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 Thu 02 Oct 2014, 11:13
All times are UTC - 4
 Forum index » Advanced Topics » Puppy Derivatives
Puppy getting fatter
Moderators: Flash, JohnMurga
Post_new_topic   Reply_to_topic View_previous_topic :: View_next_topic
Page 1 of 2 Posts_count   Goto page: 1, 2 Next
Author Message
tronkel


Joined: 30 Sep 2005
Posts: 1101
Location: Vienna Austria

PostPosted: Thu 23 May 2013, 14:40    Post_subject:  Puppy getting fatter  

@oui

Na ja, Puppy mit der Zeit wird immer noch größer. Mit 60MB hat er in 2005 begonnen.

Puppy is getting fatter by the minute. The standard Precise 5.6 is about 160MB - getting on for 3 times its original size in 2005.

_________________
Life is too short to spend it in front of a computer
Back to top
View user's profile Send_private_message Visit_website AIM 
sheldonisaac

Joined: 21 Jun 2009
Posts: 421
Location: Philadelphia, PA

PostPosted: Thu 23 May 2013, 14:43    Post_subject: Re: Puppy getting fatter  

tronkel wrote:
Puppy is getting fatter by the minute. The standard Precise 5.6 is about 160MB - getting on for 3 times its original size in 2005.

What can I do with Precise 5.6 that I cannot do with Lucid Puppy 5.28-005?
Dell Latitude D610

Or with 'lina-lite
Back to top
View user's profile Send_private_message 
rcrsn51


Joined: 05 Sep 2006
Posts: 9162
Location: Stratford, Ontario

PostPosted: Thu 23 May 2013, 14:51    Post_subject: Re: Puppy getting fatter  

sheldonisaac wrote:
What can I do with Precise 5.6 that I cannot do with Lucid Puppy 5.28-005?

New kernels have better hardware support, like for wifi adapters.
Back to top
View user's profile Send_private_message 
Tote


Joined: 19 Jan 2012
Posts: 231
Location: South Wales

PostPosted: Thu 23 May 2013, 15:16    Post_subject:  

It's still not that big, surely? And you get an awful lot of bark for your bytes. Very Happy
Edited_time_total
Back to top
View user's profile Send_private_message 
sheldonisaac

Joined: 21 Jun 2009
Posts: 421
Location: Philadelphia, PA

PostPosted: Thu 23 May 2013, 15:17    Post_subject: Re: Puppy getting fatter  

rcrsn51 wrote:
sheldonisaac wrote:
What can I do with Precise 5.6 that I cannot do with Lucid Puppy 5.28-005?

New kernels have better hardware support, like for wifi adapters.

Oh, thanks. Something to consider if I ever add one to any of my computers.
The 2 laptops have internal wireless which works.
Back to top
View user's profile Send_private_message 
666philb


Joined: 07 Feb 2010
Posts: 1728
Location: wales

PostPosted: Thu 23 May 2013, 17:15    Post_subject:  

lucid puppy was about 130mb precise is about 170mb ..... for that 40mb difference you get a browser, accelerated graphic drivers and python pre installed. also a lot more packages from the PPM seem to work. not bad going for 40mb!!

as for the difference in size from the original puppy ...... lol .... of course it;s going to be bigger. it can do lots more things, work on lots more computers...etc

you can always stick to the original puppy if you want, no-one's making you use precise . although i'ld imagine it would feel a bit like punching yourself in your own face Wink

_________________
Quickpet_Precise, install popular apps quickly http://www.murga-linux.com/puppy/viewtopic.php?t=83642
LÖVE2d, a collection of 27 lua gameshttp://www.murga-linux.com/puppy/viewtopic.php?t=76739
Back to top
View user's profile Send_private_message 
Ted Dog


Joined: 13 Sep 2005
Posts: 2340
Location: Heart of Texas

PostPosted: Thu 23 May 2013, 17:54    Post_subject:  

So Puppylinux will grow past CD size in the next five years, no wait 6 or 7 years if it triples every 8years. I still have a copy of JohnMs 50mg version. Still works great, wish someone would redo using the compression method he used on todays puppies. I think he used UPX

All the layers on top of layers gets confusing Laughing
Back to top
View user's profile Send_private_message 
darry1966

Joined: 26 Feb 2012
Posts: 430
Location: New Zealand

PostPosted: Thu 23 May 2013, 18:15    Post_subject: Puppy Getting Fatter  

Totally agree, Kernel argument just doesn't convince me its about compression.

Personally I find puppy 4 series still works quite well with a modern browser.
Back to top
View user's profile Send_private_message 
NeroVance


Joined: 10 Oct 2012
Posts: 149
Location: Canada

PostPosted: Thu 23 May 2013, 18:20    Post_subject:  

I remember when Puppy had all it's goods in less than 100MB.
It was quite nice. And from what I remember, there may be slight pieces of dead-weight in Puppy, from older applications and such (do the fvwm95 icons remain?) There may be applications which might double-up what we already have.

But let's not forget, Today's Puppy is built on top of Woof, and if one wants a new leaner, meaner puppy, one could try to build a new pup using Woof.

I kinda wonder what would work best for such a base, and if one would want to compile stuff from scratch, to build an optimized Puppy.

I'll take a look perhaps into some Puppy internals, see what I may find perhaps.
Back to top
View user's profile Send_private_message Visit_website 
oui

Joined: 20 May 2005
Posts: 2092
Location: near Woof (Germany) :-) Acer Laptop emachines 2 GB RAM AMD64. franco-/germanophone, +/- anglophone

PostPosted: Thu 23 May 2013, 18:25    Post_subject: perhaps what for a Puppy 5.98?
Sub_title: Re: Puppy getting fatter
 

Hi tronkel

Thank you for your following to me dedicated post:

tronkel wrote:
@oui

Na ja, Puppy mit der Zeit wird immer noch größer. Mit 60MB hat er in 2005 begonnen.

Puppy is getting fatter by the minute. The standard Precise 5.6 is about 160MB - getting on for 3 times its original size in 2005.


yes, it is true.

you are right, and 2005, Puppy for check card cd was already 2,5 bigger than Puppy from 2003 (0.24 for example! I have yet my old CD with 0.24 and I have yet, but not use any more, an old book PC with i486 where Puppy 0,24, 20 Mb, can run completely free of trouble and my wife did use it daily till the coming of version 1.0 completely without save file or somewhat else: her PC did start at 7 o clock and shutdown at 24 o clock and run all the time only out the RAM and it was better as the old Windows 98 that we did have on that PC (and being yet on that PC, that is not any more used but continue to exist, today as it was not possible to install Puppy 0.24 at all: only run from CD!).

probably we can't avoid completely that!

but are we damned to continue this fatting course without some discernment?

no

no at all!

it was the exactly the same thing with the monolithic kernels etc.:

as they become to be to fat

the developers did split them and compile them modular

as

long year before that they did do with each to big binary using overlays...

in my eyes, Puppy has already reached 10 years now and it continues to use only ONE main sfs file Rolling Eyes instead become split into rational working fields:

- system.sfs
- utility.sfs
- development.sfs (exists long years ago)
- graphicalwindowing.sfs
- office.sfs
- network.sfs
- mediajobs.sfs
- graphicaljobs.sfs

even if I never did open Abiword or gnumeric more than 3 times in 5 years (it is true for me!) I have to load it each day with the global sfs in my memory and add libreoffice over it, as "specialized sfs" coming, and mix (not myself, the system does it but need memory room, RAM, to do that well) and manage an terrible among of big files in the tree what I will never use at all Mad

same thing for people not liking Seamonkey (I like Seamonkey! as was as happy as BarryK did introduce the Mozilla suite with the red monster in an early version of Puppy, about 1.3..1.4 probably! And I am so happy that he did stay favorable to this suite against for ex. the non free Opera doing the same, but non free): they regret don't to have her Firefox or Opera or Iron etc. and see angry some (often obsolete version of) Seamonkey / plugins / players in the most Puppy's!

with a modular puppy.sfs (perhaps what for a Puppy 5.98?)

an important part of fat would not be exist for the user any more!

if the user doesn't want to work with Abiword,

he can move the sfs file beeing in the subdirectory office.sfs outside and save in it an other office.sfs to replace with each other adequate office.sfs he knows only copying it in that subdirectory. what can be more simple?

etc. for the other standardized subdirectories of such a system...

the last subdir, named "user.stuff" is empty in the main distribution.

the user copy in it all the *.sfs files he knows as adequate and he really needs....

that is my vision of a Puppy-with-less-fat !

kind regards

PS: pls excuse my poor English...
Back to top
View user's profile Send_private_message 
Ted Dog


Joined: 13 Sep 2005
Posts: 2340
Location: Heart of Texas

PostPosted: Thu 23 May 2013, 19:20    Post_subject:  

@ oui,
Sorry my German has not improved since I left at age seven, so my English request re post the earliest puppylinux iso you still have. And are there any anniversary plans for the first decade of puppy?
Back to top
View user's profile Send_private_message 
R-S-H

Joined: 18 Feb 2013
Posts: 490

PostPosted: Thu 23 May 2013, 22:00    Post_subject:  

Hi.

666philb wrote:
lucid puppy was about 130mb precise is about 170mb ..... for that 40mb difference... ... ...

This is like one would compare beans and apples and in fact: it says nothing!

One has to keep in mind: Lucid's SFS is GZ compressed, Precise's SFS is XZ compressed.

I do have here a GZ compression remastered version of Precise. The remastered ISO is still at 170 MB under XZ compression. When using GZ compression the ISO is 215 MB.

So, that's 40 MB XZ compressed or 85 MB GZ compressed (to compare beans with beans) !!!

I do have a 79 MB SFS (VirtualBox, GZ compressed) which is uncompressed at 147 MB.

Maybe next year we will have an extended XZ compression method to avoid the SFS getting bigger and so on...

Sorry, but I have to say, to use XZ compression instead of GZ compression and continuing naming the small size of Puppy as a main feature sounds a bit like pretending the end user. At least the compression method used should be mentioned as well as the uncompressed size.

(How do you say?) Just my two cents...

RSH

_________________
LazY Puppy Home
The new LazY Puppy Information Centre

Back to top
View user's profile Send_private_message 
tronkel


Joined: 30 Sep 2005
Posts: 1101
Location: Vienna Austria

PostPosted: Fri 24 May 2013, 01:09    Post_subject:  

@oui wrote:

Quote:
in my eyes, Puppy has already reached 10 years now and it continues to use only ONE main sfs file


Yes, that's a good point.

In the early days when the Puppy ISO's were small, nobody really thought about the fact that with one sfs you are loading everything into memory whether or not you need all that software that you might never use.

Now that Puppy has got bigger, this would certainly be more of an issue than before - but not too serious as yet. Would be cool if some developer could look at this and implement what Oui has suggested in his previous post.

I read somewhere that Linus Torvalds is also not happy about the ever-expanding size of the Linux kernel. Seems not to know what to do about it though. New hardware is appearing at an ever-accelerating rate and inevitably has to be catered for within the kernel. So it's a real concern nowadays.

_________________
Life is too short to spend it in front of a computer
Back to top
View user's profile Send_private_message Visit_website AIM 
tronkel


Joined: 30 Sep 2005
Posts: 1101
Location: Vienna Austria

PostPosted: Fri 24 May 2013, 01:17    Post_subject:  

LOL I really must be getting old and losing my memory!

Of course it was 2003 and not 2005 that the Puppy was born - so 10 years ago it is.

This is a good reason for a party. How about organising a party here in Vienna? (or somewhere else for that matter). I suggested a Puppy "Treffen" a few years back but it didn't seem to happen.

The FH-Technikum here hosts the annual Linux week, so they are well used to dealing with Linux geeks/nerds/anoracks/ponytails.

_________________
Life is too short to spend it in front of a computer
Back to top
View user's profile Send_private_message Visit_website AIM 
backi

Joined: 27 Feb 2011
Posts: 434
Location: GERMANY

PostPosted: Fri 24 May 2013, 04:15    Post_subject:  

Hi everyone !
oui is complaining about loading to much unwanted or seldom used programms into ram . I go the way modular as you propose .

What i did ,to get out all the unwanted stuff to make “ Barebone “ vesions of for example Dpupexprimo or Precise Puppy ....i do remaster .

Removed mostly all unwanted multimedia - internet-network -games -document stuff
remaster it to get a slim version .
Later i replace sfs - vesions of my favourite programms (like oui does ) place them convenient in some named directorys .Then symlink them and load them only on demand via sfs-loader or sfs-executer .
So i dont have to carry permanently the whole truckload in ram .
Spares me alot of megabites for the main iso.Programms i seldom use are only loaded temporarly via sfs files (configuratins for them can be saved ) spares me ram too .To reduce even unnecessary drivers i used Zdrive-cutter to remove more radical bloat , .. but does only work on that particular machine .
RHS did some consequent work with remastering and using sfs files instead of permanenty installed programms or pets .That concept is making Puppy more modular similar as in slax or porteus .
But this only make sense on older hardware low in ram .
Back to top
View user's profile Send_private_message 
Display_posts:   Sort by:   
Page 1 of 2 Posts_count   Goto page: 1, 2 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: 0.0958s ][ Queries: 12 (0.0054s) ][ GZIP on ]