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 Tue 30 Sep 2014, 15:52
All times are UTC - 4
 Forum index » Advanced Topics » Puppy Derivatives
A vote for a modular use of Puppy Linux
Moderators: Flash, JohnMurga
Post new topic   Reply to topic View previous topic :: View next topic
Page 2 of 11 [165 Posts]   Goto page: Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, ..., 9, 10, 11 Next
Author Message
mikeb


Joined: 23 Nov 2006
Posts: 8257

PostPosted: Mon 04 Nov 2013, 08:08    Post subject:  

Wow ...said there would be lots of replies Smile
Quote:

Making things modular and make them a lot more reliable if done correctly. Doing it wrong can lead the the problem of incompatible shared libraries and the like.
I see this just as often with pets.... if the contents lack something the format is irrelavant. I also find I can make packages needing far less dependancies than the standard ubuntu ones so the idea is to be more puppy like too.

If i recall multisession cd can load sfs from the cd as standard.... not to ram unfortunately.

When I build a bumper slax cd I have many modules in an 'optional' folder which can be loaded at run time on the fly (puppy has the ability to do this since 2.16 by the way.)

Hi sunburnt... perhaps we meet on a less emotional thread. Smile

As to a modular save that's my way...I am not 100% certain of RSH's method...perhaps a module of the first run settings as that would make sense so would work like a custom one machine remaster without the remaster.

Only problem with standard pups is the modules are layered in the wrong order...ie additions go underneath the main sfs... this is a bit of a pain for some applications that need to alter an original file or library. Also the number of loop devices is often limited but a kernel parameter can ovveride that.... that only leaves the dynamic creation of loop devices which is no problem.

so many posts to reply too...and cold fingers......
mike
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message 
RSH


Joined: 05 Sep 2011
Posts: 2420
Location: Germany

PostPosted: Mon 04 Nov 2013, 09:00    Post subject:  

nooby wrote:
Like MochiMoppel I also or me too need the OS to remember
that I use Swedish keyboard and that Stockholm is the time zone
and that the screen is 1024 x 768 whatever.

If i have no save file it would ask again and again each time I boot.

For such things needed to be done, I do use my Personal Data SFS and Configuration SFS Manager. It is described here and here.

If I want such settings to be permanently in the OS, I'm just doing a remaster.

inoxidabile wrote:
What will be the change in terms of stress on usb mem stick install?

As MochiMoppel wrote: Less stress as nothing will be saved. Everything runs in RAM.

MochiMoppel wrote:
I assume that depending on your use case you can even remove the stick like you can remove a live CD after booting.

No.

Once an SFS is loaded when X is running, the CD drive and/or USB flash drive will be locked by this SFS. To be able to remove CD or USB flash, the SFS needs to be loaded at boot up by boot options like the zdrv.sfs usually is loaded (when existing).

I can do such with each and every SFS just by submitting its name from a boot menu entry or console input.

There seems to be some differences between loading SFS at boot up and loading SFS by sfs_load.

mavrothal wrote:
As far as I can see the LayZ ISOs do not have any modules/applications so they must be downloaded to be used, which is OK I guess.

Yes. They do download automatically when trying to execute an application by menu entry or desktop icon (do mount the boot drive first). Any dependent SFS (like JAVA, or Python will be downloaded as well - though, it should so).

Quote:
What I find less convenient is that module installation can not be done with "live" boots.

Yes, it can not be saved to a CD - maybe using a CD-RW will work, but I did not test this. Of course it will take much longer than downloading to HD or USB flash.

Quote:
You may want to provide a really big ISO with the SFS extension included that will allow the "live" and also "off line" use of the OS.

Yes, the ISO would be really BIG. In case of LazY Puppy 2.0.2-005 it will be somewhat around 4 to 5 GB.

raffy wrote:
Is "modular" built on a base (or core)? I ask because there are three names listed in the original post.

Can we test one of these to fully grasp the implementation of "modular" (Lazy 4 will be good)?

For modular use I'm just downloading and booting a Puppy. Then loading my LazY Puppy SFS P.L.U.S. SFS via sfs_load and after this I am able to use almost all of my SFS Module based applications (depends on what libs are installed in the used OS).

My private version LazY Puppy 4 is not usable for non-DE users, but LazY Puppy 2.0.2-005 WebVersion already will show all of its possibilities.

_________________
LazY Puppy
RSH's DNA
SARA B.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message 
mavrothal


Joined: 24 Aug 2009
Posts: 1633

PostPosted: Mon 04 Nov 2013, 09:58    Post subject:  

RSH wrote:

Quote:
What I find less convenient is that module installation can not be done with "live" boots.

Yes, it can not be saved to a CD - maybe using a CD-RW will work, but I did not test this.


No, what I mean is that you must install LazY before you use extensions.
They do not download to RAM or a destination that you define. So you can not use/test them on first boot.

BTW why would you use a layered file system for LazY if you do not want a save/working layer?
You may want to look ay Tinycore and their "on demand" system as well as and their self contained SCM extensions.

_________________
Kids all over the world go around with an XO laptop. They deserve one puppy (or many) too Very Happy
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message 
MochiMoppel


Joined: 26 Jan 2011
Posts: 402
Location: Japan

PostPosted: Mon 04 Nov 2013, 11:19    Post subject:  

RSH wrote:
For such things needed to be done, I do use my Personal Data SFS and Configuration SFS Manager. It is described here and here.
I've noticed that you even took the trouble to remove the save option from rc.shutdown. All this to prevent the use of a simple and pretty reliable save solution in favour of a undocumented private "solution"?

RSH (in his linked post) wrote:
I mean, our whole life is modular. We live in modules, usually move by modules (a few exceptions are there), we are wearing modules, our daily work and activities is modular and also divided in a modular way. It leads directly to a modular use of Operating Systems and applications.
..and Linux is modular and Puppy is modular. Aren't you a bit carried away in your crusade for modularization? I appreciate your efforts and all the work and new ideas that went into Lazy Puppy and I understand your desire to promote this work (one of the reasons for this thread?), but frankly I don't see how basically merging the package list of the Package Manager into the menu makes it more modular than other Puppies. I remember (Lucid?) which didn't even came with a browser. Had to be selected, downloaded and installed. Not modular? Previous Puppies came with 2 window managers, now with only one, Lazy comes with 3. Which one is more modular? I have a collection of sfs and pet files on my HD, which I load when I need them, but I use something that you call a "Non-Modular Operating System". Does it make my system half-modular?

Puppy is tiny. What would be the benefit of scraping 30MB off a 160MB distro? I don't like all standard apps included in the distros, but they are good enough for a start and I would mind if I had to download and load all this stuff as modules. Whatever I need I can add, permanently or per session. As you pointed out: everything is modular. It's already here.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message 
mikeb


Joined: 23 Nov 2006
Posts: 8257

PostPosted: Mon 04 Nov 2013, 11:43    Post subject:  

Quote:
Once an SFS is loaded when X is running, the CD drive and/or USB flash drive will be locked by this SFS. To be able to remove CD or USB flash, the SFS needs to be loaded at boot up by boot options like the zdrv.sfs usually is loaded (when existing).

I can do such with each and every SFS just by submitting its name from a boot menu entry or console input.

There seems to be some differences between loading SFS at boot up and loading SFS by sfs_load.


Ok one sfs load script from puppy I looked at expanded the tmpfs and loaded the sfs to it like at boot IF there was enough space to do so...so remaining floating in ram is possible. If there is a lack of room then if the app is unloaded after use then the source medium could be removed then.

Adding modules to cd... isomaster would do it.

Puppy now has to have sfs choices set up in bootmanager .... the older method which I continued with is to flag sfs with a naming convention...eg _412.sfs .... so still works in say a pfix=ram run for compiling... a lost but to me better feature of puppy.

I keep the save options apart from the usb one as snapmerge is not ideal...instead an sfs is created (I did use tar but the initrd version was too flaky at the time) so usb sticks can be removed but the user effectively has all the usual features of a save file in a robust format.

As for the modular argument I did suggest before that all software could come as an sfs and the package manager would simply extract those for anyone using a convention save or a full install... so reducing the need for software in 2 forms..pet and sfs. That would also mean less space needed for the install process and less bandwidth.

mike
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message 
simargl5

Joined: 29 Oct 2013
Posts: 31

PostPosted: Mon 04 Nov 2013, 12:47    Post subject:  

A vote for a modular use of Puppy Linux

or

A vote for Puppy Linux becoming SLAX

Back to top
View user's profile Send private message 
sunburnt


Joined: 08 Jun 2005
Posts: 5032
Location: Arizona, U.S.A.

PostPosted: Mon 04 Nov 2013, 13:12    Post subject:  

gcmartin; I have shown that Squash files are faster when mounted from a partition.
If the mount point is in ram, like: /tmp then resolving the mount point is faster also.
Quote:
One other member of the Puppy community has been working with JamesBond on a system implementation where SFS would be expanded at startup time and the compression-decompression would never occur in system operations. This has merit in the systems performance.

Devices are slow, and a mounted Squash file`s data size is reduced compared to raw files.
Copying the contents of a 500 MB Squash file is about 2/3 the time as copying the raw files.
A Squash file in ram may be slower as ram is fast, but the Squash is 1/4 the size of the raw.
So if you insist on apps. in ram, a Squash file in ram increases total ram data size by 1/4.
On a partition not size but speed is important, in ram what`s important is size and not speed.
Size of apps. on partitions isn`t so important anymore, and apps. in ram is a waste of ram.
# What`s the point of loading apps. to ram only to have them swapped back to the HD.?

Squash files very neatly do both speed and size where needed with live compression.
# So as I say... There`s a lot to like about Squash files, which by their nature are modular.

Hi mikeb; Yep, here we are talking the same subject again.! Maybe we`ll nail it down this time. Wink
Using Squash files for a single package format is a good idea, I`ve suggested it myself.
Just an SFS file, extracted, or used unioned as an SFS, or used un-unioned as a AppDir.

simargl5; Puppy is of course modular now if SFS files or AppDir type packages are used.
.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message 
gcmartin

Joined: 14 Oct 2005
Posts: 4288
Location: Earth

PostPosted: Mon 04 Nov 2013, 14:03    Post subject:  

sunburnt wrote:
gcmartin; I have shown that Squash files are faster when mounted from a partition.
If the mount point is in ram, like: /tmp then resolving the mount point is faster also. ... .
Ah yes, @Sunburnt.

This is absolutely correct as you share. And, the RAM consideration for a compressed SFS versus an uncompressed subsystem/application is an accurate portrayal of the system behavior. As you share this, here, you show the trade-offs that exists.

Let's step back a moment and look at the model which is emerging of the existing and proposed directions.
  • Which is the better memory model with the differing options that exist?
  • Which is the better processor model?
  • Should we plan for a front-end modular model?
  • Should we plan for a back-end modular model?
  • Can the 2 models be combined?
  • Which of the 2 models would give the greatest user performance?
  • Can the model be a decision maker process to present the best at startup and during systems operations based upon the platform it is operating on?
How many of this thread have seen @TaZoC's Puppy's LightHouse64 "Mariner" version?
If you haven't seen it and you have a 64bit capable PC, you may want to take a moment;
  1. download and boot it up. Make SURE you download the "Mariner" version or you will miss the point I'm trying to show.
  2. Create a LiveDVD (remember I said DVD. @JamesBond design the ISO. It is ONLY "supported for DVDs", as he states this on his FATDOG site. So DO NOT use a CD!)
  3. Observe the subtlety in the boot process
  4. Once at desktop, answer the FirstRUN app
  5. Now look at the desktop and notice the Install Icon on your left. Click it.
  6. Are you getting the modular picture now?
Isn't this a form of the modularity this thread is encouraging? And,is it addressing both the boot consideration and the system's operation consideration? If so, @TaZoC's distro implementation, an over 2 year old implementation I might add, may have gone in a direction which is being discussed in this thread.

You be the Judge. Cheer!

_________________
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 
RSH


Joined: 05 Sep 2011
Posts: 2420
Location: Germany

PostPosted: Mon 04 Nov 2013, 16:06    Post subject:  

MochiMoppel wrote:
I've noticed that you even took the trouble to remove the save option from rc.shutdown.

Yes AND No.

Please, do have a look again into /etc/rc.d and you'll find 3 (three) rc.shutdown files.

As there are:

new-rc.shutdown
orig-rc.shutdown
rc.shutdown

I'm using this to switch a option to create a save file (if wanted), which is able to be switched on/off by LazY Puppy's Shutdown-GUI.

Quote:
All this to prevent the use of a simple and pretty reliable save solution in favour of a undocumented private "solution"?

Also, please: do have a first or maybe a second search on the forum for my (RSH, R-S-H) postings AND SFS P.L.U.S. and/or RunScript/s.

You'll find several threads/postings and also several solutions to use LazY Puppy's modular concept in any other puppy (except FatDog) as well. These solutions do fairly well document the LazY Puppy Concept.

That's why I've reserved the second post of this here thread: to collect and to present all my several (not really much) different solutions for this Modular Concept.

And I'm not talking about removing of the save file function. Also I did offer the package of Config and Data SFS Manager to be developed by anyone who wants to do this.

So, no undocumented private solution to worry about!

And, oh. If you do such a search, would you please, read the comments from (e.g.) 8-bit somewhere in the multisession live CD/DVD thread. I created one solution for him especially added a new feature, which is now a part of my latest SFS P.L.U.S. version (currently not on the web).

And even though LazY Puppy is the one and only (actually known by me and possibly known on the forum) Puppy Linux (Derivative) which is used as an replacement for Windows on a German Public School, it (this here thread) is NOT made to promote LazY Puppy.

Quote:
I appreciate your efforts and all the work and new ideas that went into Lazy Puppy and I understand your desire to promote this work (one of the reasons for this thread?),


It is made first for discussion about what the title says and second, to promote this concept of a modular use of an operating system - in this here case: Puppy Linux (as the title stated).

So, the problem, to read RSH and to think LazY Puppy obviously is only existing in your mind? Wink

Quote:
Aren't you a bit carried away in your crusade for modularization?

Of course, I'm not. I'm just an enthusiastic and convinced Artist! Laughing

Quote:
I don't see how basically merging the package list of the Package Manager into the menu makes it more modular than other Puppies.

Quote:
I remember (Lucid?) which didn't even came with a browser. Had to be selected, downloaded and installed. Not modular?

No!

Because of there is a HUGE difference between installing a PET and loading an SFS.

Quote:
Previous Puppies came with 2 window managers, now with only one, Lazy comes with 3. Which one is more modular?

This here is NOT about LazY Puppy, but to give an answer:

- Lazy Puppy has those three Window Managers installed (instead of using an SFS) because of my LESS knowledge, at the time when creating all of this
- Me one just wasn't able to write code (or even edit the needed existing files) to implement the use of Window Manager SFS Modules
- now I have installed only one WM and can load/use others the same way like the usual LP2_ SFS Modules
- I can also boot a specific WM now
- this also is not an undocumented private feature/solution since I have published such Operating Systems in DE only versions

Quote:
I have a collection of sfs and pet files on my HD, which I load when I need them, but I use something that you call a "Non-Modular Operating System". Does it make my system half-modular?

I don't know what this does to your system and I even don't care about how this would/should be named.

As I have replied to oldyeller:

Modular just means: to use SFS files. Each SFS is a Module containing an application. Modular use means: load an application (its Module) only when needed to work with. Keeps the OS small and therefor offers a lot of free RAM for the application in use.

Why to have 150 MB Office Suite plus 30-40 MB Browser package installed, when just wanting to use the GIMP?


It could also mean to use RoxApps, but I'm focused to the use of SFS Modules.

Installing a PET package to me is neither modular nor half-, triple-, quarter-, or whatever-modular.

Quote:
Puppy is tiny. What would be the benefit of scraping 30MB off a 160MB distro?

These 30 MB (GZ compression for example) could result in 100 MB uncompressed files (dependent to what is inside the the compressed file). Using XZ compression could result in even a lot of more need space for the uncompressed files.

I don't own a computer with huge RAM available - and I assume, many other also don't have such computers. So, to me it is necessary to have as much free RAM as possible for the use of an application.

Vincent van Puppy (e.g.) is not really usable on my computer. But since I do have a smaller OS (LazY Precise), which gives me each equal application in an SFS Module to load - plus many more, I don't need to use it.

And about LazY Puppy again: this is not for LazY Puppy. I just don't own any other Operating System to get in comparison with Puppy Linux Systems, because once I've added the applications for the modular concept, it is (and still will be) renamed (remastered) to a LazY Puppy (different DISTRO_FILE_PREFIX-es used, though).

mikeb wrote:
As for the modular argument I did suggest before that all software could come as an sfs and the package manager would simply extract those for anyone using a convention save or a full install... so reducing the need for software in 2 forms..pet and sfs. That would also mean less space needed for the install process and less bandwidth.

Yes, very good point!

(like my repo at smokey01.com Laughing )

simargl5 wrote:
A vote for Puppy Linux becoming SLAX

Could you please add some further information here?

Since I'm mostly online with ~10 KB/s, I'm not really able to search the web for this).

sunburnt wrote:
# So as I say... There`s a lot to like about Squash files,

Very Happy

---

A reply to others will follow...

RSH

_________________
LazY Puppy
RSH's DNA
SARA B.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message 
simargl5

Joined: 29 Oct 2013
Posts: 31

PostPosted: Mon 04 Nov 2013, 17:37    Post subject:  

RSH wrote:
simargl5 wrote:
A vote for Puppy Linux becoming SLAX

Could you please add some further information here?

Since I'm mostly online with ~10 KB/s, I'm not really able to search the web for this).

Well, your suggestion about using modules is similar to how Slax works, it can load unlimited number of modules - they are called bundles, but actually they are same as sfs modules- and every program or library is provided only as sb bundle, so there is no installing packages in standard way, only activating and deactivating of bundles. Also, dependencies are resolved automatically.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message 
mikeb


Joined: 23 Nov 2006
Posts: 8257

PostPosted: Mon 04 Nov 2013, 18:03    Post subject:  

simargl5 there seem to be lots of you from 1-5 ..I am confused.

As for such modularity I have puppy 2.02, 2.12 . 4.12 and lucid all built to run this way... implemented about originally 4 years ago so plenty of time to evaluate...inspired by SLAX 6 but really to me its just fully exploiting the potential of thee puppy....I mean its core system is an sfs and it uses a unionfs so why stop there.

Loading to ram...it's to me not about performance .... the major incentive was to leave hard drives free.... bonuses include clean shutdowns, ability to spin down drives on laptops/netbooks ( less wear and tear on those 2.5 inch drives) , able to remove a boot flash stick and coupled with a save module a totally clean restart even after the messiest sessions (or power cuts for that matter)
Clean testing of new software is another plus... download main deb and dependancies.... turn into modules.... load them up...oh its crap...discard and no harm done.

Customise each machine easily.... just throw in whats needed for each situation.

The thread continues

mike
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message 
RSH


Joined: 05 Sep 2011
Posts: 2420
Location: Germany

PostPosted: Mon 04 Nov 2013, 19:50    Post subject:  

Ok.

I have just updated the second post of this here thread/topic.

Replies will follow.

mikeb wrote:
simargl5 there seem to be lots of you from 1-5 ..I am confused.

I have seen already up to 8 and, no: I'm not confused. Laughing Wink

I'm just assuming these 8 simargl's do represent the 8 Modules from which he/she is "build" to a full featured person/developer/OS.

Isn't each of our personalities constructed like in a modular way?

The ugliest revert of these human modular construction, is to complain the rich who don't want to pay taxes and trying to move money to Swiss bank accounts but not able to keep own fingers away from easily (with no tax to pay) earned 5$ or 5€ or even just illegally downloadable files! Wink

_________________
LazY Puppy
RSH's DNA
SARA B.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message 
starhawk

Joined: 22 Nov 2010
Posts: 2878
Location: Everybody knows this is nowhere...

PostPosted: Mon 04 Nov 2013, 20:05    Post subject:  

For some, $5 is merely most of an hour's hard labor Wink

Speaking from experience, it's hard to make ends meet for two people, when your total income for those two people is the princely sum of ~$1000 a month... at least, in the USA. I know there are people who live on far less than that, in countries where the standard of living is really bad...

_________________
Loving X-Slacko 2.1!
Custom Build: HP MOCA-AR + Core2Duo T7200 + 4gb RAM + 256gb SSD
...just needs a pretty case Wink
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message 
RSH


Joined: 05 Sep 2011
Posts: 2420
Location: Germany

PostPosted: Mon 04 Nov 2013, 20:15    Post subject:  

Please, do NOT start any offtopic discussion here.

This was just given as an possibly example of human modular construction!

Please, do NOT start any offtopic discussion here.

_________________
LazY Puppy
RSH's DNA
SARA B.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message 
starhawk

Joined: 22 Nov 2010
Posts: 2878
Location: Everybody knows this is nowhere...

PostPosted: Mon 04 Nov 2013, 20:34    Post subject:  

Sorry, not trying to thread hijack -- just objecting to an incorrect assumption.

Happy to move on now Smile

_________________
Loving X-Slacko 2.1!
Custom Build: HP MOCA-AR + Core2Duo T7200 + 4gb RAM + 256gb SSD
...just needs a pretty case Wink
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message 
Display posts from previous:   Sort by:   
Page 2 of 11 [165 Posts]   Goto page: Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, ..., 9, 10, 11 Next
Post new topic   Reply to topic View previous topic :: View next topic
 Forum index » Advanced Topics » Puppy Derivatives
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: 0.1695s ][ Queries: 13 (0.0267s) ][ GZIP on ]