joined: Thu 26 Mar 2009, 05:12
Location: Kentucky

#61 Post by James C »

stifiling wrote:All the 'points' are being ignored. the best replies came from Q5sys. Like i said to the OP...before jrb posted an anger management website....

DID YOU POST OFF TOPIC IN THE FIRST POST OF YOUR OWN THEAD???

See if you can get that answered and not ignore it with some other useless post, or another old broken Arch Pup Link.

It pretty pointless anyway. Barry could murder a man around these parts...and it would still be defended.

"He sneezed and it accidentally went off."
"That guy walked in the way of the Gun."
"That guy tripped and fell and the bullet accidentally got him."
Posting from a working Arch Puppy from Feb 2009.......you two are looking like fools.Unless you can predate that....sorry for your damn bad luck.

stifiling
Posts: 388
Joined: Sun 30 Dec 2007, 03:56

#62 Post by stifiling »

post the link to the iso. not a screenshot to an html file...

*you took that screenshot down fast* was something the matter with it?

and really...it's the OP that's looking more and more like the idiot.

User avatar
James C
Posts: 6618
Joined: Thu 26 Mar 2009, 05:12
Location: Kentucky

#63 Post by James C »

stifiling wrote:post the link to the iso. not a screenshot to an html file...

*you took that screenshot down fast* was something the matter with it?

and really...it's the OP that's looking more and more like the idiot.
Pretty damn obvious I'm posting from it now.....

You guys are a joke. :)
Attachments
for stifling.jpg
(67.12 KiB) Downloaded 588 times

User avatar
James C
Posts: 6618
Joined: Thu 26 Mar 2009, 05:12
Location: Kentucky

#64 Post by James C »

Code: Select all

# free
              total         used         free       shared      buffers
  Mem:      1035420       347008       688412            0        41604
 Swap:      1228932            0      1228932
Total:      2264352       347008      1917344
# uname -a
Linux puppypc 2.6.25.16 #1 Tue Aug 26 10:45:53 GMT-8 2008 i686 AMD Athlon(tm) XP 2400+ AuthenticAMD GNU/Linux
#


Notice when the kernel was compiled.....

stifiling
Posts: 388
Joined: Sun 30 Dec 2007, 03:56

#65 Post by stifiling »

James C wrote:

Code: Select all

# free
              total         used         free       shared      buffers
  Mem:      1035420       347008       688412            0        41604
 Swap:      1228932            0      1228932
Total:      2264352       347008      1917344
# uname -a
Linux puppypc 2.6.25.16 #1 Tue Aug 26 10:45:53 GMT-8 2008 i686 AMD Athlon(tm) XP 2400+ AuthenticAMD GNU/Linux
#


Notice when the kernel was compiled.....
Guy...Guy........can u post the iso?

This boy pops out from behind the tree...with some old arch/puppy screenshot. as if the users haven't been requesting it for years. if you've got the iso, how come you didn't give it to puppyluvr months ago? what made you decide to dig that thing up now?

User avatar
James C
Posts: 6618
Joined: Thu 26 Mar 2009, 05:12
Location: Kentucky

#66 Post by James C »

shuvvoff_b4iletuavit says that good things happen to those that wait.....

User avatar
James C
Posts: 6618
Joined: Thu 26 Mar 2009, 05:12
Location: Kentucky

#67 Post by James C »

stifiling wrote: if you've got the iso, how come you didn't give it to puppyluvr months ago?
That point actually deserves a serious answer.
With all of the constant changes to Woof, and there have been many changes, a build from an old Woof wouldn't have been much help.shuvvoff_b4iletuavit may weigh in further later.

stifiling
Posts: 388
Joined: Sun 30 Dec 2007, 03:56

#68 Post by stifiling »

James C wrote:
stifiling wrote: if you've got the iso, how come you didn't give it to puppyluvr months ago?
That point actually deserves a serious answer.
With all of the constant changes to Woof, and there have been many changes, a build from an old Woof wouldn't have been much help.shuvvoff_b4iletuavit may weigh in further later.
that's not a good answer. when it comes to linux...everything helps. but yea, let's see if shuvvoff_b4iletuavit uploads the iso. and if it works, then yes "Arch Linux existed in Woof before simargl came along" will be valid. otherwise "But it didn't work" will be.

User avatar
James C
Posts: 6618
Joined: Thu 26 Mar 2009, 05:12
Location: Kentucky

#69 Post by James C »

stifiling wrote: This boy pops out from behind the tree...with some old arch/puppy screenshot.
Nobody's called me a boy for many,many years...... :lol:

User avatar
James C
Posts: 6618
Joined: Thu 26 Mar 2009, 05:12
Location: Kentucky

#70 Post by James C »

stifiling wrote:
James C wrote:
stifiling wrote: if you've got the iso, how come you didn't give it to puppyluvr months ago?
That point actually deserves a serious answer.
With all of the constant changes to Woof, and there have been many changes, a build from an old Woof wouldn't have been much help.shuvvoff_b4iletuavit may weigh in further later.
that's not a good answer. when it comes to linux...everything helps. but yea, let's see if shuvvoff_b4iletuavit uploads the iso. and if it works, then yes "Arch Linux existed in Woof before simargl came along" will be valid. otherwise "But it didn't work" will be.
It's being uploaded at the moment........since I was posting from it it apparently works. shuvvoff_b4iletuavit gave me permission to upload......so be patient.

User avatar
James C
Posts: 6618
Joined: Thu 26 Mar 2009, 05:12
Location: Kentucky

#71 Post by James C »

Courtesy of the famed developer .shuvvoff_b4iletuavit , the original Arch Puppy 007 ....vintage Feb. 2009 has been uploaded. A whole 105 mb download.

iso
http://www.smokey01.com/JamesC/Arch%20P ... up-007.iso

md5
http://www.smokey01.com/JamesC/Arch%20P ... %20md5.txt

New thread for Arch Puppy 007
http://www.murga-linux.com/puppy/viewtopic.php?t=85020

User avatar
James C
Posts: 6618
Joined: Thu 26 Mar 2009, 05:12
Location: Kentucky

#72 Post by James C »

stifiling wrote:
James C wrote:
stifiling wrote: if you've got the iso, how come you didn't give it to puppyluvr months ago?
That point actually deserves a serious answer.
With all of the constant changes to Woof, and there have been many changes, a build from an old Woof wouldn't have been much help.shuvvoff_b4iletuavit may weigh in further later.
that's not a good answer. when it comes to linux...everything helps. but yea, let's see if shuvvoff_b4iletuavit uploads the iso. and if it works, then yes "Arch Linux existed in Woof before simargl came along" will be valid. otherwise "But it didn't work" will be.
The mere fact that Arch Puppy 007 exists and was produced in Feb. 2009 pretty well settles the matter.

Apologies to puppyluvr for the hijack of his thread.

stifiling
Posts: 388
Joined: Sun 30 Dec 2007, 03:56

#73 Post by stifiling »

James C wrote:The mere fact that Arch Puppy 007 exists and was produced in Feb. 2009 pretty well settles the matter.
ok, so a working Arch Puppy has been woofed before.

So I would like to apologize to 'Barry' for accusing you of deliberately, or blatantly, or going out of your way to ignore the ArchPup threads.

Since you do have Arch Linux in Woof, that should have been 'obvious' that you had at least woofed it once to be sure it was working, otherwise it wouldn't have been there. I was overlooking that fact. So it was a misunderstanding and I should have thought about it more before I posted what I posted.

When you have such a high level of respect for someone, and you feel like you've been 'purposely' dissed by them....it makes you ask questions. But like I said, I see now that that was not the case.

Once again...my apologies.

stifiling
Posts: 388
Joined: Sun 30 Dec 2007, 03:56

#74 Post by stifiling »

James C wrote:Apologies to puppyluvr for the hijack of his thread.
Well you didn't hijack his thread. I did. I'd like to apologize to puppyluvr for hijacking his thread.

What you did was gave him what he asked for 6 months ago. I'm sure if he had this iso a long time ago, he would have more than likely successfully gotten an Arch Puppy woofed.

If you go back and look at his posts, you'll see how 'vigorously' he was trying to get it to work. This iso would have helped out a lot.

User avatar
Chili Dog
Posts: 161
Joined: Tue 20 Dec 2011, 11:17

#75 Post by Chili Dog »

Now isn't that a turn of events!

But, respectfully, I would once again like to ask Mr. Kauler to include pacman, since simargl already found a way to do so, and many of us would really appreciate it.

I was going to suggest maybe an add-on pack would do the job, but simargl said attention to the base packages was given to ensure compatibility with pacman.

User avatar
Iguleder
Posts: 2026
Joined: Tue 11 Aug 2009, 09:36
Location: Israel, somewhere in the beautiful desert
Contact:

#76 Post by Iguleder »

stifiling - I guess it's frustrating when your creation doesn't get the status you want it to have. But, there's a well-known proverb in the social circles I belong to, which says "life's a b**ch" :lol:

I know how this feels, because my creations aren't recognized by Barry as Puppy-related, too. And guess what - there's nothing wrong about being different and re-inventing the wheel, especially in the FOSS world. Just keep doing what you do best and don't look back in anger. :wink:

What Barry says makes sense. Barry, as the mind behind Puppy, gave you three reasons why ArchPup does not fit in his the definition of a Puppy derivative - it doesn't which came first. ArchPup isn't built using Woof, doesn't use PPM and doesn't have the JWM/ROX-Filer combo. So ... this is a distribution based on Puppy (e.g uses parts of Puppy and Arch) and not a Puppy flavor (e.g a genuine Puppy that uses parts of Arch).

You're right - it's unfair that FatDog64 gets attention and recognition from Barry, while ArchPup doesn't, like some forgotten lovechild - but I understand why - the former is much closer to Puppy, since it has everything except the use of Woof.

2c
[url=http://dimakrasner.com/]My homepage[/url]
[url=https://github.com/dimkr]My GitHub profile[/url]

stifiling
Posts: 388
Joined: Sun 30 Dec 2007, 03:56

#77 Post by stifiling »

Iguleder wrote:stifiling - I guess it's frustrating when your creation doesn't get the status you want it to have. But, there's a well-known proverb in the social circles I belong to, which says "life's a b**ch" :lol:

I know how this feels, because my creations aren't recognized by Barry as Puppy-related, too. And guess what - there's nothing wrong about being different and re-inventing the wheel, especially in the FOSS world. Just keep doing what you do best and don't look back in anger. :wink:

What Barry says makes sense. Barry, as the mind behind Puppy, gave you three reasons why ArchPup does not fit in his the definition of a Puppy derivative - it doesn't which came first. ArchPup isn't built using Woof, doesn't use PPM and doesn't have the JWM/ROX-Filer combo. So ... this is a distribution based on Puppy (e.g uses parts of Puppy and Arch) and not a Puppy flavor (e.g a genuine Puppy that uses parts of Arch).

You're right - it's unfair that FatDog64 gets attention and recognition from Barry, while ArchPup doesn't, like some forgotten lovechild - but I understand why - the former is much closer to Puppy, since it has everything except the use of Woof.

2c
you a lil late to the party dude. show's over.

User avatar
puppyluvr
Posts: 3470
Joined: Sun 06 Jan 2008, 23:14
Location: Chickasha Oklahoma
Contact:

#78 Post by puppyluvr »

:D Hello,
and really...it's the OP that's looking more and more like the idiot.
Really?
First, I WAS able to build an Archpup back in `09 using Unleashed, but the ppm was broken. I posted screenshots back then, and asked for assistance, and got no reply.. So I let it go.. I tried again recently using woof, but could only get a cli, so I started this thread..
Second, I have the current "Archpup" and it is interesting, but not a "Puppy"..
I agree that the PPM must work for it to be a Puppy.
I disagree about the Rox/Jwm part, as several new Puplets use Xfce/Thunor..

FWIW I dont really care about Arch.. I tried because it had not been done.
(Well, apparently it had, but not to my knowledge).
I have done a Tinycore (worked, but was huge), and a Fedora (failed) as well. Also trying to build a Puppy using LFS scripts.

I like to try new things. If I am an idiot, so be it...
Close the Windows, and open your eyes, to a whole new world
I am Lead Dog of the
Puppy Linux Users Group on Facebook
Join us!

Puppy since 2.15CE...

stifiling
Posts: 388
Joined: Sun 30 Dec 2007, 03:56

#79 Post by stifiling »

I'm not trying to insult ANYONE.

puppyluvr,

I do not think that you are anything other than a smart dude. You got further than i had gotten in trying to accomplish this goal and i was rooting for you also. my exact thoughts when i saw this thread pop up was, "YES! this goal is being tackled by someone who actually knows what they're doing. And he's also having some success."

I was the person that was most wrong in this thread, by not thinking more first, about what i said, before i said it. So if anyone deserves to wear the 'dumbbell cone hat' it's me.

Post Reply