A vote for a modular use of Puppy Linux

For talk and support relating specifically to Puppy derivatives
Message
Author
simargl5

#21 Post by simargl5 »

A vote for a modular use of Puppy Linux

or

A vote for Puppy Linux becoming SLAX

Image

User avatar
sunburnt
Posts: 5090
Joined: Wed 08 Jun 2005, 23:11
Location: Arizona, U.S.A.

#22 Post by sunburnt »

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.
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.
.

gcmartin

#23 Post by gcmartin »

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!

User avatar
RSH
Posts: 2397
Joined: Mon 05 Sep 2011, 14:21
Location: Germany

#24 Post by RSH »

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.
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.
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:
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! :lol:
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?
No!

Because of there is a HUGE difference between installing a PET and loading an SFS.
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
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.
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 :lol: )
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,
:D

---

A reply to others will follow...

RSH
[b][url=http://lazy-puppy.weebly.com]LazY Puppy[/url][/b]
[b][url=http://rshs-dna.weebly.com]RSH's DNA[/url][/b]
[url=http://murga-linux.com/puppy/viewtopic.php?t=91422][b]SARA B.[/b][/url]

simargl5

#25 Post by simargl5 »

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.

User avatar
mikeb
Posts: 11297
Joined: Thu 23 Nov 2006, 13:56

#26 Post by mikeb »

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

User avatar
RSH
Posts: 2397
Joined: Mon 05 Sep 2011, 14:21
Location: Germany

#27 Post by RSH »

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. :lol: :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:
[b][url=http://lazy-puppy.weebly.com]LazY Puppy[/url][/b]
[b][url=http://rshs-dna.weebly.com]RSH's DNA[/url][/b]
[url=http://murga-linux.com/puppy/viewtopic.php?t=91422][b]SARA B.[/b][/url]

starhawk
Posts: 4906
Joined: Mon 22 Nov 2010, 06:04
Location: Everybody knows this is nowhere...

#28 Post by starhawk »

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

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...

User avatar
RSH
Posts: 2397
Joined: Mon 05 Sep 2011, 14:21
Location: Germany

#29 Post by RSH »

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.
[b][url=http://lazy-puppy.weebly.com]LazY Puppy[/url][/b]
[b][url=http://rshs-dna.weebly.com]RSH's DNA[/url][/b]
[url=http://murga-linux.com/puppy/viewtopic.php?t=91422][b]SARA B.[/b][/url]

starhawk
Posts: 4906
Joined: Mon 22 Nov 2010, 06:04
Location: Everybody knows this is nowhere...

#30 Post by starhawk »

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

Happy to move on now :)

User avatar
RSH
Posts: 2397
Joined: Mon 05 Sep 2011, 14:21
Location: Germany

#31 Post by RSH »

starhawk wrote:just objecting to an incorrect assumption
This would, could and possibly should be another point of discussion, since I did not meant poor people staying hungry in poor countries; I meant the fat German beer drinking soccer and car-racing fans, that would do each illegal (because of not paying taxes, which we do call "Schwarzarbeit") Job to get some money that weren't really needed. You'll find them in each and every more or less rich country. But again: please, do not start and/or continue any off topic discussion here.

@gcmartin

...puh, this is really a huge post (the first one of yours), and I don't know if I really do come through all of it - will try later, though.
mavrothal wrote:They do not download to RAM or a destination that you define. So you can not use/test them on first boot.
Ok, I see now.

This is a good point, I did not thought about. My focus was on installing after downloading and getting the SFS Modules directly downloaded to install/boot directory.

Possibly a good option/feature to be added in my next edit of the SFS P.L.U.S.

Will mark this...
BTW why would you use a layered file system for LazY if you do not want a save/working layer?
I'm not talking for a none-use of a save layer in general.

My point is to make Puppy extremely user friendly especially for Puppy Newcomers - which still I am. Just installing the OS and go - using the applications without any hassle...

A Newcomer in between would become familiar with the Puppy, in an easier way (imho) and this would prevent the Newcomer from leaving Puppy too quickly, because of all the known Puppy Linux issues.
gcmartin wrote: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;
I have read about LightHouse64 "Mariner" version, but I don't own a 64bit computer and so, I could not check it out.
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.
Pity, if so, as it seems to have done/executed nothing to the evolution of Puppy Linux.
You be the Judge.
For what a Judge would be needed in this here case?

Are we executing any sort of OS-Race?

NO! This is not about my ... OS and/or to promote my ... OS!
simargl5 wrote: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.
mikeb wrote:...inspired by SLAX 6
Why doesn't all this obviously good stuff/ideas have found its way into Puppy Linux and/or any Puppy Linux Derivative?

It could have me one saving a huge amount of time and therefor turning me one into a lucky owner of an Puppy Linux Operating System way much faster... :lol:
Customise each machine easily.... just throw in whats needed for each situation.
Exactly!
[b][url=http://lazy-puppy.weebly.com]LazY Puppy[/url][/b]
[b][url=http://rshs-dna.weebly.com]RSH's DNA[/url][/b]
[url=http://murga-linux.com/puppy/viewtopic.php?t=91422][b]SARA B.[/b][/url]

User avatar
MochiMoppel
Posts: 2084
Joined: Wed 26 Jan 2011, 09:06
Location: Japan

#32 Post by MochiMoppel »

RSH wrote: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.
I used your shutdown GUI. I selected to reboot and I also selected the create save file option: The screen went black and the computer became unresponsive. Had to do a hard reset. Again my point: You replaced a perfectly usable standard solution with a ...OK, never mind.

User avatar
RSH
Posts: 2397
Joined: Mon 05 Sep 2011, 14:21
Location: Germany

#33 Post by RSH »

@MochiMoppel

Please, report bugs in LazY Puppy 2.0.2-005 EN version in its EN Forum.

Thanks!

Reply to this here reported by you, is in the LazY Puppy EN Forum.
[b][url=http://lazy-puppy.weebly.com]LazY Puppy[/url][/b]
[b][url=http://rshs-dna.weebly.com]RSH's DNA[/url][/b]
[url=http://murga-linux.com/puppy/viewtopic.php?t=91422][b]SARA B.[/b][/url]

User avatar
MochiMoppel
Posts: 2084
Joined: Wed 26 Jan 2011, 09:06
Location: Japan

#34 Post by MochiMoppel »

I think you missed my point. It's not about the bug, it's about your goal. What do you want to achieve? You shun the current solution and try something different. Good. But how would this new solution, even if all bugs are fixed, be better than what we have now?

User avatar
RSH
Posts: 2397
Joined: Mon 05 Sep 2011, 14:21
Location: Germany

#35 Post by RSH »

MochiMoppel wrote:I think you missed my point.
No!

You are missing the point!
MochiMoppel wrote:It's not about the bug, it's about your goal.
Please, re-read again the title as well as my postings and replies, for that.
What do you want to achieve?
I don't want to achieve anything, because obviously you can't really achieve anything in Puppy Linux - except for your own needs and your own build and used OS. If it was true, what gcmartin stated about Lighthouse Mariner, one would not need to take LazY Puppy for comparison.

There is always (too many?) people who don't want to change anything or another saying (similar): new ideas can not be realized in an old company. They always need to found a new company (or even community?).
MochiMoppel wrote:You shun the current solution and try something different. Good. But how would this new solution, even if all bugs are fixed, be better than what we have now?
No!

I'm not talking of/about the
- non-use of a save file in general
- removing of save file functions
- replacing of save file functions by using my Personal Configuration and Data SFS Manager

I doubt this Personal Configuration and Data SFS Manager would have reached a point where it could be used for that and I'm convinced, we do have experts, who are able to solve/build such in a much more efficient way, as I did.

So, I'm just talking and voting for a modular use of applications (preferring SFS Modules) and Operating System. That's just all!

I just assumed, the used data -when comparing the Operating Systems in the first post,- would have made it clear.

And for such modular use I'm convinced of the concept - especially for Newcomers. Because it is so easy to just click a menu entry or desktop icon or whatever and getting the SFS loaded and its application executed immediately compared to load SFS Modules manually via sfs_load and/or to install PET packages stored somewhere over the HD drives etc.pp.

I'm able to use this currently in 10 different Operating Systems based on 6 different Puppies using kernels from 2.6.33-2 up to 3.2.5. All SFS Modules are stored in one directory from where the Operating Systems do load and use its applications. Some are made for a specific OS, but most of them do work in each of the Operating Systems.

And all I have to do is to create some RunScripts from the SFS Modules and to include them into a remastered OS.

Some statistical Data:

Files added to the OS (uncompressed sizes, LazY Puppy 4)

- in total: 15 MB (2383 files, 772 directories)

SFS Modules and Applications available for immediate use (GZ compressed sizes)

- in total: 6965 MB (427 files)

To compare: the above 15 MB added files are compressed to 1366 KB when creating a .tar.gz archive of the directory containing those 15 MB of files added to the OS.

If you want to check this for the applications in LazY Puppy2.0.2-005 (since we don't have any other OS for that) go check /root/.my-sfs-scripts.

Hopefully it is now clearly to be told, what am I talking about and what is meant by using terms like "modular", "modular use" and "modular concept".
[b][url=http://lazy-puppy.weebly.com]LazY Puppy[/url][/b]
[b][url=http://rshs-dna.weebly.com]RSH's DNA[/url][/b]
[url=http://murga-linux.com/puppy/viewtopic.php?t=91422][b]SARA B.[/b][/url]

anikin
Posts: 994
Joined: Thu 10 May 2012, 06:16

#36 Post by anikin »

mavrothal wrote:BTW why would you use a layered file system for LazY if you do not want a save/working layer?
This question has been bugging me for quite some time. I do not want/need this layer. I see it as redundant, as all my puppies run in pupmode=5 - no save file. Is there a way to remove it ... editing this part of init?

Code: Select all

##########################LOADING PUPPY FILES###########################
RAMSIZE=`free | grep -o 'Mem: .*' | tr -s ' ' | cut -f 2 -d ' '` #total physical ram (less shared video). 110405
CRYPTO=""
STATUS=0

#decide the mount-points...
#unionfs layers:            RW (top)      RO1             RO2              PUPMODE
#full install, flash drive: tmpfs         PDEV1                            3
#First boot (or pfix=ram):  tmpfs                         pup_xxx.sfs      5
#pup_save is a partition:   PDEV1                         pup_xxx.sfs      6
#ditto, but flash drive:    tmpfs         PDEV1           pup_xxx.sfs      7
#Normal running puppy:      pup_save.3fs                  pup_xxx.sfs      12
#ditto, but flash drive:    tmpfs         pup_save.3fs    pup_xxx.sfs      13
#Multisession cd/dvd:       tmpfs         folders(tmpfs2) pup_xxx.sfs      77
CREATETMPFS="";CREATEPDEV1="";CREATEPUPXXXSFS="";CREATEPUPSAVE2FS="";CREATEFOLDERS=""
case $PUPMODE in #w003 changed some save-layer to 'ro+wh' so that whiteouts files are recognised...
 3)  CREATETMPFS="/pup_rw";CREATEPDEV1="/pup_ro1"
     OLDFILESMNTPT="/pup_ro1";NEWFILESMNTPT="/pup_ro1";UMNTMAIN="/pup_rw=rw:/pup_ro1=ro+wh";;
 5)  CREATETMPFS="/pup_rw";CREATEPUPXXXSFS="/pup_ro2"
     OLDFILESMNTPT="";NEWFILESMNTPT="/pup_ro2";UMNTMAIN="/pup_rw=rw:/pup_ro2=ro";;
 6)  CREATEPDEV1="/pup_rw";CREATEPUPXXXSFS="/pup_ro2"
     OLDFILESMNTPT="/pup_rw";NEWFILESMNTPT="/pup_ro2";UMNTMAIN="/pup_rw=rw:/pup_ro2=ro";;
 7)  CREATETMPFS="/pup_rw";CREATEPDEV1="/pup_ro1";CREATEPUPXXXSFS="/pup_ro2"
     OLDFILESMNTPT="/pup_ro1";NEWFILESMNTPT="/pup_ro2";UMNTMAIN="/pup_rw=rw:/pup_ro1=ro+wh:/pup_ro2=ro";;
 12) CREATEPUPSAVE2FS="/pup_rw";CREATEPUPXXXSFS="/pup_ro2"
     OLDFILESMNTPT="/pup_rw";NEWFILESMNTPT="/pup_ro2";UMNTMAIN="/pup_rw=rw:/pup_ro2=ro";;
 13) CREATETMPFS="/pup_rw";CREATEPUPSAVE2FS="/pup_ro1";CREATEPUPXXXSFS="/pup_ro2"
     OLDFILESMNTPT="/pup_ro1";NEWFILESMNTPT="/pup_ro2";UMNTMAIN="/pup_rw=rw:/pup_ro1=ro+wh:/pup_ro2=ro";;
 77) CREATETMPFS="/pup_rw";CREATEFOLDERS="/pup_ro1";CREATEPUPXXXSFS="/pup_ro2"
     OLDFILESMNTPT="/pup_ro1";NEWFILESMNTPT="/pup_ro2";UMNTMAIN="/pup_rw=rw:/pup_ro1=ro+wh:/pup_ro2=ro";;
 *)  RDSH="yes";; #precaution.
esac

User avatar
sunburnt
Posts: 5090
Joined: Wed 08 Jun 2005, 23:11
Location: Arizona, U.S.A.

#37 Post by sunburnt »

mikeb; Good points as usual. It certainly precludes the idea of SFS`s with groups of apps.
SFS files that are large groups of apps. would fill up ram with unused apps.
And to have each app. a separate SFS file makes for many layers in the union.
Aufs will do this, but I hardly think it`s very efficient. However AppDirs don`t pose this problem.

User avatar
MochiMoppel
Posts: 2084
Joined: Wed 26 Jan 2011, 09:06
Location: Japan

#38 Post by MochiMoppel »

RSH wrote:Please, re-read again the title as well as my postings and replies, for that.
I can read. In case you didn't notice:There is nothing in the title or in your posts that answers my question. You linked the save file issue with the modular topic, not me - and I don't see why. For me this issue doesn't even belong here, but somehow it must be important for the creators of a "strictly modular" system, otherwise they wouldn't take so much care to avoid the current solution and you wouldn't have mentioned it in your very first sentence.
I don't want to achieve anything
Then why take the trouble to change things?
There is always (too many?) people who don't want to change anything or another saying (similar): new ideas can not be realized in an old company. They always need to found a new company (or even community?).
Carried away again? :wink: If someone can't explain why something has to be changed, then I don't change. I'm still talking save file, not modular,OK?

User avatar
RSH
Posts: 2397
Joined: Mon 05 Sep 2011, 14:21
Location: Germany

#39 Post by RSH »

MochiMoppel wrote:I'm still talking save file, not modular,OK?
Just do what you want. I don't care about. I can live with and without any of your decisions related to Puppy Linux.
I can read. In case you didn't notice:There is nothing in the title or in your posts that answers my question. You linked the save file issue with the modular topic, not me - and I don't see why.
Obviously you can NOT read!

If you would be able to read -or better saying, to understand sense of what currently reading-, you would have noticed the following:

The link to the save file to sfs convertion thread (posted here) was not included because of it would be a main part of this here thread. It was a reply to nooby's question and I've stated:
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 you would be able to read -or better saying, to understand sense of what to read at these two linked posts-, you would have noticed the following:

I did presented this as an existing idea, which I would like to give away, to be developed by a developer, who would be able to turn this into a really useful solution. Not as a replacement for the complete or even parts of the save file functions.
... ... ... - and I don't see why.
To not to be offend, I will assume (as a positive to you): you must have been blind, that moment!
For me this issue doesn't even belong here, but somehow it must be important for the creators of a "strictly modular" system, otherwise they wouldn't take so much care to avoid the current solution and you wouldn't have mentioned it in your very first sentence.
This first sentence was (markup added by me):
Me wrote:As most of you already know, I'm using my several LazY Puppy Systems strictly modular and without the use of a save file.
This is just the intro sentence and it is also just the truth. I don't use a save file at all. That's what I wanted to be made clear at first. To let the people know, that I'm able to use much more applications with the smallest Operating Systems (in Size) compared to any other Puppy Linux OS.

And again: those two links where just included to give nooby a reply how I do solve what he needs to be saved usually into a save file. I have also mentioned the option of doing a remaster.
If I want such settings to be permanently in the OS, I'm just doing a remaster.
Why don't you complain about that?

Enough. I don't want to re-quote all of my postings and statements. Please, please: go away and stay away using save file and PET installs.

Thanks.

Sorry to all other people over here. The mean part follows right now!
Me wrote:To compare: the above 15 MB added files are compressed to 1366 KB when creating a .tar.gz archive of the directory containing those 15 MB of files added to the OS.
This is a very good example for the differences of compressed and uncompressed sizes related to the previous question by MochiMoppel:
What would be the benefit of scraping 30MB off a 160MB distro?
15 MB (uncompressed) * 1024 = 15,360 KB (uncompressed)

15,360 KB (uncompressed) : 1366 KB (compressed) = 11.244 (Factor)

---

30 MB (compressed) * 1024 = 30,720 KB (compressed)

30,720 KB (compressed) * 11.244 (Factor) = 345,415.68 KB (uncompressed)

345, 415.68 KB (uncompressed) : 1024 = 337,32 MB (uncompressed)

---

So, a 30 MB compressed file could even result (possibly) in 337 MB uncompressed files!
[b][url=http://lazy-puppy.weebly.com]LazY Puppy[/url][/b]
[b][url=http://rshs-dna.weebly.com]RSH's DNA[/url][/b]
[url=http://murga-linux.com/puppy/viewtopic.php?t=91422][b]SARA B.[/b][/url]

User avatar
mavrothal
Posts: 3096
Joined: Mon 24 Aug 2009, 18:23

#40 Post by mavrothal »

RSH wrote: Why doesn't all this obviously good stuff/ideas have found its way into Puppy Linux and/or any Puppy Linux Derivative?
There are hundreds of Linux/GNU distros out there developed by smart and capable persons, because each one covers a slightly different niche.
Does not make any sense to try to turn distro A to distro B. Just use distro B "as is" or as "base" for your system if it is closer to your ideas. Otherwise you are in for a lot of frustration and rediscovering.
But then again, that's all the fun :P
== [url=http://www.catb.org/esr/faqs/smart-questions.html]Here is how to solve your[/url] [url=https://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~sgtatham/bugs.html]Linux problems fast[/url] ==

Post Reply