Puppy getting fatter

For talk and support relating specifically to Puppy derivatives
Message
Author
User avatar
tronkel
Posts: 1116
Joined: Fri 30 Sep 2005, 11:27
Location: Vienna Austria
Contact:

Puppy getting fatter

#1 Post by tronkel »

@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

sheldonisaac
Posts: 902
Joined: Mon 22 Jun 2009, 01:36
Location: Philadelphia, PA

Re: Puppy getting fatter

#2 Post by sheldonisaac »

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

User avatar
rcrsn51
Posts: 13096
Joined: Tue 05 Sep 2006, 13:50
Location: Stratford, Ontario

Re: Puppy getting fatter

#3 Post by rcrsn51 »

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.

User avatar
Tote
Posts: 237
Joined: Thu 19 Jan 2012, 07:53
Location: South Wales

#4 Post by Tote »

It's still not that big, surely? And you get an awful lot of bark for your bytes. :D
Last edited by Tote on Thu 23 May 2013, 19:18, edited 1 time in total.

sheldonisaac
Posts: 902
Joined: Mon 22 Jun 2009, 01:36
Location: Philadelphia, PA

Re: Puppy getting fatter

#5 Post by sheldonisaac »

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.

User avatar
666philb
Posts: 3615
Joined: Sun 07 Feb 2010, 12:27
Location: wales ... by the sea

#6 Post by 666philb »

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:
Bionicpup64 built with bionic beaver packages http://murga-linux.com/puppy/viewtopic.php?t=114311
Xenialpup64, built with xenial xerus packages http://murga-linux.com/puppy/viewtopic.php?t=107331

User avatar
Ted Dog
Posts: 3965
Joined: Wed 14 Sep 2005, 02:35
Location: Heart of Texas

#7 Post by Ted Dog »

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 :lol:

darry1966

Deleted

#8 Post by darry1966 »

--------------------------------------------------
Last edited by darry1966 on Sun 03 May 2015, 04:08, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
NeroVance
Posts: 201
Joined: Wed 10 Oct 2012, 23:00
Location: Halifax, Canada

#9 Post by NeroVance »

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.

oui

perhaps what for a Puppy 5.98?

#10 Post by oui »

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 :roll: 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 :x

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...

User avatar
Ted Dog
Posts: 3965
Joined: Wed 14 Sep 2005, 02:35
Location: Heart of Texas

#11 Post by Ted Dog »

@ 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?

R-S-H
Posts: 487
Joined: Mon 18 Feb 2013, 12:47

#12 Post by R-S-H »

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
[b][url=http://lazy-puppy.weebly.com]LazY Puppy Home
The new LazY Puppy Information Centre[/url][/b]

User avatar
tronkel
Posts: 1116
Joined: Fri 30 Sep 2005, 11:27
Location: Vienna Austria
Contact:

#13 Post by tronkel »

@oui wrote:
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

User avatar
tronkel
Posts: 1116
Joined: Fri 30 Sep 2005, 11:27
Location: Vienna Austria
Contact:

#14 Post by tronkel »

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

backi
Posts: 1922
Joined: Sun 27 Feb 2011, 22:00
Location: GERMANY

#15 Post by backi »

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 .

oui

#16 Post by oui »

Hi Tronkel
tronkel wrote:@oui wrote:
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.
I have to say: That what RSH did implement, also covers this field of management and would be really very good but reduces the freedom for amateur coders to change heavily the system because they are dependant of a perfect working download depository and a very strong organisation of the depository would be needing to cover the terrible wide scope of visions of all Puppy coders! And organisation is probably that what the Puppy world is missing more...

"My" (*1 way with pre defined subdir is more flexibel... Only the subdir are predefined, correspond to parts of the old main.sfs and the content can be free as each author will wish after that (name, size, content of the file itself: the system has only to collect and concatenate the parts one after the other, hopping that that works harmonic :roll: ; SliTaz does that since version 4.0 with 4 little *.sfs-segments but without subdir's so that the names and interdependences are rigorous!) and realize itself. it makes the remastering different and probably more complicated (*2 but can also simplify parts of the system: you don't need «load SFS on fly» any more: that what is in the correct subdir will be taken, the system has nothing to search any more! And it would be possible to mark what goes into RAM and what has to be read from HD or other slow memory on system poor concerning RAM equipment (*3 .

kind regards


(*1 My way is not my way: It is copied from the Linux system management with the fixed name of the main dir of tree

(*2 must not be so: to install the 4 SliTaz *.sfs file fragments frugal, you only need to concatenate them with the command «cat» to a only one big sfs file! I suppose that the system does about that, or somewhat with the same effect internally loading the system and continue to work with a bigger file or memory content as the fragments handled at development time and beeing to find in the ISO!
I did realize very big SliTaz.sfs file on my laptop having very more RAM as my PC's but I were always limited with a proportion 1:3 (if size of compressed file is 1 you need 3 time this size of RAM)... after that, kernel panic follows! for coders having yet old hardware, often young people with good formation and ideas as well as a lot of energy because they don't have family to care of etc., but low budget, it is extremely limitativ!

(*3 a simple flag file, also empty, named f. ex. «please.ram», placed in the concerned subdir, would be enough! I usually don't need to put libreoffice into the RAM to enter individual letters slowly hit clumsy on my keyboard each after the other, but I need some applications in RAM needing all the calculation power of my system to build some big pictures or convert sounds using a complicate algorithm...

oui

#17 Post by oui »

Hi backi
backi wrote: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 .
you are right. I do exactly the same but it is the wrong way because it makes a terrible lot of work for nothing!

in the past, Puppy did publish base versions, the barebones you are naming above, as well as full filled versions. else in the new time, BarryK did announce the new Quirky first as a kind of barebone with only about 50 Mb on his blog but realize it differently after that with a copy of the new Racy in the big kernel.

divers barbones did really become a Puppy legend, so 2.17 or 3.01

full filled versions were really the main Puppy usage as long Puppy did not offer some well developed package management system...

but each one getting actually a modern Puppy with the most actual kernel and finding obsolete files in it taking a lot of room in memory regret such a conception! you have to install somewhat only to amend an obsolete part! and, in the new Quirky, no way actually to change it and actualize...

why a browser in it if after the fresh first start the browser itself announce «this version is obsolete and is not safe any more! pls actualize!» or somewhat else...

(ok, this is not the matter in Precise 5.6; the browser is actual but not the flashplayer)

kind regards

backi
Posts: 1922
Joined: Sun 27 Feb 2011, 22:00
Location: GERMANY

#18 Post by backi »

HI oui !

Yes thats right..... means a lot of work (for nothing?! ).
Someone who is new to this business having a well equipped Linux working OOB.. is a lucky guy .

Dont wanna be unthankful to all those keen developers .
But would find it also quite convenient to choose downloading Barebone or Full version too.... Pimp it later to your needs .
Bodhi Linux comes that way .

But i find newer Puppys not realy very bloated .

Cheers!.

User avatar
Moose On The Loose
Posts: 965
Joined: Thu 24 Feb 2011, 14:54

#19 Post by Moose On The Loose »

tronkel wrote:@oui wrote:
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.
If it is being loaded from CD, there could be multiple SFS files on the CD but still if you want to unmount the CD, you sort of have to read all of the stuff into memory in case it is needed. On a memory stick, there is less need to be able to unmount so perhaps for that case breaking it into multiple SFSs makes sense.

The fact that Puppy uses a lot of script files makes the compression make a big difference in size. Compression of text is very efficient.

gcmartin

#20 Post by gcmartin »

Let's view this for consideration.

Many/most of this community is using PCs which are vastly different from those of say, 1998, which the original Pups were targeted for.

In fact, with the cost of a stick of RAM today, used/new, we get the benefits that comes with RAM.

Now, given that we have the Big RAM PCs (usually because it was originally used with Windows/Apple), we load a PUP. Doesn't matter which one. Anyone's choice!

What happens is that we drop a Puppy off in a Basketball gymnasium. For some of the more fortunate members who use their PCs for several other OSes, as well, they drop a Puppy into the middle of a Soccer Stadium.

With all that room for Puppy to run around in, and given that Puppy is Ligthning Fast, what is the concern of "any" PUP's size. Just as long as it has comfortable space to run around in.

I don't have a position on PUP's size. Its not of concern for me. There are so many PUPs and Linux distro which bring all sorts of pre-packaged technologies that my biggest problem is settling on the choice for which I should use for my main PCs and which distros I should choose for my TV, my Home security, my Internet controllers, my etc.

The size is of no concern of mine. The abiltiy of it to provide needed functionality and to do it rapidly is what I need most. Same with my smartphone, my tablet, my work desktops, my ...

I'm sure this is the case for most of you too.

"Size ONLY matters in sex!" At least, that's what she says.

Post Reply